Sheila's neck wound and the blood on her arm

[lookout]

Simply because it could only ever be formed from opinion. The best one to make that opinion was Venezis who saw the actual body of Sheila and not grainy old pictures 30 years later.

So what was his opinion ?

[Caroline]

So what was his opinion ?

David just posted a clear copy of his court transcript.

[lookout]

David just posted a clear copy of his court transcript.

Except that I didn't see any conclusions reached over the blood pattern. How it got there.

[David1819]

Roch out of curiosity. What donut told you these runs of blood were injuries and thus it was proof of Sheila's  involvement? 

[Roch]

Roch out of curiosity. What donut told you these runs of blood were injuries and thus it was proof of Sheila's  involvement? 

They are injuries and I have offered to bet money on it (precisely because I know they are injuries).

Blood is not going to transfer to her hand  one second and then dry and collect the very next second approximately two to three inches from where it transferred. Nobody has satisfactorily explained how it transferred. Not even Vanezis. He bluffed it out. 

The dark spots at various places on her arm  are not the end of blood trails.  They are the source.

Consider this, she has cuts to the skin on her upper arm which are completely independent of any run, trail or smear.  How likely is it that she has cuts to her upper arm but the marks on her mid and lower arm are merely where the blood has suddenly stopped and become congealed as it dries?  She has other wounds also - not even mentioned on here.  Besides, I don't believe you and others couldn't recognise the gouge/scrapes on the back of her hand or the angled cut on her lower forefinger. 

[Jane]

They are injuries and I have offered to bet money on it (precisely because I know they are injuries).

Blood is not going to transfer to her hand  one second and then dry and collect the very next second approximately two to three inches from where it transferred. Nobody has satisfactorily explained how it transferred. Not even Vanezis. He bluffed it out. 

The dark spots at various places on her arm  are not the end of blood trails.  They are the source.

Consider this, she has cuts to the skin on her upper arm which are completely independent of any run, trail or smear.  How likely is it that she has cuts to her upper arm but the marks on her mid and lower arm are merely where the blood has suddenly stopped and become congealed as it dries?  She has other wounds also - not even mentioned on here.  Besides, I don't believe you and others couldn't recognise the gouge/scrapes on the back of her hand or the angled cut on her lower forefinger.

And I don't believe many -other than supporters willing to home in on anything which they consider hopeful- believe that Vanezis "bluffed it out". He mentioned scars from breast augmentation, a tampon, minor, and totally insignificant abrasions, yet you have the gall to suggest he 'bluffed out' something which would have been obvious and major.

[buddy]

And I don't believe many -other than supporters willing to home in on anything which they consider hopeful- believe that Vanezis "bluffed it out". He mentioned scars from breast augmentation, a tampon, minor, and totally insignificant abrasions, yet you have the gall to suggest he 'bluffed out' something which would have been obvious and major.

This is the problem with the guilters. Anything that does not go their way is responded with you have the gall to question me You have the gall to suggest that bamber is innocent. It's nothing to do with gall, we just don't trust the evidence.

[Roch]

And I don't believe many -other than supporters willing to home in on anything which they consider hopeful- believe that Vanezis "bluffed it out". He mentioned scars from breast augmentation, a tampon, minor, and totally insignificant abrasions, yet you have the gall to suggest he 'bluffed out' something which would have been obvious and major.

He's crooked. He concealed her wounds. I'm not sure where gall comes in to it.  He doesn't mention some of June's wounds either.  If all three adults have fight wounds, the prosecution case can't even get off the ground in a courtroom.  Join the dots.

[Steve_uk]

This is the problem with the guilters. Anything that does not go their way is responded with you have the gall to question me You have the gall to suggest that bamber is innocent. It's nothing to do with gall, we just don't trust the evidence.

But how else can you assess the case buddy? You don't believe the Police, who lied on oath, you sneer at Peter Vanezis's conclusions, the Doctor Ferguson reached a false diagnosis..where does it all end?

I've just quoted Brett Collins as a source for Jeremy's hatred for June. Brett can hardly be described as a witness for the Prosecution. It buttresses what many of us think is similar to the David Bain case: these two simply cannot bring themselves to talk about any discord whatsoever in their family life lest it unleash a torrent of their real vitriolic feelings on the matter, which would expose them in a trice for the frauds they both are.

[Jane]

He's crooked. He concealed her wounds. I'm not sure where gall comes in to it.  He doesn't mention some of June's wounds either.  If all three adults have fight wounds, the prosecution case can't even get off the ground in a courtroom.  Join the dots.

So does this tie in with Dr Craig only noting ONE injury on Sheila. He only noted ONE injury on the other victims, but I suppose that because they had more than two each, it doesn't count. And if it isn't gall, for someone with zero qualifications, other than a zealous desire to see a guilty man go free because experts don't say what they want them to, and because evidence doesn't stack up the way they believe it should, I don't know what is.

[susan]

But how else can you assess the case buddy? You don't believe the Police, who lied on oath, you sneer at Peter Vanezis's conclusions, the Doctor Ferguson reached a false diagnosis..where does it all end?

I've just quoted Brett Collins as a source for Jeremy's hatred for June. Brett can hardly be described as a witness for the Prosecution. It buttresses what many of us think is similar to the David Bain case: these two simply cannot bring themselves to talk about any discord whatsoever in their family life lest it unleash a torrent of their real vitriolic feelings on the matter, which would expose them in a trice for the frauds they both are.

steve if you read the autopsy report by Peter Venezis the hand written one says her palm is blood stained and this was transferred to her nighty but the typed one presented to the Court said her hands were clean it is there for you to read steve.

[Roch]

So does this tie in with Dr Craig only noting ONE injury on Sheila. He only noted ONE injury on the other victims, but I suppose that because they had more than two each, it doesn't count. And if it isn't gall, for someone with zero qualifications, other than a zealous desire to see a guilty man go free because experts don't say what they want them to, and because evidence doesn't stack up the way they believe it should, I don't know what is.

It's not my fault you changed stance and painted yourself in to the opposite corner after the wallet thing. 

I think Dr Craig was referring to gunshot wounds. It's been claimed he genuinely witnessed Sheila with one wound. I suppose this is supposed to tie in with the Henderson/Hammersley' thing, where a SOCO accidentally causes the rifle to discharge, killing an unconscious Sheila. Truth is, I really don't know the truth of that.

[lookout]

Correct Susan.He offers no explanation whatsoever about the " patterns " of the markings. Not even a suggestion of cigar burns on Neville-----------nothing. Everything's " unexplained " which is a favourite of any doctor who's unwilling to put unspecified marks under a microscope.

[Jane]

It's not my fault you changed stance and painted yourself in to the opposite corner after the wallet thing. 

I think Dr Craig was referring to gunshot wounds. It's been claimed he genuinely witnessed Sheila with one wound. I suppose this is supposed to tie in with the Henderson/Hammersley' thing, where a SOCO accidentally causes the rifle to discharge, killing an unconscious Sheila. Truth is, I really don't know the truth of that.

Such irony. You accuse me of not being able to think for myself, but by so doing you point to the fact that in order to draw such a conclusion, you have to parrot another.

Are you SO desperate to see Jeremy released, whatever it takes, that you're prepared to suck up the story of the police shooting her TWICE?!!!

[susan]

Correct Susan.He offers no explanation whatsoever about the " patterns " of the markings. Not even a suggestion of cigar burns on Neville-----------nothing. Everything's " unexplained " which is a favourite of any doctor who's unwilling to put unspecified marks under a microscope.

Lookout he cannot say her right hand was blood stained and this transferred to her nightdress in his written report then in the typed one for the Court he said her hands were clean whether one thinks Jeremy is innocent or guilty this is not on at all and cannot be acceptable to anyone.