Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on August 08, 2015, 11:48:PM
-
I have read about the idea that their is a palm print in blood on the bible.
I have managed to enlarge the photograph. I have then manipulated the photo to greatly contrast the paper pixels from the blood pixels to make it more easy to see what it is. the link is below
http://s13.postimg.org/gjm8bti2f/bloodied_bible_Copy.jpg (http://s13.postimg.org/gjm8bti2f/bloodied_bible_Copy.jpg)
To me it does in some ways resemble a palm print to some extent. ???
-
did you see the pictures Caroline posted the other day about this subject? they were interesting.
I was just looking at the horizontal lines on the bottom left hand side .They certainly don't look like they were caused by a carpet.
but do you think you would see lines from the palm in the imprint?
-
If that is the correct size - my palm fits perfectly.
-
I think it is quite important because if it is not blood from the carpet it rules out the argument that someone moved the bible shortly after she died . If it was on her body when the raid team found her it does not prove that Jeremy did not do it but it might prove they did move things perhaps to check the rifle and to check she was dead and therefore the "set up Scene" the jury saw was not how she was found originally.
-
I think it is quite important because if it is not blood from the carpet it rules out the argument that someone moved the bible shortly after she died . If it was on her body when the raid team found her it does not prove that Jeremy did not do it but it might prove they did move things perhaps to check the rifle and to check she was dead and therefore the "set up Scene" the jury saw was not how she was found originally.
Well, this has been my argument for quite some time - not everyone agrees but I am sticking to it. I believe that it IS a palm print and the negative produced by David clearly shows the pressure points and the lines.
-
did you see the pictures Caroline posted the other day about this subject? they were interesting.
I was just looking at the horizontal lines on the bottom left hand side .They certainly don't look like they were caused by a carpet.
but do you think you would see lines from the palm in the imprint?
No can you post the link to Caroline's pictures please?
-
No can you post the link to Caroline's pictures please?
-
Well, this has been my argument for quite some time - not everyone agrees but I am sticking to it. I believe that it IS a palm print and the negative produced by David clearly shows the pressure points and the lines.
I'm one of those who doesn't agree.
I think it's impossible to tell, but if you were to try and replicate the blood staining, then you could use a number of different things, a Palm being one of them.
-
I'm one of those who doesn't agree.
I think it's impossible to tell, but if you were to try and replicate the blood staining, then you could use a number of different things, a Palm being one of them.
I know ;)
-
I know ;)
I know you know. :D
-
I know you know. :D
I know, you know that I know! ;)
-
I know, you know that I know! ;)
I didn't know that. :-\
-
The bible appears to have a 'U' stain.
(http://s13.postimg.org/gjm8bti2f/bloodied_bible_Copy.jpg)
-
The carpet appears to have a 'U' stain.
jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4308;image (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4308;image)
-
Nobody appears to have bloody palms. Unless JB was responsible of course, then he may have had bloody palms.
-
Nobody appears to have bloody palms. Unless JB was responsible of course, then he may have had bloody palms.
Sheila did - Venezis said so. I don't see a U stain on the carpet.
-
Sheila did - Venezis said so. I don't see a U stain on the carpet.
Oh no he didn't. :D
Did you click on the link? I was trying not to post too many photo's but see below.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4308;image)
-
See:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6811.0;attach=41473;image)
-
See:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6811.0;attach=41473;image)
Oh yes he did
-
Oh yes he did
Why did venesiz contradict himself? I cant really read his notes anyway
-
Why did venesiz contradict himself? I cant really read his notes anyway
It says - Bloodstained palm print on nightdress. Bloodstains appear to have transfered from R hand
Both hands not contaminatd APART from bloodstains.
Why did he contradict himself? Someone would have to ask him that.
-
It says - Bloodstained palm print on nightdress. Bloodstains appear to have transfered from R hand
Both hands not contaminatd APART from bloodstains.
Why did he contradict himself? Someone would have to ask him that.
Assuming it is a palm print
if Its Jeremy's that would prove guilt 100% I would say?
But what if its Shelia's? what would that prove?
and what if they are both ruled out? its someone elses what would that mean?
-
Assuming it is a palm print
if Its Jeremy's that would prove guilt 100% I would say?
But what if its Shelia's? what would that prove?
and what if they are both ruled out? its someone elses what would that mean?
It's not Jeremy's it's too small - it doesn't really mean anything as far as guilt or innocence is concerned but it is an interesting point because if it is Sheila's, her hands weren't clean - Venezis's written notes also add weight to that.
-
It's not Jeremy's it's too small - it doesn't really mean anything as far as guilt or innocence is concerned but it is an interesting point because if it is Sheila's, her hands weren't clean - Venezis's written notes also add weight to that.
How do you know its too small to be Jeremy's?
-
How do you know its too small to be Jeremy's?
Because another member of the forum (Tyler) has the same bible and the dimensions are too small to fit a man's hand on one page. I have small hands and printed off the page to match the same dimensions and my print fits in the same area.
-
Because another member of the forum (Tyler) has the same bible and the dimensions are too small to fit a man's hand on one page. I have small hands and printed off the page to match the same dimensions and my print fits in the same area.
Its only part of the hand tho. what are the dimensions of a page of that particular bible
-
It says - Bloodstained palm print on nightdress. Bloodstains appear to have transfered from R hand
Both hands not contaminatd APART from bloodstains.
Why did he contradict himself? Someone would have to ask him that.
We've obviously had this exchange a dozen times or more. It seems very obvious to me that the blood stains on her night dress transferred from her wrist area of her right hand. Clearly Venizis realised this during his examination and prior to producing his final report.
He is very specific when he states that her palms and fingers were free from blood. He doesn't say that her hands were free from blood.
In order for your bible blood stain to be a Palm print left by Sheila, then her Palm and fingers could not be free from blood. Yet we know that they were.
Therefore, if the stain on the bible is a Palm print (which I very much doubt it to be) then it must belong to somebody other than Sheila.
-
If the print of the "palm" area wasn't enough to convince me, the curve of the "thumb" most definitely would.
-
We can also tell that Sheila didn't move after being shot. We can tell this from the blood patterns and flow from her wounds.
There is no opportunity for her to create a Palm print on the bible, particularly as we know her palms and fingers were free of blood.
I think this is similar to seeing shapes in the clouds, or a long haired Sandle wearing dude on your morning toast.
-
I don't know what it means to be honest because if it is her print and it was moved and the blood on the carpet did not transfer to the bible does it mean the blood on the carpet was dry ?But did not those drips of blood from Sheilas arm transfer to the bible ? If so that would mean her blood was wet when it was transferred ?
-
I don't know what it means to be honest because if it is her print and it was moved and the blood on the carpet did not transfer to the bible does it mean the blood on the carpet was dry ?But did not those drips of blood from Sheilas arm transfer to the bible ? If so that would mean her blood was wet when it was transferred ?
It can't possible be her print.
-
Were June's hands clean ?
-
We've obviously had this exchange a dozen times or more. It seems very obvious to me that the blood stains on her night dress transferred from her wrist area of her right hand. Clearly Venizis realised this during his examination and prior to producing his final report.
He is very specific when he states that her palms and fingers were free from blood. He doesn't say that her hands were free from blood.
In order for your bible blood stain to be a Palm print left by Sheila, then her Palm and fingers could not be free from blood. Yet we know that they were.
Therefore, if the stain on the bible is a Palm print (which I very much doubt it to be) then it must belong to somebody other than Sheila.
That's a LOT of assumption H. We don't know that her hands were free from blood because that's not what he initially said. If her hands WERE free from blood why on earth write 'hands not contaminated APART from blood'. And for him to suggest the stain on her nightdress came from her palm, he must have had reason for thinking that - if there was no blood on her palms, then he wouldn't have assumed it was a from her palm.
-
It can't possible be her print.
Of course it could :P
-
It could have been June's palm.
-
We can also tell that Sheila didn't move after being shot. We can tell this from the blood patterns and flow from her wounds.
There is no opportunity for her to create a Palm print on the bible, particularly as we know her palms and fingers were free of blood.
I think this is similar to seeing shapes in the clouds, or a long haired Sandle wearing dude on your morning toast.
We don't know that - we only know that Venezis changed what he originally stated in his notes from 'no contamination APART from blood' to 'free from blood'. Rather than assume, I would like to know why. Also, if she didn't move, where did the trails on her arms come from and she certainly has blood on the back of her hand.
-
Its only part of the hand tho. what are the dimensions of a page of that particular bible
From memory the dimension of the pages are 13cm width by 22cm height.
-
Free from blood after she'd soaked her " bloody " clothes washing off any GSR/Blood.
-
Free from blood after she'd soaked her " bloody " clothes washing off any GSR/Blood.
And I suppose she then burned said soaked clothes in the Aga. Where WERE those clothes, Lookout? You can't say the police destroyed them because they were convinced Sheila was responsible so they'd hardly have destroyed evidence of her being so.
-
And I suppose she then burned said soaked clothes in the Aga. Where WERE those clothes, Lookout? You can't say the police destroyed them because they were convinced Sheila was responsible so they'd hardly have destroyed evidence of her being so.
I thought the soaked stuff was binned by AE after she'd taken the buckets home. Why she did that,God only knows. One of Sheila's tops/blouse's was in one of the buckets,along with a couple of pairs of the boys trousers.Why the need for 3 buckets ?
-
And I suppose she then burned said soaked clothes in the Aga. Where WERE those clothes, Lookout? You can't say the police destroyed them because they were convinced Sheila was responsible so they'd hardly have destroyed evidence of her being so.
The only things soaking were her underwear and some joggers belonging to the twins. ???
-
I thought the soaked stuff was binned by AE after she'd taken the buckets home. Why she did that,God only knows. One of Sheila's tops/blouse's was in one of the buckets,along with a couple of pairs of the boys trousers.Why the need for 3 buckets ?
She didn't take the buckets home ;D ;D ;D. She binned the knickers and the joggers and later took the bin home. There was no tops/blouse. Where on earth are you getting this from?
-
The only things soaking were her underwear and some joggers belonging to the twins. ???
In 3 buckets ?
-
In 3 buckets ?
There were just two buckets Lookout ::)
-
One bucket's been removed.The one with a garment hanging over the outside of it ?
-
One bucket's been removed.The one with a garment hanging over the outside of it ?
No buckets have been removed - there was and always has been ONLY TWO. You're talking about this (see below) which has nothing to do with the soaking clothes.
-
That's a LOT of assumption H. We don't know that her hands were free from blood because that's not what he initially said. If her hands WERE free from blood why on earth write 'hands not contaminated APART from blood'. And for him to suggest the stain on her nightdress came from her palm, he must have had reason for thinking that - if there was no blood on her palms, then he wouldn't have assumed it was a from her palm.
The problem then is that no traces of blood elements were found on her hand swabs.
I agree with Caroline and believe his original statement which said there was blood on her palm etc. must have been correct because he specifically stated right palm.
It's mystery why this was changed in the official report which became the accepted fact and was backed up by her hand swabs because forensics stated there were no elements of blood on the palms of her hands........ :-\
-
The problem then is that no traces of blood elements were found on her hand swabs.
I agree with Caroline and believe his original statement which said there was blood on her palm etc. must have been correct because he specifically stated right palm.
It's mystery why this was changed in the official report which became the accepted fact and was backed up by her hand swabs because forensics stated there were no elements of blood on the palms of her hands........ :-\
I agree Maggie, I don't think it's enough to assume what someone meant - especially as it is a contradiction of what he later said. I think it's something that needs clarification and an answer from Venezis himself.
-
I agree Maggie, I don't think it's enough to assume what someone meant - especially as it is a contradiction of what he later said. I think it's something that needs clarification and an answer from Venezis himself.
I agree, it's contradictory and causes doubts. We know there was doubts over when Sheila's hand swabs were presented/represented/contaminated, whether her hands had been washed etc. and it's not surprising when people see such a contradiction........
-
I agree, it's contradictory and causes doubts. We know there was doubts over when Sheila's hand swabs were presented/represented/contaminated, whether her hands had been washed etc. and it's not surprising when people see such a contradiction........
What makes it worse is that the first (handwritten) notes were documented on the day of the autopsy - this was when it was thought to be a murder/suicide. The second was after Jeremy's arrest and when he was very much a suspect. Now I think Jeremy is guilty as sin, but I can't excuse this discrepancy because it LOOKS like the wording was changed to coincide with the change of suspect.
-
Sheila did - Venezis said so. I don't see a U stain on the carpet.
Vanezis didn't say anything about the inside of her palms being bloody, he said they were not bloody. The police said they were not bloody. There were photos taken of her hands at the autopsy which show the inside of her hands were not bloody. The only blood visible in any photos and/or mentioned by Vanezis or others who saw her hands was noted as being on her outer wrist/outerpalm area.
The Bible was tested for prints and NONE were found in blood. The experts who actually looked at this blood up close and personal to look for prints decided there were no prints of any kind in blood they assessed it was made by the carpet which happened to have blood underneath this very area of the Bible. You don't have all the photos they did nor did you see it up close like they did.
Your speculation is worse than Sutherst's.
-
He didn't say anything about the inside of her palms being blood he said they were not bloody. The police said they were not bloody. There were photos taken of her hands at the autopsy which show her hands were not bloody. The only blood was on her outer wrist/outerpalm area.
The Bible was tested for prints and NONE was found in blood. The experts who actually looked at this blood up close and personal found not palm print they assessed it was made by the carpet which happened to have blood underneath this very area of the Bible. You don't have all the photos they did nor did you see it up close like they did.
Your speculation is worse than Sutherst's.
I can't help but agree with the above.
-
It says - Bloodstained palm print on nightdress. Bloodstains appear to have transfered from R hand
Both hands not contaminatd APART from bloodstains.
Why did he contradict himself? Someone would have to ask him that.
What's the date on his typed report - the one which contradicts his handwritten notes?
-
What's the date on his typed report - the one which contradicts his handwritten notes?
Since his notes do not claim the blood is on the inside of her hands they do not contradict his official report which clarifies blood was on the outside wrist/palm of her right hand but the inside of her hands were clear of blood.
In any even it was finally filed September 30th. He prepared it earlier but waited until after the tox results came back form the lab to file it.
-
Assuming it is a palm print
if Its Jeremy's that would prove guilt 100% I would say?
(Therefore if it is a palm print, it cannot be JB's print - otherwise it would have been used against him as evidence).
But what if its Shelia's? what would that prove?
That a significant portion of the prosecution case is built upon lies. It would also pose questions about how the palm became bloody in the first place - and - why it was portrayed as not being bloody.
-
Vanezis didn't say anything about the inside of her palms being bloody, he said they were not bloody. The police said they were not bloody. There were photos taken of her hands at the autopsy which show the inside of her hands were not bloody. The only blood visible in any photos and/or mentioned by Vanezis or others who saw her hands was noted as being on her outer wrist/outerpalm area.
The Bible was tested for prints and NONE were found in blood. The experts who actually looked at this blood up close and personal to look for prints decided there were no prints of any kind in blood they assessed it was made by the carpet which happened to have blood underneath this very area of the Bible. You don't have all the photos they did nor did you see it up close like they did.
Your speculation is worse than Sutherst's.
You are denying what has been written (No contamination APART FROM BLOOD)and he has certainly didn't mention OUTER palm (that was you!) and it was changed to WRIST in his later typed statement. He's a doctor for gods sake - he KNOWS the difference between a PALM and WRIST and so do people here. I'd like to see the results of these tests you keep going on about - so far it's just you saying so.
-
I can't help but agree with the above.
Then you are BOTH wrong! :P
-
Why did he contradict himself? Someone would have to ask him that.
Wasn't he also the pathologist who carried out the post mortem of Princess Diana?
-
Since his notes do not claim the blood is on the inside of her hands they do not contradict his official report which clarifies blood was on the outside wrist/palm of her right hand but the inside of her hands were clear of blood.
In any even it was finally filed September 30th. He prepared it earlier but waited until after the tox results came back form the lab to file it.
Since when has the wrist been reclassified as a palm? He doesn't CLARIFY anything at all - he CHANGES palm for wrist.
-
What's the date on his typed report - the one which contradicts his handwritten notes?
Written notes were done on 7th August 1985
Typed Version 30th September 1985
-
Wasn't he also the pathologist who carried out the post mortem of Princess Diana?
Maybe not. Not sure of what this means exactly:
http://www.petervanezis.com/high_profile_cases.html
-
Written notes were done on 7th August 1985
Typed Version 30th September 1985
Thank you.
It seems an accurate assessment then to state the following:
His handwritten notes were completed contemporaneous with the incident (in the immediate aftermath of the incident; once the body had been transported to the place of post mortem).
His typed, contradictory report is written well after Jeremy Bamber had become a suspect.
-
Maybe not. Not sure of what this means exactly:
http://www.petervanezis.com/high_profile_cases.html
Oddly, he doesn't mention the Bamber case.
-
Then you are BOTH wrong! :P
When was she supposed to have made a Palm print on the bible, how many hands is she supposed to have?
-
You are denying what has been written (No contamination APART FROM BLOOD)and he has certainly didn't mention OUTER palm (that was you!) and it was changed to WRIST in his later typed statement. He's a doctor for gods sake - he KNOWS the difference between a PALM and WRIST and so do people here. I'd like to see the results of these tests you keep going on about - so far it's just you saying so.
I am actually making an effort to comprehend what he wrote whereas you refuse to do so in order to go off on your expedition.
He had a section of the report which discussed the inside of her hands and said no blood.
He mentioned there was blood on the outside which was transferred to her gown. The outer palm and outer wrist are adjacent areas.
Police agree with him. Photos agree with him. Experts who saw those photos agree with him. In the meantime the people at the lab who physically inspected the Bible for prints found nothing in the blood they recognized as prints. They figured the blood on the Bible got there from lying in the puddle of blood under the Bible. Since that puddle came from Sheila they decided the blood was Sheila's and that there was no need to type test it.
If they thought it was a palm print they would have noted such and done comparisons to see if they could match it to Jeremy because that would be damning evidence. To these experts who saw it close up it was just a transfer stain from sitting in blood.
The natural reading of his notes in light of his report is that in his notes he meant blood on the outside.
You are manufacturing a conflict that does not exist. You do so by deciding you know when he wrote hand in his notes he meant the inside of the hand because that is what you choose to believe and based thereupon that he decided to write something false in his report about the inside of her hands.
-
Oddly, he doesn't mention the Bamber case.
He didn't mention any cases where he did the autopsy he mentions only being consulted in high profile cases.
-
I am actually making an effort to comprehend what he wrote whereas you refuse to do so in order to go off on your expedition.
He had a section of the report which discussed the inside of her hands and said no blood.
He mentioned there was blood on the outside which was transferred to her gown. The outer palm and outer wrist are adjacent areas.
Police agree with him. Photos agree with him. Experts who saw those photos agree with him. In the meantime the people at the lab who physically inspected the Bible for prints found nothing in the blood they recognized as prints. They figured the blood on the Bible got there from lying in the puddle of blood under the Bible. Since that puddle came from Sheila they decided the blood was Sheila's and that there was no need to type test it.
If they thought it was a palm print they would have noted such and done comparisons to see if they could match it to Jeremy because that would be damning evidence. To these experts who saw it close up it was just a transfer stain from sitting in blood.
The natural reading of his notes in light of his report is that in his notes he meant blood on the outside.
You are manufacturing a conflict that does not exist. You do so by deciding you know when he wrote hand in his notes he meant the inside of the hand because that is what you choose to believe and based thereupon that he decided to write something false in his report about the inside of her hands.
HA, HA!!!!! I'm NOT manufacturing anything - YOU ARE!! I'm actually saying what he wrote, you're trying to pretend you KNOW what you THINK he meant. I'm not interested in what you THINK he meant, I'm interested in what he SAID. Again he said "BOTH HANDS not contaminated APART FROM BLOOD" - no mention of wrists, that came later. So, in his initial notes, he mentions PLAMS and HANDS but NOT WRISTS!! In his later written version, just wrists.
-
When was she supposed to have made a Palm print on the bible, how many hands is she supposed to have?
Just two. Given that none of us know what happened with any certainty during the shooting, it could have been any times from when it started, to until she died.
-
Thank you.
It seems an accurate assessment then to state the following:
His handwritten notes were completed contemporaneous with the incident (in the immediate aftermath of the incident; once the body had been transported to the place of post mortem).
His typed, contradictory report is written well after Jeremy Bamber had become a suspect.
I would agree with that.
-
Thank you.
It seems an accurate assessment then to state the following:
His handwritten notes were completed contemporaneous with the incident (in the immediate aftermath of the incident; once the body had been transported to the place of post mortem).
His typed, contradictory report is written well after Jeremy Bamber had become a suspect.
Most of his typed report was written in August, before the moderator had any significance. He simply didn't finish the tox result portion until those results finally came back in September then he filed it Sept 30. He didn't bother to change his report based on any new developments from the reinvestigation and thus left in the suggestion maybe Nevill was stabbed in the arm with the muzzle of the rifle. Such was s stupid suggestion anyway because it is impractical to do that with a weapon you bash with the butt unless there is a bayonet attached. In any event by the time he filed it he knew the moderator was attaches so the muzzle was not exposed to be used to cause such injuries. He didn't bother to drop the assertion though.
The report is not contradicted by his notes. The report doesn't state there is blood on the inside of her hands. That is what Caroline chooses to believe he meant to keep her speculations alive.
-
Most of his typed report was written in August, before the moderator had any significance. He simply didn't finish the tox result portion until those results finally came back in September then he filed it Sept 30. He didn't bother to change his report based on any new developments from the reinvestigation and thus left in the suggestion maybe Nevill was stabbed in the arm with the muzzle of the rifle. Such was s stupid suggestion anyway because it is impractical to do that with a weapon you bash with the butt unless there is a bayonet attached. In any event by the time he filed it he knew the moderator was attaches so the muzzle was not exposed to be used to cause such injuries. He didn't bother to drop the assertion though.
The report is not contradicted by his notes. The report doesn't state there is blood on the inside of her hands. That is what Caroline chooses to believe he meant to keep her speculations alive.
Yes it is!
-
Just two. Given that none of us know what happened with any certainty during the shooting, it could have been any times from when it started, to until she died.
The physical and medical evidence establishes
1) she was shot in the neck
2) she plugged the wound with the outside pal/wrist of her right hand
3) her hand was up to her neck long enough for the blood to go down to her elbow
4) after several seconds passed she was shot again fatally
It is pure fantasy that they would have been playing with a Bible in the few seconds between the shots.
-
The physical and medical evidence establishes
1) she was shot in the neck
2) she plugged the wound with the outside pal/wrist of her right hand
3) her hand was up to her neck long enough for the blood to go down to her elbow
4) after several seconds passed she was shot again fatally
It is pure fantasy that they would have been playing with a Bible in the few seconds between the shots.
Not only are you inventing words that were never mentioned by Venezis "OUTER" you're trying to put them in mine - where did I say she was playing with the bible at all or between shots?
-
The physical and medical evidence establishes
1) she was shot in the neck
2) she plugged the wound with the outside pal/wrist of her right hand
3) her hand was up to her neck long enough for the blood to go down to her elbow
4) after several seconds passed she was shot again fatally
It is pure fantasy that they would have been playing with a Bible in the few seconds between the shots.
Yes, exactly.
-
Yes it is!
You failed miserably at proving such.
In his report he wrote that blood was outside of her hands and that this transferred to her gown. He said the insides were free of blood.
The only way for you to establish he wrote a contradictory note would be if you can provide a notation that states blood was INSIDE her hand not outside. You are unable to do so because he didn't write in his notes blood was inside her hands.
You choose to interpret "hands" as inside in order to manufacture a conflict. It fails.
-
Yes it is!
No it isn't.
-
Just two. Given that none of us know what happened with any certainty during the shooting, it could have been any times from when it started, to until she died.
Seriously? No it couldn't. She didn't move after she was shot the first time.
-
HA, HA!!!!! I'm NOT manufacturing anything - YOU ARE!! I'm actually saying what he wrote, you're trying to pretend you KNOW what you THINK he meant. I'm not interested in what you THINK he meant, I'm interested in what he SAID. Again he said "BOTH HANDS not contaminated APART FROM BLOOD" - no mention of wrists, that came later. So, in his initial notes, he mentions PLAMS and HANDS but NOT WRISTS!! In his later written version, just wrists.
He said the hands were contaminated with blood.
He said the fingers and palms were free from blood.
Could both of the above be true? Yes and clearly were. ::)
-
You failed miserably at proving such.
In his report he wrote that blood was outside of her hands and that this transferred to her gown. He said the insides were free of blood.
The only way for you to establish he wrote a contradictory note would be if you can provide a notation that states blood was INSIDE her hand not outside. You are unable to do so because he didn't write in his notes blood was inside her hands.
You choose to interpret "hands" as inside in order to manufacture a conflict. It fails.
Ha, ha!! You have tried to invent things that were never said with your continues use of the word 'outer' - and are suggesting Venezis doesn't know the difference between a palm and a wrist. I think he might have had to have a good understanding of anatomy before qualifying and plam and wrist are two different things. He wrote both HANDS and PALM suggesting the stain on the nightdress came from the PALM!! A PALM is the INSIDE of a hand.
-
Oddly, he doesn't mention the Bamber case.
He did not carry out the post mortem on Diana:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vZPJjwm6ITMC&pg=PT119&lpg=PT119&dq=autopsy+diana+pathologist&source=bl&ots=PqfSP5S-fK&sig=5oNgjHd7RTywYXjnJDv63Df-jcY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAmoVChMI09brkdacxwIVgT8UCh3X_A-q#v=onepage&q=autopsy%20diana%20pathologist&f=false
-
He said the hands were contaminated with blood.
He said the fingers and palms were free from blood.
Could both of the above be true? Yes and clearly were. ::)
Where in his written notes does he say fingers and palms were free from blood?
He also said that the stain on her nightdress came from her right PALM! How could her palm be free from blood when he said the staining appeared to have been transferred from her right palm?
-
Ha, ha!! You have tried to invent things that were never said with your continues use of the word 'outer' - and are suggesting Venezis doesn't know the difference between a palm and a wrist. I think he might have had to have a good understanding of anatomy before qualifying and plam and wrist are two different things. He wrote both HANDS and PALM suggesting the stain on the nightdress came from the PALM!! A PALM is the INSIDE of a hand.
I don't know how you can be chewed with it. :-\ ;)
-
No it isn't.
Yes it is
-
Seriously? No it couldn't. She didn't move after she was shot the first time.
Tell that to Scipio who has her plugging the first shot with her OUTER Palm!! ;D ;D ;D ;D I haven't said she put the print on the bible after being shot. Not even sure who's blood it is.
-
I don't know how you can be chewed with it. :-\ ;)
Just because ;) ;D ;D ;D
-
Seriously? No it couldn't. She didn't move after she was shot the first time.
The notion that after she plugged her wound she opening the Bible ot look at while bracing for another shot is ridiculous and Jeremy wasn't handing her a Bible after the first shot he was busy readying for another shot which he delivered seconds later.
Vanezis drew a distinction between blood outside her hand and inside her hand. Caroline chooses to ignore this and pretend he said blood inside her hand in his notes though he didn't. She pretends this by pretending hands has to mean inside. Obviously the hand has an outside and saying someone had blood on their hand could mean inside, outside or both. In his report he was specific in saying it was outside not inside. This blows Caroline's crap out of the water so she chooses to ignore it as she ignores the other police who saw her hands saying there was no blood inside, ignoring the photos show no blood and most important of all ignoring that those who actually inspected the Bible up close and person for the presence of prints found no prints of any kind in blood. They are the ones in the position to know if it was a palm print they saw it close up, they were experts in the field and it was their job to see if such a print existed.
-
Tell that to Scipio who has her plugging the first shot with her OUTER Palm!! ;D ;D ;D ;D I haven't said she put the print on the bible after being shot. Not even sure who's blood it is.
Whose blood could it be? The only one who left a significant pool of blood apart from Sheila was Nevill. No one else had a pool of blood that would coat a hand. He didn't drag her down to the kitchen to stick her hand in it then carry her back up.Clearly the blood was her own regardless of whether it was a hand print or not.
The reason why I can't show you a lab report identifying whose blood it was is because the experts decided it was Sheila's blood, that got there from the carpet it wasn't a hand print and thus decided not to bother type testing it. They viewed it as not being a palm print. The only prints they found on the Bible were not in blood.
-
Tell that to Scipio who has her plugging the first shot with her OUTER Palm!! ;D ;D ;D ;D I haven't said she put the print on the bible after being shot. Not even sure who's blood it is.
If I can put my two pen'th in here, is it possible that as she was sitting there, scared, he tossed a bible at her and told her to read it, shot her the first time, she put her hand -PALM- against the wound then instinctively grabbed for the bible -perhaps it had slipped. Voila! Instant PALM print.
-
The notion that after she plugged her wound she opening the Bible ot look at while bracing for another shot is ridiculous and Jeremy wasn't handing her a Bible after the first shot he was busy readying for another shot which he delivered seconds later. Ha, ha!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D Where did I say ANY of that??
Vanezis drew a distinction between blood outside her hand and inside her hand. No he didn't YOU did. Show me where he drew that distinction? Caroline chooses to ignore this and pretend he said blood inside her hand in his notes though he didn't. A PALM IS THE INSIDE OF THE HAND!! She pretends this by pretending hands has to mean inside. NO BUT PALM DOES!! Obviously the hand has an outside and saying someone had blood on their hand could mean inside, outside or both. But a palm is JUST the inside! In his report he was specific in saying it was outside not inside. Not in his notes that he wrote JUST AFTER the autopsy! I'm not disputing that he later changed it This blows Caroline's crap out of the water so she chooses to ignore it as she ignores the other police who saw her hands saying there was no blood inside, ignoring the photos show no blood Which photo's show no blood? and most important of all ignoring that those who actually inspected the Bible up close and person for the presence of prints found no prints of any kind in blood Oh the experts - who were they again?. They are the ones in the position to know if it was a palm print they saw it close up, they were experts they? in the field and it was their job to see if such a print existed. So is SUTHURST and look what happened to him ;)
So she has no blood on her hand and those 'finger shaped' stains are from her wrist? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Ha, ha!! You have tried to invent things that were never said with your continues use of the word 'outer' - and are suggesting Venezis doesn't know the difference between a palm and a wrist. I think he might have had to have a good understanding of anatomy before qualifying and plam and wrist are two different things. He wrote both HANDS and PALM suggesting the stain on the nightdress came from the PALM!! A PALM is the INSIDE of a hand.
He didn't say anything about the stain being from the inside palm of her hand. You are the one inventing things and it is pure nonsense you are inventing.
You want us to believe Vanesis is so stupid he didn't realize he contradicted himself in his type written report by asserting the inside of her hands were free of blood and yet saying the inside of her hands had blood and she she thus left a palm print on her gown. In order to try to get us to believe he is this stupid you suggest he put in his notes that she had blood inside her hand.
Your straining is for nothing. The experts do not agree with you and thus the defense never even tried making this argument. Nor would they be able to try at best dishonest propagandists can try to use this in an informal setting like their website to try false creating more suspicion of wrongdoing claiming Vanezis was asked to distort.
At the end of the day you are just engaging in the same crap you accuse reader and others of engaging in when you debate against them.
-
Whose blood could it be? The only one who left a significant pool of blood apart from Sheila was Nevill. No one else had a pool of blood that would coat a hand. He didn't drag her down to the kitchen to stick her hand in it then carry her back up.Clearly the blood was her own regardless of whether it was a hand print or not. So it could be a hand print! ;) ;D ;D
The reason why I can't show you a lab report identifying whose blood it was is because the experts decided it was Sheila's blood, that got there from the carpet it wasn't a hand print and thus decided not to bother type testing it. They viewed it as not being a palm print. The only prints they found on the Bible were not in blood.
So it wasn't tested? The court of appeal concluded that the stain 'appeared' to have come from the carpet - I have read that, but they didn't say it wasn't a palm print. At the 2002 appeal such experts didn't see the bible, they looked at pictures and that doesn't mean it isn't.
-
You are denying what has been written (No contamination APART FROM BLOOD)and he has certainly didn't mention OUTER palm (that was you!) and it was changed to WRIST in his later typed statement. He's a doctor for gods sake - he KNOWS the difference between a PALM and WRIST and so do people here. I'd like to see the results of these tests you keep going on about - so far it's just you saying so.
Ha, ha!! You have tried to invent things that were never said with your continues use of the word 'outer' - and are suggesting Venezis doesn't know the difference between a palm and a wrist. I think he might have had to have a good understanding of anatomy before qualifying and plam and wrist are two different things. He wrote both HANDS and PALM suggesting the stain on the nightdress came from the PALM!! A PALM is the INSIDE of a hand.
Your wasting your time arguing with him Caroline. Just let him believe what he wants
Police agree with him.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4c/59/05/4c590533fc5ddb886c3b7f670ba5bff7.jpg)
Experts who saw those photos agree with him.
(http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/staff/s_scott/stanoli.gif)
-
He didn't say anything about the stain being from the inside palm of her hand. You are the one inventing things and it is pure nonsense you are inventing. The PALM is the inside of a hand and he said that the print on her nightdress appeared to have been transferred from her right palm - the palm being the INSIDE of a hand.
You want us to believe Vanesis is so stupid he didn't realize he contradicted himself in his type written report by asserting the inside of her hands were free of blood and yet saying the inside of her hands had blood and she she thus left a palm print on her gown. In order to try to get us to believe he is this stupid you suggest he put in his notes that she had blood inside her hand. Once again A PALM IS the inside of a hand!
Your straining is for nothing. The experts do not agree with you and thus the defense never even tried making this argument. Nor would they be able to try at best dishonest propagandists can try to use this in an informal setting like their website to try false creating more suspicion of wrongdoing claiming Vanezis was asked to distort. I don't care what these 'experts' (that you can't name) think - if we all agreed with the experts, there would be no debate.
At the end of the day you are just engaging in the same crap you accuse reader and others of engaging in when you debate against them. No, that's what you're doing and you can always tell when your argument is weak or that you are getting rattled because you get personal - take a breather and clam down dear!! ;)
-
Your wasting your time arguing with him Caroline. Just let him believe what he wants
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4c/59/05/4c590533fc5ddb886c3b7f670ba5bff7.jpg)
(http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/staff/s_scott/stanoli.gif)
Probably, but he wrong ;) ;D ;D ;D
-
Tell that to Scipio who has her plugging the first shot with her OUTER Palm!! ;D ;D ;D ;D I haven't said she put the print on the bible after being shot. Not even sure who's blood it is.
..
There wasn't any blood until she was shot. So erm? :-\
-
..
There wasn't any blood until she was shot. So erm? :-\
You know for definite that it's her blood?
-
Probably, but he wrong ;) ;D ;D ;D
I know but he never accepts it. So why bother?
-
I know but he never accepts it. So why bother?
I know, but I want to make sure that he knows that I don't give in either! ;)
-
If I can put my two pen'th in here, is it possible that as she was sitting there, scared, he tossed a bible at her and told her to read it, shot her the first time, she put her hand -PALM- against the wound then instinctively grabbed for the bible -perhaps it had slipped. Voila! Instant PALM print.
There are lots of scenario's but we don't know for definite who's blood is on the bible but if it is a palm print, it doesn't mean it had to get there between the two shots - I certainly didn't say that.
-
You know for definite that it's her blood?
I know that you stretching. You know it is not her blood.
You know therefore that it cannot be her hand.
Circular argument. Just stubborn. :D
-
I would say it's June's blood as she was the one mostly covered from head to toe. Sheila wasn't.
-
"Vanezis drew a distinction between blood outside her hand and inside her hand."
No he didn't YOU did. Show me where he drew that distinction? A PALM IS THE INSIDE OF THE HAND!! But a palm is JUST the inside!
I already showed you. If you paid attention you also would have noticed the mention of nicotine staining which you keep attacking lookout not having a source for.
(http://s23.postimg.org/78wa3x07f/vanezis.jpg)
(http://s2.postimg.org/hfqhxl6y1/vanezis2.jpg)
He referred to the blood on the outside of her hand as being on her wrist and said that is how the blood transferred to her gown. He said her fingers and inside of her hands were free of blood. That is if one actually wants to understand what he wrote as opposed to deciding to incorrectly interpret it for their own purposes.
There is an inside palm and outside palm. The outside palm is adjacent to the outer wrist and often simply included with the wrist depending if speaking about both.
"she ignores the other police who saw her hands saying there was no blood inside, ignoring the photos show no blood Which photo's show no blood? and most important of all ignoring that those who actually inspected the Bible up close in person for the presence of prints found no prints of any kind in blood"
Oh the experts - who were they again?
Look at the lab reports. If you can't get a hold of them then ask Mike if he won't provide them then you are stuck with just knowing the lab personnel tasked with it. MadDonnell among others were shown the photos of the insides of her hands and they said the photos showed her hands to be clean.
"They are the ones in the position to know if it was a palm print they saw it close up, they were experts in the field and it was their job to see if such a print existed." So is SUTHURST and look what happened to him ;)
Like the lab personnel whose job it was to physically inspect the Bible looking for prints it was Sutherst's job to physically inspect the mantle in person to look for scratches?
No Sutherst blew up low quality photos of items that were distant in such photos.
What happened to Sutherst is he engaged in the same kind of nonsense speculation you engage in without any basis at all to do so. You are in no greater position than Sutherst was to challenge the experts and in fact an even lesser position than he was. There were no close ups of the mantle but there were close up photos of her hand showing them clean you haven't seen them because you have no cause to be provided with them.
So she has no blood on her hand and those 'finger shaped' stains are from her wrist? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Vanesis doesn't think they were finger shaped he said her wrist made them. Blowing them up doesn't help at all it is as much of a waste as blowing up the Bible and trying to say you know what made the marks. I'll stick with those who actually inspected the items in person.
-
So it wasn't tested? The court of appeal concluded that the stain 'appeared' to have come from the carpet - I have read that, but they didn't say it wasn't a palm print. At the 2002 appeal such experts didn't see the bible, they looked at pictures and that doesn't mean it isn't.
The experts who spoke to the Court of Appeals referecnced photos showing blood underneat that very locaiton of the Bible. You want to pretend the blood was simply above the Bible but it was underneath it as well. The bible was sitting in blood.
What the court was told was that they assessed the Bible was placed on top of this blood AFTER it deposited. One of those who shared this opinion told this very opinion to the defense- Leon MacDonnell.
They are NOT the only ones who have this opinion the opinion was shared by the lab personnel who examined the Bible for prints and found no prints of any kind in blood. They physically looked at that blood stain and saw no features that would indicate it was a palm print.
Lot's of things can look like a palm or finger print from a distance- men look like girls from a distance- Nevill appeared to be a woman from a distance.
Those who saw the inside of her hands said they were free of blood and photos confirm such. So on top of no one who looked at it recognizing it as a palm print Sheila would not have been able to leave a palm print of such size because her whole inside of her hand would have to have been absolutely covered in blood.
-
I already showed you. If you paid attention you also would have noticed the mention of nicotine staining which you keep attacking lookout not having a source for.
(http://s23.postimg.org/78wa3x07f/vanezis.jpg)
(http://s2.postimg.org/hfqhxl6y1/vanezis2.jpg)
He referred to the blood on the outside of her hand as being on her wrist and said that is how the blood transferred to her gown. He said her fingers and inside of her hands were free of blood. That is if one actually wants to understand what he wrote as opposed to deciding to incorrectly interpret it for their own purposes. NOT in his notes - he said P-A-L-M!
There is an inside palm and outside palm. The outside palm is adjacent to the outer wrist and often simply included with the wrist depending if speaking about both. Bollocks! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Look at the lab reports. If you can't get a hold of them then ask Mike if he won't provide them then you are stuck with just knowing the lab personnel tasked with it. MadDonnell among others were shown the photos of the insides of her hands and they said the photos showed her hands to be clean. Where did you get hold of them? If you have them you post them or is thus just bluster?
Like the lab personnel whose job it was to physically inspect the Bible looking for prints it was Sutherst's job to physically inspect the mantle in person to look for scratches?
No Sutherst blew up low quality photos of items that were distant in such photos.
What happened to Sutherst is he engaged in the same kind of nonsense speculation you engage in without any basis at all to do so. You are in no greater position than Sutherst was to challenge the experts and in fact an even lesser position than he was. There were no close ups of the mantle but there were close up photos of her hand showing them clean you haven't seen them because you have no cause to be provided with them. You're the one talking nonsense suggesting that wrist and palm are the same thing!! ::) ::)
Vanesis doesn't think they were finger shaped he said her wrist made them. Blowing them up doesn't help at all it is as much of a waste as blowing up the Bible and trying to say you know what made the marks. I'll stick with those who actually inspected the items in person. I don't CARE what Venezis though t because according to you he doesn't know his wrist from his palm!
Oh and I know he said WRIST but he didn't say OUTSIDE of hand!! YOU are saying that and (ONCE AGAIN) a wrist and a palm are two VERY DIFFERENT things. I also know he mentioned NICOTINE - THAT is also in the written version.
-
The experts who spoke to the Court of Appeals referecnced photos showing blood underneat that very locaiton of the Bible. You want to pretend the blood was simply above the Bible but it was underneath it as well. The bible was sitting in blood.
What the court was told was that they assessed the Bible was placed on top of this blood AFTER it deposited. One of those who shared this opinion told this very opinion to the defense- Leon MacDonnell.
They are NOT the only ones who have this opinion the opinion was shared by the lab personnel who examined the Bible for prints and found no prints of any kind in blood. They physically looked at that blood stain and saw no features that would indicate it was a palm print.
Lot's of things can look like a palm or finger print from a distance- men look like girls from a distance- Nevill appeared to be a woman from a distance.
Those who saw the inside of her hands said they were free of blood and photos confirm such. So on top of no one who looked at it recognizing it as a palm print Sheila would not have been able to leave a palm print of such size because her whole inside of her hand would have to have been absolutely covered in blood.
Yes, lots of things can look like a palm print and one thing that definitely looks like on - is a PALM PRINT. You keep telling me about experts and yet you can't point me to any documentation on the subject. You stick with your experts and leave me to have free thought!
-
Caroline, we differ in opinion on this particular topic, as we have many times before. It is clearly not that big a deal either way, so I think it's just best to agree to disagree.
At least until it comes up again and we repeat ourselves. :-X
-
Caroline, we differ in opinion on this particular topic, as we have many times before. It is clearly not that big a deal either way, so I think it's just best to agree to disagree.
At least until it comes up again and we repeat ourselves. :-X
Yes we do H - don't mind the odd spat with you. You're always a gent ;) :).
-
If I can put my two pen'th in here, is it possible that as she was sitting there, scared, he tossed a bible at her and told her to read it, shot her the first time, she put her hand -PALM- against the wound then instinctively grabbed for the bible -perhaps it had slipped. Voila! Instant PALM print.
Why would he do that? If she is reading a Bible as she is being shot then she can't be shooting herself. At best one would want it to look like she was reading the Bible before she shot herself not during or after. He got a little bit of blood on the Bible- towards the bottom. He closed it then reopened it creating a mirror image. No mirror image was created at op because the blood at the top wasn't there yet. That blood got there later after it already had been closed and reopened to the same exact page.
-
Why would he do that? If she is reading a Bible as she is being shot then she can't be shooting herself. At best one would want it to look like she was reading the Bible before she shot herself not during or after. He got a little bit of blood on the Bible- towards the bottom. He closed it then reopened it creating a mirror image. No mirror image was created at op because the blood at the top wasn't there yet. That blood got there later after it already had been closed and reopened to the same exact page.
Why would he NOT? You're just saying what you would-or not-have done. And can you point me to WHERE I suggested she shot herself. It's my understanding that Jeremy shot her. May I suggest you get yourself a cup of tea or a shot of bourbon. You sound as if you may have got a little confused after disagreeing with Caroline.
-
Yes we do H - don't mind the odd spat with you. You're always a gent ;) :).
As are you, well, not a gent, but know what I mean. :)
-
As are you, well, not a gent, but know what I mean. :)
:o ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
"He referred to the blood on the outside of her hand as being on her wrist and said that is how the blood transferred to her gown. He said her fingers and inside of her hands were free of blood. That is if one actually wants to understand what he wrote as opposed to deciding to incorrectly interpret it for their own purposes."
NOT in his notes - he said P-A-L-M!
"There is an inside palm and outside palm. The outside palm is adjacent to the outer wrist and often simply included with the wrist depending if speaking about both."
Bollocks! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
All you are doing is denying reality and in the process not helping yourself at all. The left and right side of the wrist are bordered by the right side and left side outer palm "to the North" and the side of left and right sides of the forearm to the South. Photos show blood on the OUTER palms and wrist. Vanezis and police say this is the only place there was blood. They say this blood transferred to her gown.
They have photos that confirm no blood is on the inside palms which the public has not seen because Jeremy sees no advantage in providing it to the public.
You want to pretend Vanezis contradicted himself in his report by suggesting the inside of her hands were blood free yet the outside had blood. You do so by refusing to comprehend his words and now ridiculously denying there is an outside palm. You are doing the same nonsense you engage in to try to pretend the moderator was doctored.
You are just as wrong about that and engage in the same mindless nonsense to try to justify your beliefs. I choose the face reality and actually follow evidence where it leads not make up my own by distorting what people experts assessed.
Those people who actually matter understand Vanezis words and interpret them the way I do. Your interpretation is totally meaningless since your opinion matters not one bit.
You can scream as loud as you liek that doesn't mean you have any evidence to refute their interpretation. You simply choose to believe your own ridiculous interpretation and it is ridiculous to assert that Vanezis didn't realize the contradiction if he were actually asserting the inside were free of blood an in another location suggesting the inside did have blood. He would have realized it if he were contradicting himself.
It is not enough to just offer wild speculation he contradicted himself but didn't realize it you bear the burden of PROVING he meant inside which you cannot do. You can't refute the police testimony her inner hands were free of blood. You can't refute the photos showing her inside hands free of blood. you can't refute the examination records demonstrating no bloody prints found. You can't refute the evidence proving the Bible was sitting on top of blood. You can't refute the evidence proving the Bible was opened, little bits of blood got on it, it was closed, it was reopened to the same exact page exhibiting a mirror image of the stain. No way in hell did Sheila reopen it to the same exact page it had been opened to before.
You ignore the totality of the evidence to make up your own ideas which is no better than what Jeremy supporters do and that sort of informs how you ended up being one of them.
"Look at the lab reports. If you can't get a hold of them then ask Mike if he won't provide them then you are stuck with just knowing the lab personnel tasked with it. MadDonnell among others were shown the photos of the insides of her hands and they said the photos showed her hands to be clean."
Where did you get hold of them? If you have them you post them or is thus just bluster?
What bluster- they exist. I posted the Court of Appeals provisions discussing how they exist. I don't need to read them you are the one who wants to challenge them so you need to read them to even try to find a way to say they made a mistake. My point is unassailable- the lab examined the Bible for prints. They found no prints in blood- the only prints they found were not in blood. That by definition means they decided that it was not a palm print. Lincoln's report covered all the blood testing. The blood on the Bible was not tested. It was not tested because the Bible was sitting in a puddle of Sheila's blood. It was thus assumed it was her blood and no doubt it was.
You are the one saying you don't trust the assessment so you go find it to try to find a way to attack it. I will assume print experts know how to identify a palm print when hey see one especially if it is the whole hand like you claim. It is not a small piece of the palm like her dress had you are claiming it is the entire palm- not even an indentation where the hand dips in which would require the entire palm to be saturated in blood.
"Like the lab personnel whose job it was to physically inspect the Bible looking for prints it was Sutherst's job to physically inspect the mantle in person to look for scratches?
No Sutherst blew up low quality photos of items that were distant in such photos.
What happened to Sutherst is he engaged in the same kind of nonsense speculation you engage in without any basis at all to do so. You are in no greater position than Sutherst was to challenge the experts and in fact an even lesser position than he was. There were no close ups of the mantle but there were close up photos of her hand showing them clean you haven't seen them because you have no cause to be provided with them."
You're the one talking nonsense suggesting that wrist and palm are the same thing!! ::) ::)
I didn't say they were the same thing. I said that Vanezis chose to refer to the outside palms of the hand and wrist simply as the wrist in his report. You deny there is an outside palm so I guess you think a hand is as flat as a piece of paper. You are straining for nothing. Those who matter already decided that Vanezis was referring to the inside of the hand being free of blood and the outside edges having blood. That is clearly what he meant and how they interpret it. You have no ability to demonstrate this position to be wrong nor do you have any basis to use photos to try to contradict his assessment the wrist made the marks on her gown and the assessment of those experts who said the blood got on the Bible by being placed in a pool of blood and failed to assess it to be a palm print.
Your speculation is not supported by any proof and unless you can come up with concrete proof you are not going to convince me your theory is the least bit accurate.
"Vanesis doesn't think they were finger shaped he said her wrist made them. Blowing them up doesn't help at all it is as much of a waste as blowing up the Bible and trying to say you know what made the marks. I'll stick with those who actually inspected the items in person."
I don't CARE what Venezis though t because according to you he doesn't know his wrist from his palm!
I said he chose to simply say wrist instead of saying wrist and outer palms. But any nonsense you can come up with to convince yourself not to trust the experts you will engage in just like when you decided that because Jeremy wanted the DNA test it means he didn't use the moderator no matter what anyone else says about the subject. You are acting the same way about this but it doesn't really matter because what you can prove matters not what you choose to believe.
-
All you are doing is denying reality and in the process not helping yourself at all. The left and right side of the wrist are bordered by the right side and left side outer palm "to the North" and the side of left and right sides of the forearm to the South. Photos show blood on the OUTER palms and wrist. Vanezis and police say this is the only place there was blood. They say this blood transferred to her gown.
They have photos that confirm no blood is on the inside palms which the public has not seen because Jeremy sees no advantage in providing it to the public.
You want to pretend Vanezis contradicted himself in his report by suggesting the inside of her hands were blood free yet the outside had blood. You do so by refusing to comprehend his words and now ridiculously denying there is an outside palm. You are doing the same nonsense you engage in to try to pretend the moderator was doctored.
You are just as wrong about that and engage in the same mindless nonsense to try to justify your beliefs. I choose the face reality and actually follow evidence where it leads not make up my own by distorting what people experts assessed.
Those people who actually matter understand Vanezis words and interpret them the way I do. Your interpretation is totally meaningless since your opinion matters not one bit.
You can scream as loud as you liek that doesn't mean you have any evidence to refute their interpretation. You simply choose to believe your own ridiculous interpretation and it is ridiculous to assert that Vanezis didn't realize the contradiction if he were actually asserting the inside were free of blood an in another location suggesting the inside did have blood. He would have realized it if he were contradicting himself.
It is not enough to just offer wild speculation he contradicted himself but didn't realize it you bear the burden of PROVING he meant inside which you cannot do. You can't refute the police testimony her inner hands were free of blood. You can't refute the photos showing her inside hands free of blood. you can't refute the examination records demonstrating no bloody prints found. You can't refute the evidence proving the Bible was sitting on top of blood. You can't refute the evidence proving the Bible was opened, little bits of blood got on it, it was closed, it was reopened to the same exact page exhibiting a mirror image of the stain. No way in hell did Sheila reopen it to the same exact page it had been opened to before.
You ignore the totality of the evidence to make up your own ideas which is no better than what Jeremy supporters do and that sort of informs how you ended up being one of them.
What bluster- they exist. I posted the Court of Appeals provisions discussing how they exist. I don't need to read them you are the one who wants to challenge them so you need to read them to even try to find a way to say they made a mistake. My point is unassailable- the lab examined the Bible for prints. They found no prints in blood- the only prints they found were not in blood. That by definition means they decided that it was not a palm print. Lincoln's report covered all the blood testing. The blood on the Bible was not tested. It was not tested because the Bible was sitting in a puddle of Sheila's blood. It was thus assumed it was her blood and no doubt it was.
You are the one saying you don't trust the assessment so you go find it to try to find a way to attack it. I will assume print experts know how to identify a palm print when hey see one especially if it is the whole hand like you claim. It is not a small piece of the palm like her dress had you are claiming it is the entire palm- not even an indentation where the hand dips in which would require the entire palm to be saturated in blood.
I didn't say they were the same thing. I said that Vanezis chose to refer to the outside palms of the hand and wrist simply as the wrist in his report. You deny there is an outside palm so I guess you think a hand is as flat as a piece of paper. You are straining for nothing. Those who matter already decided that Vanezis was referring to the inside of the hand being free of blood and the outside edges having blood. That is clearly what he meant and how they interpret it. You have no ability to demonstrate this position to be wrong nor do you have any basis to use photos to try to contradict his assessment the wrist made the marks on her gown and the assessment of those experts who said the blood got on the Bible by being placed in a pool of blood and failed to assess it to be a palm print.
Your speculation is not supported by any proof and unless you can come up with concrete proof you are not going to convince me your theory is the least bit accurate.
I said he chose to simply say wrist instead of saying wrist and outer palms. But any nonsense you can come up with to convince yourself not to trust the experts you will engage in just like when you decided that because Jeremy wanted the DNA test it means he didn't use the moderator no matter what anyone else says about the subject. You are acting the same way about this but it doesn't really matter because what you can prove matters not what you choose to believe.
Your post is too long and life is too short - I'm not repeating myself again. the two statements contradict - end of! 8)
Edit: It must have taken you ages to write that but at the end of it all a wrist isn't a palm and a palm is STILL the inside of a hand - so, you're still wrong and the statements STILL contradicts. (Hee hee!!)
-
Why would he NOT? You're just saying what you would-or not-have done. And can you point me to WHERE I suggested she shot herself. It's my understanding that Jeremy shot her. May I suggest you get yourself a cup of tea or a shot of bourbon. You sound as if you may have got a little confused after disagreeing with Caroline.
I'm not confused at all apparently you are.
Jeremy apparently wanted it to look like Sheila was reading the Bible BEFORE she shot herself to enhance the notion she was acting out of some religious delusions.
As I explained to you- but obviously went straight over your head- she could not shoot herself if she had a Bible in her hands. Thus he would not want to kill her with the bible in her hands because if the blood proved she was busy holding a Bible than quite clearly she can't have shot herself and had to have been murdered.
So right off the bat there would be no advantage in throwing the Bible in her hands only disadvantages in doing so. All he had to do was leave it in the room.
Furthermore, AFTER Sheila was shot someone got a little bit of blood on the bottom of a page then closed it. Then it was reopened to the same exact page and after it was reopened is when the stain Caroline claims was a palm print was made. They say it wasn't a palm print but a stain made by sticking the Bible in a pool of her blood. These facts convinced the experts someone closed the Bible causing the mirror image at the bottom then the killer reopened it to the same page and stuck it in the pool of blood.
So in order for your theory to work:
A) Jeremy gave Sheila the Bible intentionally opened to the pages it was opened to before he shot her and she kept it there open
B) After she was shot she shut the Bible
C) She put her wrist to her wound getting blood on her wrist and outer palm which leaked down to her elbow.
D) She also put the inside of her hand to her wound and got her inside palm absolutely covered in blood
E) then she opened the Bible to the same exact page it had been opened to before thus leaving a palm print
F) then he finally shot her a second time killing her
Why would she open it again let alone to the same page?
It makes no sense.
Hartley and I am viewing the evidence in a logical manner. Other people not so much...
-
"He didn't say anything about the stain being from the inside palm of her hand. You are the one inventing things and it is pure nonsense you are inventing."
The PALM is the inside of a hand and he said that the print on her nightdress appeared to have been transferred from her right palm - the palm being the INSIDE of a hand.
If a hand were flat like a sheet of paper then that would be true but it is not flat the hand has an edge running all the way around it. That outer edge is known as the outer palm. The blood transferred from that outer edge and the wrist according to the experts.
You want us to believe Vanesis is so stupid he didn't realize he contradicted himself in his type written report by asserting the inside of her hands were free of blood and yet saying the inside of her hands had blood and she she thus left a palm print on her gown. In order to try to get us to believe he is this stupid you suggest he put in his notes that she had blood inside her hand. Once again A PALM IS the inside of a hand!
Once again the hand is not flat it is 3 dimensional there is an edge around the hand known as the outer palm. That is what is credited with the print.
"Your straining is for nothing. The experts do not agree with you and thus the defense never even tried making this argument. Nor would they be able to try at best dishonest propagandists can try to use this in an informal setting like their website to try false creating more suspicion of wrongdoing claiming Vanezis was asked to distort."
I don't care what these 'experts' (that you can't name) think - if we all agreed with the experts, there would be no debate.
There is not much of a debate when the other side has no evidence. Deciding to ignore the experts without solid basis to do so doesn't create a good debate.
At the end of the day you are just engaging in the same crap you accuse reader and others of engaging in when you debate against them. No, that's what you're doing and you can always tell when your argument is weak or that you are getting rattled because you get personal - take a breather and clam down dear!! ;)
My position is the one supported by the evidence so is hardly weak.
-
If a hand were flat like a sheet of paper then that would be true but it is not flat the hand has an edge running all the way around it. That outer edge is known as the outer palm. The blood transferred from that outer edge and the wrist according to the experts. According to one experts notes (the one who FIRST viewed the body of SC) the blood transferred from her right palm - nothing about 'outer or inner' JUST palm.
Once again the hand is not flat it is 3 dimensional there is an edge around the hand known as the outer palm. That is what is credited with the print. No one is saying that except you - Venezis said palm and never mentioned the word OUTER. I have looked at some anatomy sites and books - they don't mention such a palm distinction either.
There is not much of a debate when the other side has no evidence. Deciding to ignore the experts without solid basis to do so doesn't create a good debate. There goes those 'experts' again
My position is the one supported by the evidence so is hardly weak. It's mainstream - so what? Some experts don't appear to know their wrist from their palm or their ar ........ you get the idea on that
-
According to one experts notes (the one who FIRST viewed the body of SC) the blood transferred from her right palm - nothing about 'outer or inner' JUST palm.
Those notes don't specify outside palm or inside palm. He didn't specify because he understood what he meant. He described what he meant in his autopsy report- no blood inside her hand just her wrist outer palm areas.
His claims are supported by the other witnesses who saw her hands and photos of her hands.
No matter how much you try to deny this is what he meant and that he was wrong to say the inside of her hands were clean of blood you have zero evidentiary support you simply decided you will pretend his report is contradictory in saying her hands were free of blood.
I don't waste my time trying to pretend people said something I know they did not. If I actually try raising the argument in a formal setting the person will be asked to clarify and will say what I knew he meant all along and thus twisting is a wasted effort.
Sheila didn't get shot, get blood on it, close it, then reopen it to the same exact page and get a handprint on it after reopening it prior to the second shot. This is what you are effectively arguing happened.
In all likelihood Jeremy opened it to the Psalms thinking it sounded like good stuff for them to think she was contemplating death, got a little blood on it from his gloves which would have had some spots of blood but not been completely covered in blood, it closed on him as he was trying to plant it near her so he had to reopen the page then after that he stuck it in the pool of blood. The primary significance of the mirror image is that it demonstrates it was closed and that mirror image created BEFORE the stains at the top were created. Someone opened it, closed it then reopened it to the same exact page and after it was reopened to the same exact page that is when the stains at the top were created. Blood was on the rug under those top stains. What is more likely that the blood under those stains created the stains or that after Sheila was shot she closed the Bible then reopened the Bible to the same exact page before Jeremy fired the second shot and the fingerprint expert failed to figure out the stain was a palm print though you decided you could tell from a distant photo?
You ignore a great number of things all to arrive at what you pre-decided you want to believe.
-
Those notes don't specify outside palm or inside palm. He didn't specify because he understood what he meant. He described what he meant in his autopsy report- no blood inside her hand just her wrist outer palm areas. Exactly, they just say Palm - not write or outside/inside/upper/lower - JUST palm.
His claims are supported by the other witnesses who saw her hands and photos of her hands.
No matter how much you try to deny this is what he meant and that he was wrong to say the inside of her hands were clean of blood you have zero evidentiary support - other than his OWN words? you simply decided you will pretend his report is contradictory in saying her hands were free of blood. I'm not pretending - one states no blood the other says 'apart' from. Their his words, not mine, I'm not adding words like 'outer' or 'inner'
I don't waste my time trying to pretend people said something I know they did not. If I actually try raising the argument in a formal setting the person will be asked to clarify and will say what I knew he meant all along and thus twisting is a wasted effort. Which is what I am doing
Sheila didn't get shot, get blood on it, close it, then reopen it to the same exact page and get a handprint on it after reopening it prior to the second shot. This is what you are effectively arguing happened. Actually, I have never said that at all
In all likelihood Jeremy opened it to the Psalms thinking it sounded like good stuff for them to think she was contemplating death, got a little blood on it from his gloves which would have had some spots of blood but not been completely covered in blood, it closed on him as he was trying to plant it near her so he had to reopen the page then after that he stuck it in the pool of blood. The primary significance of the mirror image is that it demonstrates it was closed and that mirror image created BEFORE the stains at the top were created. Someone opened it, closed it then reopened it to the same exact page and after it was reopened to the same exact page that is when the stains at the top were created. Blood was on the rug under those top stains. What is more likely that the blood under those stains created the stains or that after Sheila was shot she closed the Bible then reopened the Bible to the same exact page before Jeremy fired the second shot and the fingerprint expert failed to figure out the stain was a palm print though you decided you could tell from a distant photo? I didn't say anything about her being shot first.
You ignore a great number of things all to arrive at what you pre-decided you want to believe. Whatever I want to believe is my prerogative BUT, Venezis's notes still indicate that her hand(s) and right palm were not free from blood, that the night dress stain came from her palm but later wrote wrist. You can pretend their isn't a discrepancy - and that's your prerogative.
We won't ever agree on this because it's not your clarification that's required - it's Venezis's.
-
Sorry to intrude but am sure that 'outer edge' of the hand is called the 'side' of the hand? The palm is the flat of the hand :-\ ??
Have never heard the expression 'outer palm' before and I've been around a bit :)
-
Why do all these " experts " have differing views ?
-
Sorry to intrude but am sure that 'outer edge' of the hand is called the 'side' of the hand? The palm is the flat of the hand :-\ ??
Have never heard the expression 'outer palm' before and I've been around a bit :)
Neither have I but as a doctor, you would imagine that accuracy and not ambiguity would be paramount. Have you ever heard anyone (never mind a doctor) mistake a palm for a wrist or vice versa? ::)
-
I imagine that if you went to see that doctor because of a boil on your arris,he'd tell you to keep an eye on it. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Was that muck or a bruise in the area of Sheila's thumb and forefinger of her right hand ? Which also shows the 6 striated lines of blood on her arm. Sheila would momentarily have stood up after the first injury which resulted in the darker blobs of blood dripping to form the " stripes " which ran across that arm.
-
I imagine that if you went to see that doctor because of a boil on your arris,he'd tell you to keep an eye on it. ;D ;D ;D ;D
There is just blood Lookout.
-
Wow,you wouldn't believe that two self-same pics would differ so much. It doesn't even show RM seeing as she'd been dead for hours. In fact,considering it's a hand of a dead person,it's a better colour than mine at this moment. Quite pink and normal !
-
Now find the same pic in a different format and see the VAST difference.
-
Wow,you wouldn't believe that two self-same pics would differ so much. It doesn't even show RM seeing as she'd been dead for hours. In fact,considering it's a hand of a dead person,it's a better colour than mine at this moment. Quite pink and normal !
Ha, ha!! Nice try Lookout! ::)
-
Ha, ha!! Nice try Lookout! ::)
I'm sorry,but there's a thread which gives a different pic" mark from trigger guard found on Sheila Caffell's right hand " .Now you study them both.They don't even look like the same hands.
-
There is just blood Lookout.
So underneath are what you think are prints from her fingers?
On her night dress?
-
In the other pick,her thumb touches her forefinger,in the " enhanced " one--------it doesn't,so two different shots.
-
So underneath are what you think are prints from her fingers?
On her night dress?
Looks like fingers to me,
-
Looks like fingers to me,
No.Surely not. ;)
-
We won't ever agree on this because it's not your clarification that's required - it's Venezis's.
You are the one who has to try to get him to CHANGE his claims and clarify he was wrong in his report in writing the inside of her hands were free of blood. You are the one trying to say he wrote 2 contradictory things in his written report but failed to realize i.
Your theory is little better than Mike deciding to interpret Davidson's COLP statement as saying he labeled the moderator SJ/1 though the import of his words make it obvious he was saying he wrote SBJ/1 on the label and HOLAB documents.
You are the one who wants to change things so you bear the burden of proving the changes are warranted. Anyone who possesses reasonable intelligence and logic understands that Vanezis was drawing a distinction between the blood that ringed the sides and outside of the hand from the inside by noting they were free of blood and that the wrist transferred the blood to her gown. You don't want to understand his words because they refute your claims.
For the same reason you totally ignore the statements of all the other witnesses who saw the inside of her hands who say they were clean of blood; all those who saw the photo of the insides of her hands showing her hands to be clean of blood; the evidence that blood was underneath the top of the Bible and thus a portion of the top of the left and right hand pages were sitting in that blood and both happened to have blood exactly where the pages were touching the ground that was covered in such blood; the experts who fingerprinted the Bible decided it was not a palm print they decided the only prints on the Bible were not in the blood and they saw it up close and it was their job to do it; and finally you the practical reasons why the whole suggestion is not credible:
It is not credible that Sheila was holding the Bible as she was shot, then moved her wrist to her wound, then closed the bible, then moved the inside of her hand to her wound getting the entire inside of her hand covered in blood, reopened it to the same exact page to read it again as Jeremy was busy jamming the rifle into her chin to match up his second shot so this time it would go into her brain.
Such is no more credible than Reader's wild tales about the phone call. Sheila didn't get shot, covered in blood then reopen the Bible and grab the top of the right hand side with her hand to stop from dropping it (you would not grab the top to try to read it you hold the side or bottom).
Nothing at all is in your favor. You have to go against a great deal of evidence but have nothing at all to do it with beyond speculation upon speculation.
If Vanezis told COLP that the insides of her hands did have blood then the defense and Jeremy supporters would have shouted it from the rooftops. He said nothing useful for their propaganda thus nothing he said to COLP has been released. Mike said he would produce notes taken from Vanezis' COLP interview but all he ended up posting was the handwritten draft of Vanezis' 1986 report for into the mistakes and his recommendations for the future.
-
You are the one who has to try to get him to CHANGE his claims and clarify he was wrong in his report in writing the inside of her hands were free of blood. You are the one trying to say he wrote 2 contradictory things in his written report but failed to realize i.
Your theory is little better than Mike deciding to interpret Davidson's COLP statement as saying he labeled the moderator SJ/1 though the import of his words make it obvious he was saying he wrote SBJ/1 on the label and HOLAB documents.
You are the one who wants to change things so you bear the burden of proving the changes are warranted. Anyone who possesses reasonable intelligence and logic understands that Vanezis was drawing a distinction between the blood that ringed the sides and outside of the hand from the inside by noting they were free of blood and that the wrist transferred the blood to her gown. You don't want to understand his words because they refute your claims.
For the same reason you totally ignore the statements of all the other witnesses who saw the inside of her hands who say they were clean of blood; all those who saw the photo of the insides of her hands showing her hands to be clean of blood; the evidence that blood was underneath the top of the Bible and thus a portion of the top of the left and right hand pages were sitting in that blood and both happened to have blood exactly where the pages were touching the ground that was covered in such blood; the experts who fingerprinted the Bible decided it was not a palm print they decided the only prints on the Bible were not in the blood and they saw it up close and it was their job to do it; and finally you the practical reasons why the whole suggestion is not credible:
It is not credible that Sheila was holding the Bible as she was shot, then moved her wrist to her wound, then closed the bible, then moved the inside of her hand to her wound getting the entire inside of her hand covered in blood, reopened it to the same exact page to read it again as Jeremy was busy jamming the rifle into her chin to match up his second shot so this time it would go into her brain.
Such is no more credible than Reader's wild tales about the phone call. Sheila didn't get shot, covered in blood then reopen the Bible and grab the top of the right hand side with her hand to stop from dropping it (you would not grab the top to try to read it you hold the side or bottom).
Nothing at all is in your favor. You have to go against a great deal of evidence but have nothing at all to do it with beyond speculation upon speculation.
If Vanezis told COLP that the insides of her hands did have blood then the defense and Jeremy supporters would have shouted it from the rooftops. He said nothing useful for their propaganda thus nothing he said to COLP has been released. Mike said he would produce notes taken from Vanezis' COLP interview but all he ended up posting was the handwritten draft of Vanezis' 1986 report for into the mistakes and his recommendations for the future.
Not everyone has seen his written notes! YOU HADN'T until a few days go. I don't HAVE to do anything - but I also don't have to pretend that there is an official reference to 'inner and outer' palm. A palm, is a palm is a palm. Venezis is a doctor and KNOWS the importance of using the CORRECT terminology and WRIST does NOT equate to PALM in anyway, shape or form.
Why are you likening me to other posters? ;D ;D ;D ;D. I don't get wound up or bothered by you so these little digs are like water off a ducks back - OH! And that's 'BACK' - please don't get it confused with any other part of the ducks anatomy ;D ;D ;D ;D
We are NOT going to agree - simple!
-
Not everyone has seen his written notes! YOU HADN'T until a few days go. I don't HAVE to do anything - but I also don't have to pretend that there is an official reference to 'inner and outer' palm. A palm, is a palm is a palm. Venezis is a doctor and KNOWS the importance of using the CORRECT terminology and WRIST does NOT equate to PALM in anyway, shape or form.
Why are you likening me to other posters? ;D ;D ;D ;D. I don't get wound up or bothered by you so these little digs are like water off a ducks back - OH! And that's 'BACK' - please don't get it confused with any other part of the ducks anatomy ;D ;D ;D ;D
We are NOT going to agree - simple!
His handwritten notes do not state what you claim. All he said was her right hand caused the stain he didn't specify which portion of her hand. He said the same thing in his autopsy report except that he specified which portion of the hand did it and also specified no blood was on the inside of her hand.
If that were all we had to go on it would be ambiguous where the blood was but it is not all we have to go on. We have an autopsy report where he offered clarification. That clarification is that blood was around the outside edge of the hands and the inside of her hands were free of blood.
You want to ignore this and pretend that we need to question him further to see whether he wrote by accident that the inside of her hands were free of blood. Go ahead and try to find out what he elaborated to COLP on the issue or try writing to him no doubt if he bothers to answer he would simply confirm he meant the inside of her hands were free of blood and outside edges had blood as photos prove, and as other witnessed state.
You haven't even tried addressing the issue of why Jeremy would want her to have the bible in her hands as he shot her (which would hurt his narrative because she was supposed to have a gun in her hands) or why Sheila would close the Bible after being shot then reopen it to the same exact page as Jeremy was readying to deliver the fatal shot and after reopening it would put her hand across the top. Your theory is not well thought out.
-
I still think the dog licked the blood off her hands ;D prove me wrong skippy ;D
-
Sheila may also have been stroking the dog before she died thus wiping off any gsr onto the dog's fur,as well as blood,but I bet nobody examined the dog.
-
I was joking but just wanted him to post - he loves proving black is white.
-
Nothing's impossible.