Bullets fired and reloading

[Roch]

Mr Vanezis didn't mention any wounds on Sheila's arms though, and he couldn't have missed such injuries.

His official PM report will have been the version sanctioned under Mick Ainsley's tenure. Although there are some handwritten pm notes that make no mention of the injuries - these appear to be referring to contaminants, imo. 

Vanezis was approached by DS Stan Jones and asked to consider Jeremy as a suspect.  He expressed something along the lines of being 'unimpressed' by Jones' suggestion.  However - this exchange must have occurred very early on. 

Despite Sheila having two gunshot wounds and allegedly no other wounds - Vanezis was unimpressed at the suggestion that Jeremy was the killer.   I think it more likely that Vanezis was unimpressed with the notion that Jeremy was the killer - because Sheila did have fight wounds consistent with an incident between the three deceased adults.   By the time it came to trial, Vanezis was on message.

Vanezis could not be allowed to testify that Sheila has such wounds - otherwise the case against Jeremy would have possibly collapsed.  His questioning was orchestrated to dismiss such marks as 'smears'.
 

[Caroline]

Yes,I remember saying a while back that the first shot was " delivered " while she'd been standing. I say delivered because it hit the jawbone and fragmented. What hasn't been explained is the appx distance that shot had been fired from.

My idea that it had been a defence shot as opposed to it having been self-administered.I've always been of the belief that Sheila had fatally shot herself only the once.

[Roch]

Not just David

You can lead a horse to water...

[Caroline]

His official PM report will have been the version sanctioned under Mick Ainsley's tenure. Although there are some handwritten pm notes that make no mention of the injuries - these appear to be referring to contaminants, imo. 

Vanezis was approached by DS Stan Jones and asked to consider Jeremy as a suspect.  He expressed something along the lines of being 'unimpressed' by Jones' suggestion.  However - this exchange must have occurred very early on. 

Despite Sheila having two gunshot wounds and allegedly no other wounds - Vanezis was unimpressed at the suggestion that Jeremy was the killer.   I think it more likely that Vanezis was unimpressed with the notion that Jeremy was the killer - because Sheila did have fight wounds consistent with an incident between the three deceased adults.   By the time it came to trial, Vanezis was on message.

Vanezis could not be allowed to testify that Sheila has such wounds - otherwise the case against Jeremy would have possibly collapsed.  His questioning was orchestrated to dismiss such marks as 'smears'.

Really? You're ignoring the facts - he went into great detail about marks on Nevil, he mentioned old scarring on Sheila and an injury covered by a plaster. They were his autopsy notes, they covered the state of the bodies as he SAW them. Had Sheila had cuts, he'd have mentioned them.

[lookout]

I still maintain that Sheila only self- administered one suicide shot.

[Roch]

Indeed, just as well the skin is not broken 


If you are also referring to these marks on the hand shown below, that's another subject. They look like scratch marks and as expected look very different from the runnels of blood nearby. This I have never disputed

If she has scratchmarks... then she has wounds upon her hands.  You cannot have it both ways.   I'll bet serious money with any member on here - that Sheila's skin was broken at several places along the length of her arm.  The offer is there and has been for many months.

[David1819]

His official PM report will have been the version sanctioned under Mick Ainsley's tenure. Although there are some handwritten pm notes that make no mention of the injuries - these appear to be referring to contaminants, imo. 

Vanezis was approached by DS Stan Jones and asked to consider Jeremy as a suspect.  He expressed something along the lines of being 'unimpressed' by Jones' suggestion.  However - this exchange must have occurred very early on. 

Despite Sheila having two gunshot wounds and allegedly no other wounds - Vanezis was unimpressed at the suggestion that Jeremy was the killer.   I think it more likely that Vanezis was unimpressed with the notion that Jeremy was the killer - because Sheila did have fight wounds consistent with an incident between the three deceased adults.   By the time it came to trial, Vanezis was on message.

Vanezis could not be allowed to testify that Sheila has such wounds - otherwise the case against Jeremy would have possibly collapsed.  His questioning was orchestrated to dismiss such marks as 'smears'.

There are no mention of them in the original autopsy notes because no such wounds existed!

The defence pathologist at trial Prof Knight never disputed Vanezis opinion either. So was he under Ainsley and Co also?

[Kaldin]

His official PM report will have been the version sanctioned under Mick Ainsley's tenure. Although there are some handwritten pm notes that make no mention of the injuries - these appear to be referring to contaminants, imo. 

Vanezis was approached by DS Stan Jones and asked to consider Jeremy as a suspect.  He expressed something along the lines of being 'unimpressed' by Jones' suggestion.  However - this exchange must have occurred very early on. 

Despite Sheila having two gunshot wounds and allegedly no other wounds - Vanezis was unimpressed at the suggestion that Jeremy was the killer.   I think it more likely that Vanezis was unimpressed with the notion that Jeremy was the killer - because Sheila did have fight wounds consistent with an incident between the three deceased adults.   By the time it came to trial, Vanezis was on message.

Vanezis could not be allowed to testify that Sheila has such wounds - otherwise the case against Jeremy would have possibly collapsed.  His questioning was orchestrated to dismiss such marks as 'smears'.

I do find it interesting that the statement of Dr Vanezis was not made until 30th September - seven weeks after the post mortem. His handwritten notes are difficult to read and I can't see a date on them, so I don't know when they were made. These handwritten notes do contain a part which says that Sheila killed the others and then herself, but the typed statement does not. I can't find a typed version of his handwritten notes.

As his handwritten notes do not mention injuries on Sheila other than the gunshot wounds, do you really think that he deliberately left out such injuries? Why would he do that at the time, or even later?

[Kaldin]

I still maintain that Sheila only self- administered one suicide shot.

Which one - the first or second shot?

[Roch]

Really? You're ignoring the facts - he went into great detail about marks on Nevil, he mentioned old scarring on Sheila and an injury covered by a plaster. They were his autopsy notes, they covered the state of the bodies as he SAW them. Had Sheila had cuts, he'd have mentioned them.

You do not have a complete copy of his PM notes in relation to Sheila.  He also omits to mention wounds that June has.  You cannot undo the presence of wounds (regardless of their omission in the written record).

[Roch]

There are no mention of them in the original autopsy notes because no such wounds existed!

The defence pathologist at trial Prof Knight never disputed Vanezis opinion either. So was he under Ainsley and Co also?

No but I do not know what he was privy to nor the quality of what he was privy to.  Perhaps people just weren't alert to the potential for a pathologist to be malleable?

[lookout]

Which one - the first or second shot?

The second.

[Caroline]

You do not have a complete copy of his PM notes in relation to Sheila.  He also omits to mention wounds that June has.  You cannot undo the presence of wounds (regardless of their omission in the written record).

Wounds that you say she had but haven't seen?

[David1819]

If she has scratchmarks... then she has wounds upon her hands.  You cannot have it both ways.   I'll bet serious money with any member on here - that Sheila's skin was broken at several places along the length of her arm.  The offer is there and has been for many months.

Scratches on her hand do not prove a fight took place, there are numerous possible causes such as accidental or even self inflicted.

What is the point of making a bet that can never be settled? The only way you can win is if Vanezis comes forward and admits to the foul play you allege. That's not going to happen.

[maggie]

Really? You're ignoring the facts - he went into great detail about marks on Nevil, he mentioned old scarring on Sheila and an injury covered by a plaster. They were his autopsy notes, they covered the state of the bodies as he SAW them. Had Sheila had cuts, he'd have mentioned them.

Would you not consider that Vanezis actually just didn't bother to record the cuts and scratches?  He maybe assumed it was an open and shut case ie. murder/suicide, recorded Nevill's defense wounds, picked out Sheila's wound covered with a dressing and left it at that?  It may be hard for the general public to appreciate such sloppiness but it quite possibly does happen at times.

Shoddy work rather than a premeditated attempt to conceal..... just a thought.