Snows JB scenario

[Adam]

Aga's are usually always on. They take an age to heat up from cold.

How long does it take to heat up a rifle using an aga? Just because it's possible it doesn't mean that is what happened. You still have to have convincing evidence it was the end of the rifle and I'm not convinced.

Furthermore, if we accept Boyce's evidence, all it means is the silencer is off the rifle making the burns, not who is holding the rifle.

It's a start!

[Adam]

Aga's are usually always on. They take an age to heat up from cold.

How long does it take to heat up a rifle using an aga? Just because it's possible it doesn't mean that is what happened. You still have to have convincing evidence it was the end of the rifle and I'm not convinced.

Furthermore, if we accept Boyce's evidence, all it means is the silencer is off the rifle making the burns, not who is holding the rifle.

Agree. 

Suspect that is why the CCRC submission was dismissed.

[killingeve]

The prosecution has never attempted to use the burns against Bamber.  Probably because the pathologists could not conclude what they were or when they occurred.

[Adam]

The prosecution has never attempted to use the burns against Bamber.  Probably because the pathologists could not conclude what they were or when they occurred.

Bamber tried to use it in 2012. Claiming Nevill's burn marks were caused minus/after the silencer had been taken off.

Interesting.

[Armchair Detective]

The prosecution has never attempted to use the burns against Bamber.  Probably because the pathologists could not conclude what they were or when they occurred.

Agree. 

Suspect that is why the CCRC submission was dismissed.

If we accept Boyce's evidence then there can be little doubt the burns were caused that night but really, I don't understand why this was done, what a waste of bacon!

The most you could say is that maybe JB would be less likely to spend time heating up the rifle than Sheila because he has a long way to get home and compose himself but otherwise, it's useless isn't it? Or am I missing something?

Wouldn't it have been faster to boil the kettle?

[Adam]

If we accept Boyce's evidence then there can be little doubt the burns were caused that night but really, I don't understand why this was done, what a waste of bacon!

The most you could say is that maybe JB would be less likely to spend time heating up the rifle than Sheila because he has a long way to get home and compose himself but otherwise, it's useless isn't it? Or am I missing something?

Wouldn't it have been faster to boil the kettle?

Sheila had time constraints. They were outside WHF 40 minutes after Nevill's call to Bamber.

[lookout]

Nevill's burns are included as new in the submission because it's been established how they came about.

[Armchair Detective]

Sheila had time constraints. They were outside WHF 40 minutes after Nevill's call to Bamber.

That's true but I wonder what the purpose of burning him would be anyway?

Torture? Use a knife or the kettle, or some salt or a candle or a lit cigar

Checking he was alive? Kettle again.

Making sure he was dead? - Reload and take aim.

it's baffling.

[killingeve]

If we accept Boyce's evidence then there can be little doubt the burns were caused that night but really, I don't understand why this was done, what a waste of bacon!

The most you could say is that maybe JB would be less likely to spend time heating up the rifle than Sheila because he has a long way to get home and compose himself but otherwise, it's useless isn't it? Or am I missing something?

Wouldn't it have been faster to boil the kettle?

Why accept Boyce's ballistics evidence when the pathologist who conducted the pm could not be sure what the marks were. 

But why would Bamber or Sheila single out Mr Bamber for this treatment? 

Prof Knight thought they were deep abrasions from prodding.  I think both were uncertain over whether they were recent but I would have to check on this.

I must remember not to upset you!

[killingeve]

Nevill's burns are included as new in the submission because it's been established how they came about.

Yvonne said she had found something new about them but nothing about including them in the submission. 

Not sure how they could be included in the submission when a) the pathologist who undertook the pm wasn't certain what they were and b) they never formed part of the prosecution case against Bamber and c) they didn't form part of the defence against Sheila.

[Armchair Detective]

Why accept Boyce's ballistics evidence when the pathologist who conducted the pm could not be sure what the marks were. 

But why would Bamber or Sheila single out Mr Bamber for this treatment? 

Prof Knight thought they were deep abrasions from prodding.  I think both were uncertain over whether they were recent but I would have to check on this.

I must remember not to upset you!

I don't accept Boyce's evidence based on what I saw on the old MWT show.  As I stated earlier, the marks shall probably remain a mystery.

Don't worry CC, with a profile pic as attractive as yours, I would be putty in your hands. 

[killingeve]

I don't accept Boyce's evidence based on what I saw on the old MWT show.  As I stated earlier, the marks shall probably remain a mystery.

Don't worry CC, with a profile pic as attractive as yours, I would be putty in your hands. 

Well according to Yvonne/CT she claims she has got to the bottom of them.  Remains to be seen. 

[Steve_uk]

Yvonne said she had found something new about them but nothing about including them in the submission. 

Not sure how they could be included in the submission when a) the pathologist who undertook the pm wasn't certain what they were and b) they never formed part of the prosecution case against Bamber and c) they didn't form part of the defence against Sheila.

This site is always the last to know anything new.

[Armchair Detective]

Well according to Yvonne/CT she claims she has got to the bottom of them.  Remains to be seen.

That's the woman that thinks a vague reference to a "999 line" can only mean Sheila called an ambulance.

Wake me up if anything actually happens.

[Armchair Detective]

This site is always the last to know anything new.

Has there really been anything new since 1985?

Most I can think of is Mr Ismail's evidence at the 2002 appeal.