Were those blood spots ever actually tested and DNA profiled? I understand that Mander claimed they were blood but he never identified the blood group or DNA on the right shoe. Of course the tin foil hat brigade on those blogs will say that the most publicized scenarios of Philip Boyce with his right knee and foot on the chair was but one.Maybe they need to make up their minds on which one they like the most. Another question that puzzles me.Why did Robin have no bruises and other abrasions on his right hand.Ah yes and only a minute fleck of blood on was it his small index finger?
Edited by jeeves-50 at 5:00 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
jeeves-50 (3 ) 4:59 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15176
I thought I'd use the source of the Radio Debate because dirty Ralphie should be able to get at that,. I've already quoted direct from the transcript earlier the age of those pesky injuries Robin got when killing his family, I've done so for those that now publicly publish that Joe Karam lied during the debate as Stockdale and his new girlfriend did today.
On the back of Robin's RIGHT hand was the bruise and abrasion described by Dempster as up to 20mm in diameter. He also said, as did the other Crown pathologist Thompson, that it happened sometime between a few minutes and max 12 hours before Robins death. ie after 6-30pm the previous evening and right up to when he died.
It was also on the RIGHT hand that the defence witness Dental expert and maxillofacial surgeon Dr Adams saw impressions commensurate teeth patterns that would fit a typical young teenage male mouth. Dr Dempster was not prepared to contradict his findings, just as he also stated that all of the suicide poses were feasible.
By the way the marks identified by Adams were apart from the 20mm bruise and abrasion witnessed by Dempster. Superslueth was not asked for his 'expert' opinion because it is obvious that he's a moron.
So as I've said for a long time now, the killer's hands would have been bruised and bloodied - just as Robin's were. I was told very early on by the sisters that Robin had no blood on his hands and no injuries to them, they lie about that to hide the truth.
Anticipating that Ralph will start rubbing himself and Stockdale will squat on his haunches and rock himself to see the evidence in print, I publish it just to help them out. It must be a real basta.. lying all the time and getting caught out, making myths and having them smashed by the truth. There, there fellas.
Injury debate. The injury referred to on the Laws programme was on the back of Robin's right hand, interestingly just a wee bit between the knuckles and the wrist where Dr. Adams believed he could see evidence of tooth marks. It, the injury in question, is shown in a number of photos variously referred to as PMR38, 601/4 and 601/59 at the retrial. Retrial evidence in reference to this photo is as below.
Dr. Dempster
Evidence in Chief page 1603 line 12-15
"an abrasion 20 mm in diameter with a surrounding bruise 20mm in diameter"
Line 20
"I formed the opinion that it was a relatively recent bruise"
XXM page 1699, line 21-25
Q. But thats a fair way of putting it isnt it, even with hystology we probably cant tell whether its within a few minutes or up to 12 hours, we just dont know?
A. Thats correct
Crown witness patholgist Dr Thompson
XXM page 1796
Line 22.
Q. Have you seen photo 59 before?
A. No I havent
then referrred to the same injury he says at line 31- 33
Q. it seems to be quite recent doesnt it?
A. Yes its - its moist and hasnt got a scab on it
Q. Right, indicating?
A. A recent injury the last 6 to 12 hours.
Sorry about the collapse, mentioned at the end, of another great myth, the guttering the sisters have lied about for years. Watch your lies Stockdale, Jeeves and co, be wary of making defamatory statements girls.
No comments:
Post a Comment