The magic bullets

[killingeve]

Be careful David. MF was a ballistics expert (so called) not a burns expert. He was re-enforcing the EP line to make JB look cruel

Where in MF's trial testimony does he refer to the marks on Nevill's back? 

Do you not understand that what's important is what was adjudicated on at trial. 

[killingeve]

Give us the facts about what happened then.

What did your last slave die of?

[killingeve]

So you are saying that it's not possible to later challenge through the courts a pathologists findings.. because 'the pathologist was working from the body and not just from photographs'. 

I think you are making this up as you go along.  Your adherence to original experts' findings is like some blind-spot adoration.

Why do you think when Rivlin QC examined Prof Knight the first thing he did was confirm with Prof Knight that he did not have the benefit of seeing the bodies and was working from photos only?

Had anyone thought the case was contentious at the time the defence may well have instructed a pathologist to reexamine the bodies but was too late as by the time it turned the bodies had been cremanted.

I am simply going along with how the courts will view all of this now.

[Bubo bubo]

What did your last slave die of?

Off topic and as you said to me.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10881.msg502359.html#msg502359

[Roch]

Why do you think when Rivlin QC examined Prof Knight the first thing he did was confirm with Prof Knight that he did not have the benefit of seeing the bodies and was working from photos only?

Had anyone thought the case was contentious at the time the defence may well have instructed a pathologist to reexamine the bodies but was too late as by the time it turned the bodies had been cremanted.

I am simply going along with how the courts will view all of this now.

I understand your point.

[Bubo bubo]

What did your last slave die of?

My slave is alive and well. I was right when I said that JB's blood expert had to concede after the flake was brought into play.
I set out his first and second reports. the first 28/05/86. The second 19/09/86 follows if you scroll down one page.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4779.msg200905.html#msg200905

So after his first report when no mention of flake evidence is presented to him he is presented with new evidence about 4 months later and says.

"explanations set out in my previous letters cannot be entertained"

The flake sealed the deal.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10160.msg492392.html#msg492392
l