Confirmation for Cambridgecutie that Nevill's back marks are burns.

[killingeve]

If Prof Knight was working for the defence, then he is unlikely to agree they were burns.

He has given his reasons as to why he doesn't believe they are burns.  Nothing to do with working for the defence.  Why would he perjure himself at trial for Bamber? 

[Adam]

He has given his reasons as to why he doesn't believe they are burns.  Nothing to do with working for the defence.  Why would he perjure himself at trial for Bamber?

Well he gave an opinion - prodding.

[Bubo bubo]

Wrong as usual.  If you want to make the sort of claims above you need to upload their trial testimony.

You are obviously more interested in linguistic  gymnastics. I do not need to post their testimony I accept it in full and in any case since when have all posters always posted their source.
I was suggesting reasons why they may have testified as they did, not what they said. Grow up. It was a suggestion only. I cannot, as some do on here, pretend they can read peoples minds.

Given the potential sources for the 'MARKS' it is not surprising they were baffled. I do not expect either had seen burn marks from parts of an AGA before and I doubt there were example pictures in text books and other sources to which they could refer. The markings relate very specifically to that make of AGA

[Adam]

The COA says they are burns.

The COA will be repeating evidence presented at trial.

Experts in 1985 would be able to tell the difference between burn marks & bruises or abrasions.

Bamber's legal team & hired experts believed they were burn marks in 2012. It was the basis of the CCRC application.

Phillip Boyce is currently saying they are burn marks. Caused by Nevill falling sideways onto the aga.

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'.

You have suggested they were old war wounds. But have not suggested what wounds would still be visible 40 years later.

Both supporters & guilters agree they are burn marks.

Nevill was in the ideal position to inflict the burn marks.

There was an available aga.

Bamber had time to inflict the burn marks. Sheila less so.

Experts say the marks match marks which would come from a rifle nozzle. There were several rifles at WHF.

Video from 2012 says they are burns. With a demonstration.

There would be no evidence on the rifle nozzle it had been heated. Thread recently created.

A defence expert agrees the marks are from prodding.

Hopefully Zoso responds to these points - reasons why they are burns. I did forward them onto her yesterday.

Cambridge did eventually respond. Her answers were usually 'so what' or various experts/COA are not qualified enough to say they are burns.

I don't agree with Cambridge that a kettle would heat the rifle sufficiently.

Also do not agree that Bamber would burn June & Sheila's back, of which I created a recent thread.

Certainly do not agree with Cambridge that a 'lit match' would heat the rifle sufficiently!