The magic bullets

[David1819]

PV declared them burns at autopsy because he did not think at that time that the EP would frame JB. He had to be careful in what he said.

Dr Caruso also said they were burns.

[David1819]

I am not engaging in any more of your silly games. I'm putting you on the naughty step with Adam.

This is CCs long lost brother.. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOHn_MQcAWo

[killingeve]

This is CCs long lost brother.. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOHn_MQcAWo

Nothing compares to your theory that AE wrung out Sheila's menstrual stained knickers into the silencer.  Oh and lets not forget your daily drubbing by gringo 

[killingeve]

Dr Caruso also said they were burns.

Firstly Dr Caruso was working off images.  Secondly he was not cross-examined.  Thirdly he concluded he needed to undertake further work to form a conclusive opinion.

[David1819]

CAL interviewed Vanezis in 2014 -

"I’ve thought about this a lot, with the benefit of another twenty-eight years’ experience. If you put something hot against fairly thick clothing, you’re more likely to burn the skin than the clothing because of the properties of the skin. If you pushed a rifle against someone’s back, that would fit in very nicely with the gun having already been fired and the muzzle still being hot when touching the back.’ He discounts the poker: ‘No, I think it’s the gun pressed against his skin."

Bernard Knight in his examination - "I think that they are deep abrasions from prodding, but I must admit that it is not a very firm opinion"

Dr Caruso - . "In my professional opinion, the three wounds sustained by Mr. Ralph Bamber (located in the midline of the back with the most superior wound at the base of the neck line), are consistent in size, shape and diameter with a threaded end of a Model 525 Anschutz Rifle barrel heated sufficiently to cause burn injury."

To argue on the contrary you have to state - "Well, they just so happen to be the same shape and size of the murder weapons barrel and it just so happens the victim was found next to an oven that was turned on to heat the barrel up. The wounds can be replicated by pressing the headed murder weapon onto pig skin, but that's just another coincidence on top of all the rest. And I have no valid alternative explanation for what they are."

[killingeve]

CAL interviewed Vanezis in 2014 -

"I’ve thought about this a lot, with the benefit of another twenty-eight years’ experience. If you put something hot against fairly thick clothing, you’re more likely to burn the skin than the clothing because of the properties of the skin. If you pushed a rifle against someone’s back, that would fit in very nicely with the gun having already been fired and the muzzle still being hot when touching the back.’ He discounts the poker: ‘No, I think it’s the gun pressed against his skin."

Bernard Knight in his examination - "I think that they are deep abrasions from prodding, but I must admit that it is not a very firm opinion"

Dr Caruso - . "In my professional opinion, the three wounds sustained by Mr. Ralph Bamber (located in the midline of the back with the most superior wound at the base of the neck line), are consistent in size, shape and diameter with a threaded end of a Model 525 Anschutz Rifle barrel heated sufficiently to cause burn injury."

To argue on the contrary you have to state - "Well, they just so happen to be the same shape and size of the murder weapons barrel and it just so happens the victim was found next to an oven that was turned on to heat the barrel up. The wounds can be replicated by pressing the headed murder weapon onto pig skin, but that's just another coincidence on top of all the rest. And I have no valid alternative explanation for what they are."

You just cherry pick whatever fits with your crazy theories.

A book author interviewing an expert a quarter of a century later isn't the same as a lawyer cross examining at trial surely even you can see this?!

Dr Vanezis at trial cross examined by Rivlin QC:

"In your own mind there is an element of mystery about them?" Dr Vanezis: "Yes".

Prof Knight at trial:

"I am not sure what they are but they are not burns".

This is Bamber's own defence counsel!  Why do those who claim to support Bamber want to go against the defence case?!

Judicial review's decision over CCRC's rejection of Dr Caruso's evidence:

22. The commission dealt with this issue at paragraphs 356 to 359.  In very brief summary and it is important for anyone looking again at this matter to look at these paragraphs in full, the commission concluded that there was insufficient to show that a hot rifle could have caused these marks.  His report went no further than saying it was consistent with a heated barrel, but it did not address other mechanisms.  The Commission considered that it was unlikely that the barrel could have heated sufficiently to cause the marks.  The report of Dr Caruso did not deal with the evidence at trial.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f1fd2c94e0775e7ef811

Note the judicial review judges correctly describe the marks as marks and not burns.

[Bubo bubo]

You just cherry pick whatever fits with your crazy theories.

A book author interviewing an expert a quarter of a century later isn't the same as a lawyer cross examining at trial surely even you can see this?!

Dr Vanezis at trial cross examined by Rivlin QC:

"In your own mind there is an element of mystery about them?" Dr Vanezis: "Yes".

Prof Knight at trial:

"I am not sure what they are but they are not burns".

This is Bamber's own defence counsel!  Why do those who claim to support Bamber want to go against the defence case?!

Judicial review's decision over CCRC's rejection of Dr Caruso's evidence:

22. The commission dealt with this issue at paragraphs 356 to 359.  In very brief summary and it is important for anyone looking again at this matter to look at these paragraphs in full, the commission concluded that there was insufficient to show that a hot rifle could have caused these marks.  His report went no further than saying it was consistent with a heated barrel, but it did not address other mechanisms.  The Commission considered that it was unlikely that the barrel could have heated sufficiently to cause the marks.  The report of Dr Caruso did not deal with the evidence at trial.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f1fd2c94e0775e7ef811

Note the judicial review judges correctly describe the marks as marks and not burns.

Try not to highlight only those words which support your position

[Roch]

This is Bamber's own defence counsel!  Why do those who claim to support Bamber want to go against the defence case?!

Probably because what matters is discovering what really happened.  Accuracy. True events.

[killingeve]

Try not to highlight only those words which support your position

Other mechanisms was referring to the silencer!  The defence was attempting to show the marks on Nevill's back were caused by the barrel of the rifle and not the silencer.  Dr Caruso referred to the barrel of the rifle but did not say why he excluded the silencer.

[killingeve]

Probably because what matters is discovering what really happened.  Accuracy. True events.

Yes I agree.

[David1819]

Probably because what matters is discovering what really happened.  Accuracy. True events.

Hopefully she will give us some insights into her industrial frame lab planting blood in the silencer theory. I'm sure she now has a factual coherent theory that will be accepted by the CCRC. She's only been working on it for 10 years now. I'm sure it will be worth the wait. 🙄

[killingeve]

Hopefully she will give us some insights into her industrial frame lab planting blood in the silencer theory. I'm sure she now has a factual coherent theory that will be accepted by the CCRC. She's only been working on it for 10 years now. I'm sure it will be worth the wait. 🙄

Since you are so fond of retrieving posts perhaps you would like to retrieve one that refers to the above? 

[Bubo bubo]

Other mechanisms was referring to the silencer!  The defence was attempting to show the marks on Nevill's back were caused by the barrel of the rifle and not the silencer.  Dr Caruso referred to the barrel of the rifle but did not say why he excluded the silencer.

You cannot claim that other mechanisms only applied to the silencer. Other in this context could mean the silencer but it could also mean anything else.

[Bubo bubo]

Hopefully she will give us some insights into her industrial frame lab planting blood in the silencer theory. I'm sure she now has a factual coherent theory that will be accepted by the CCRC. She's only been working on it for 10 years now. I'm sure it will be worth the wait. 🙄

I would like to see it too. I share her view that the lab manipulated the blood in the silencer evidence (see my posts). Even without using the blood samples at the lab MF had access to SC's blood when he received PV20 from Taylor. It had blood in the receptacle  I also do not understand how RWC could dismantle the silencer before sending it to the lab and not find the 'flake'.

[David1819]

You cannot claim that other mechanisms only applied to the silencer. Other in this context could mean the silencer but it could also mean anything else.

The silencer was 2.5cm in diameter where as the barrel was only 1cm. Its also worth mentioning that Malcom Fletcher believed they were burns caused by the barrel also, its written in his notes. Something that was never disclosed to the defence at trial.

Just for the record I have seen the CCRCs reasons against Caruso and I am not convinced by their counter arguments at all. It has not changed my view.