Alternative explanation to Nevill's burn marks.

[Adam]

Moles:

No. Experts would confirm.


Bruises:

No. Experts would confirm.


War injuries from decades ago:

No. Experts would confirm. No suggestion of what injury would still be so visible 40 years later.


External scars from a medical procedure:

No. Experts would confirm. No suggestion of what medical procedure.


Bruises from prodding with a cold object:

No. Impossible to do.

----------

Look forward to Cambridge or Zoso giving an alternative explanation. It has been 38 years.

[David1819]

Furthermore, why would Vanezis make such a mistake when he saw them with his own eyes and not just photos? He was even more sure in 2014 citing almost 30 more years of experience at hand, implying he had seen similar scenarios.

[snow66!]

Moles:

No. Experts would confirm.


Bruises:

No. Experts would confirm.


War injuries from decades ago:

No. Experts would confirm. No suggestion of what injury would still be so visible 40 years later.


External scars from a medical procedure:

No. Experts would confirm. No suggestion of what medical procedure.


Bruises from prodding with a cold object:

No. Impossible to do.

----------

Look forward to Cambridge or Zoso giving an alternative explanation. It has been 38 years.

The Aga Adam?

[Adam]

The Aga Adam?

So you agree they are burns.

[snow66!]

So you agree they are burns.

Well if the Aga made them you could only describe them as burns couldn't you?

[Adam]

Well if the Aga made them you could only describe them as burns couldn't you?

Agree.

Have never been aware Zoso does not believe they are burns.

Obviously any poster saying 'I don't believe they were burns but I don't know what they are' is not good enough.

So hope to get lots of alternative suggestions from the 2 posters who disagree with everyone inside & outside of the forum. 

Anyone else can also suggest.

[Adam]

Furthermore, why would Vanezis make such a mistake when he saw them with his own eyes and not just photos? He was even more sure in 2014 citing almost 30 more years of experience at hand, implying he had seen similar scenarios.

Believe Cambridge is saying Vanezis is not a burns expert. Therefore would not know a burn mark if he saw one.

Similar scenarios. People being burned to check for signs of life?

[Adam]

Hopefully will get a response today from the 2 posters - Zoso/Cambridge who do not believe Nevill's burns are......burns.

Obviously credible alternative suggestions are required.

[David1819]

Believe Cambridge is saying Vanezis is not a burns expert. Therefore would not know a burn mark if he saw one.

These are CCs arguments in a nutshell -

"VaNeZis iS a PAtHoLoGist NOt a BuRnz ExPeRT!!!"

"caRuSO is a BuRnz ExPeRT noT A PAtHoLoGist!!"

"caRuSO oNly LOoked at PhOtOs!!!"

"KNiGht LOoked at PhOtOs anD sAid THeY wErE nOt BuRNs!!!"

[Adam]

These are CCs arguments in a nutshell -

"VaNeZis iS a PAtHoLoGist NOt a BuRnz ExPeRT!!!"

"caRuSO is a BuRnz ExPeRT noT A PAtHoLoGist!!"

"caRuSO oNly LOoked at PhOtOs!!!"

"KNiGht LOoked at PhOtOs anD sAid THeY wErE nOt BuRNs!!!"

Did Knight say they were from 'prodding'?

Prodding from a cold object would not leave such visible marks. Or any visible marks.

[Adam]

Seems that Cambridge is saying -

Vanezis saw Nevill's body but was not qualified enough to determine they were burns.

Caruso is a burns expert but only saw photos. Therefore his view does not count.

The other experts - Boyce, Fletcher, Manlove, COA views are all wrong.

Knight saying they are from 'prodding' is not suggesting the item was 'heated'.

Both CAL & Wilkes should not call them burns.

Both guilters & supporters are wrong.

All the other facts that point to them being burns are wrong or 'so what' points.

I have no alternative suggestion but do not believe they are burns.

Wow.