The COA says they are burns.
The CoA are not experts in burns.
The COA will be repeating evidence presented at trial.
The CoA are not experts. There was no conclusive evidence at trial the marks were burns.
Experts in 1985 would be able to tell the difference between burn marks & bruises or abrasions.
The only experts at trial qualified to offer up opinion in this area were Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight. The former was unsure and the latter was adamant they were not burns.
Bamber's legal team & hired experts believed they were burn marks in 2012. It was the basis of the CCRC application.
The only expert qualified to give opinion in this area, Dr Caruso, said further testing was required ie his opinion was inconclusive.
Phillip Boyce is currently saying they are burn marks. Caused by Nevill falling sideways onto the aga.
Philip Boyce is a ballistics expert and not qualified to give opinion.
Your counter source is an expert saying they are from 'recent prodding'. But you did not say what cold object could inflict such marks from 'prodding'.
Probably because he doesn't know. Much the same way Dr Vanezis was only able to confirm Nevill's non gunshot wounds were caused by a "blunt instrument".
You have suggested they were old war wounds. But have not suggested what wounds would still be visible 40 years later.
I simply put it forward as a possibility.
Both supporters & guilters agree they are burn marks.
So what? I don't think they were burns and neither did the pathologist for the defence.
Nevill was in the ideal position to inflict the burn marks.
So were the other victims.
There was an available aga.
So what? Yes the Aga is capable of generating heat so was a kettle of boiling water and a lit match.
Bamber had time to inflict the burn marks. Sheila less so.
So what? Doesn't mean Bamber/Sheila inlicted burn marks on Nevill.
Experts say the marks match marks which would come from a rifle nozzle. There were several rifles at WHF.
These so-called experts and not qualified in this area.
