Why The CCRC Will Refute/Reject Recent Claims About Marks On Nevill's Back

[killingeve]

Firstly there was no expert evidence at trial that the marks were conclusively burns. 

The defence pathologist, Prof Knight, was adamant the marks were not burns.

The HO pathologist, Dr Vanezis, agreed under cross examination there was an element of "mystery" about them ie he was unable to conclude whether or not they were burns.

Had Bamber have been under suspicion before the adult victims were cremated Dr Vanezis may well have investigated further.

Since there was no expert evidence at trial that the marks were burns neither the defence or prosecution used it as part of the case against Bamber/Sheila.

We are now expected to believe that Nevill at some stage came into contact with the Aga and it was this that caused the marks.  The expert evidence from Dr Vanezis at trial confirmed that the victims' state was consistent with the positions they were found in.

Around a quarter of century post trial Dr Caruso was instructed to investigate the marks.  He was told the marks were burns, when in fact there's no definitive expert evidence for this assertion, and in any event he too was unable to produce any defnitive conclusion. 

To conclude the CCRC will refute and reject for the following reasons:

There's no definite expert evidence as to exactly what the marks on Nevill's back were, how they were caused and when.

The expert evidence at trial was that the state of all victims was consistent with the position they died in.  Neither the prosecution or defence sought to challenge this. 

The proseuction case has never asserted Bamber moved Nevill and/or burned his back.  (The fact Adam makes repeated posts about this doesn't make it so).

[Roch]

Firstly there was no expert evidence at trial that the marks were conclusively burns. 

The defence pathologist, Prof Knight, was adamant the marks were not burns.

The HO pathologist, Dr Vanezis, agreed under cross examination there was an element of "mystery" about them ie he was unable to conclude whether or not they were burns.

Had Bamber have been under suspicion before the adult victims were cremated Dr Vanezis may well have investigated further.

Since there was no expert evidence at trial that the marks were burns neither the defence or prosecution used it as part of the case against Bamber/Sheila.

We are now expected to believe that Nevill at some stage came into contact with the Aga and it was this that caused the marks.  The expert evidence from Dr Vanezis at trial confirmed that the victims' state was consistent with the positions they were found in.

Around a quarter of century post trial Dr Caruso was instructed to investigate the marks.  He was told the marks were burns, when in fact there's no definitive expert evidence for this assertion, and in any event he too was unable to produce any defnitive conclusion. 

To conclude the CCRC will refute and reject for the following reasons:

There's no definite expert evidence as to exactly what the marks on Nevill's back were, how they were caused and when.

The expert evidence at trial was that the state of all victims was consistent with the position they died in.  Neither the prosecution or defence sought to challenge this. 

The proseuction case has never asserted Bamber moved Nevill and/or burned his back.  (The fact Adam makes repeated posts about this doesn't make it so).

Nobody at trial actually knew exactly what happened. They only had a year to try and work it out, arguably in a biased way, to suit adversarial legal system

The case is now 38 years old. So there's been a further 37 years on top of the 1st year to try and piece together what happened. If the justice system is weighted so that it can't move on from what was done or thought 38 years ago, that's hardly the fault of Boyce or others who have helped to try and understand what really took place.

As for Vanezis', I think he's finished. He will know that he's finished. But I have no doubt he will be protected. He will not be sacrificed.

As for Jeremy Bamber, I've already expressed on numerous occasions, he will leave prison in a box.

[Rob_]

Firstly there was no expert evidence at trial that the marks were conclusively burns. 

The defence pathologist, Prof Knight, was adamant the marks were not burns.

The HO pathologist, Dr Vanezis, agreed under cross examination there was an element of "mystery" about them ie he was unable to conclude whether or not they were burns.

Had Bamber have been under suspicion before the adult victims were cremated Dr Vanezis may well have investigated further.

Since there was no expert evidence at trial that the marks were burns neither the defence or prosecution used it as part of the case against Bamber/Sheila.

We are now expected to believe that Nevill at some stage came into contact with the Aga and it was this that caused the marks.  The expert evidence from Dr Vanezis at trial confirmed that the victims' state was consistent with the positions they were found in.

Around a quarter of century post trial Dr Caruso was instructed to investigate the marks.  He was told the marks were burns, when in fact there's no definitive expert evidence for this assertion, and in any event he too was unable to produce any defnitive conclusion. 

To conclude the CCRC will refute and reject for the following reasons:

There's no definite expert evidence as to exactly what the marks on Nevill's back were, how they were caused and when.

The expert evidence at trial was that the state of all victims was consistent with the position they died in.  Neither the prosecution or defence sought to challenge this. 

The proseuction case has never asserted Bamber moved Nevill and/or burned his back.  (The fact Adam makes repeated posts about this doesn't make it so).

Lividity takes about 6 to 8 hours to become fixed as I am sure you know Cc, the victims died around 2.00 and the police entered at 7.30 so the victims could have been moved and lividity reestablished.

[Bubo bubo]

Lividity takes about 6 to 8 hours to become fixed as I am sure you know Cc, the victims died around 2.00 and the police entered at 7.30 so the victims could have been moved and lividity reestablished.

Absolutely agree. It should be remembered  that the moving of NB is not the only ground in the submission. I thought they started with 8 and recently added a further 2. What are the other 9. The photos question? The bible? The moving of NB is easy to put before the general public because it lends itself to photos and videos. Some of the other grounds may rely on written documentation which is not easy to get across. I am sure they have some other good points but we will have to wait and see unless they give more info in a podcast.

[Hardy Boy]

As for Vanezis', I think he's finished. He will know that he's finished. But I have no doubt he will be protected. He will not be sacrificed.

Thats a Bold Statement Roch?  What do you mean he's finished, whats he been accused of by the Authorities?  As far as i'm aware,  he hasn't finished?  What do you mean, "He will know that he's finished"

https://newa.expert/expert-members/prof-peter-vanezis-obe/

[Hardy Boy]

Lividity takes about 6 to 8 hours to become fixed as I am sure you know Cc, the victims died around 2.00 and the police entered at 7.30 so the victims could have been moved and lividity reestablished.

This would then show "Dual lividity Especially 5 hours after death, Vanezis would have been told the position Neville was found in by the police.

"Dual lividity could occur if the body was kept in one position two hours after death and then moved to a second position before the lividity became permanent. This is not uncommon if a murder victim is killed in one place and then transported somewhere else."

[ILB]

Hi cutie

[BarefootDanC]

Firstly there was no expert evidence at trial that the marks were conclusively burns. 

The defence pathologist, Prof Knight, was adamant the marks were not burns.

The HO pathologist, Dr Vanezis, agreed under cross examination there was an element of "mystery" about them ie he was unable to conclude whether or not they were burns.

Had Bamber have been under suspicion before the adult victims were cremated Dr Vanezis may well have investigated further.

Since there was no expert evidence at trial that the marks were burns neither the defence or prosecution used it as part of the case against Bamber/Sheila.

We are now expected to believe that Nevill at some stage came into contact with the Aga and it was this that caused the marks.  The expert evidence from Dr Vanezis at trial confirmed that the victims' state was consistent with the positions they were found in.

Around a quarter of century post trial Dr Caruso was instructed to investigate the marks.  He was told the marks were burns, when in fact there's no definitive expert evidence for this assertion, and in any event he too was unable to produce any defnitive conclusion. 

To conclude the CCRC will refute and reject for the following reasons:

There's no definite expert evidence as to exactly what the marks on Nevill's back were, how they were caused and when.

The expert evidence at trial was that the state of all victims was consistent with the position they died in.  Neither the prosecution or defence sought to challenge this. 

The proseuction case has never asserted Bamber moved Nevill and/or burned his back.  (The fact Adam makes repeated posts about this doesn't make it so).

I doubt very much for three reasons.

Firstly, how did Nevill get those marks from the Aga and then end up over the stool?

Secondly, it doesn't undermine the prosecution argument. Even if it does undermine one minor background fact which was never stated as conclusive, it doesn't affect the core prosecution case (blood in the silencer, other forsensic evidence that it wasn't Sheila, etc).

Thirdly, if this experiment could have been performed in 1986 then it is inadmissable as evidence at an appeal.

[Adam]

I doubt very much for three reasons.

Firstly, how did Nevill get those marks from the Aga and then end up over the stool?

Secondly, it doesn't undermine the prosecution argument. Even if it does undermine one minor background fact which was never stated as conclusive, it doesn't affect the core prosecution case (blood in the silencer, other forsensic evidence that it wasn't Sheila, etc).

Thirdly, if this experiment could have been performed in 1986 then it is inadmissable as evidence at an appeal.

Why do you think Bamber burnt Nevill's back?

A lot of current and former posters believe it was to check for signs of life. Either instead of or together with a pulse check.

[BarefootDanC]

Why do you think Bamber burnt Nevill's back?

A lot of current and former posters believe it was to check for signs of life. Either instead of or together with a pulse check.

Who knows. He didn't burn any other other victims (although they were upstairs). I would have thought if he was unsure whether Nevill was dead, he would just shoot him another time.

[Adam]

Who knows. He didn't burn any other other victims (although they were upstairs). I would have thought if he was unsure whether Nevill was dead, he would just shoot him another time.

Times when the check could have been made -

After the first 4 shots.

During shots 5-8.

After the 8 shots.

----------

These times would be appropriate to seek confirmation of Nevill's status.

[Zoso]

Lividity takes about 6 to 8 hours to become fixed as I am sure you know Cc, the victims died around 2.00 and the police entered at 7.30 so the victims could have been moved and lividity reestablished.

It begins to be apparent about an hour after death, is well-formed in about 3 to 4 hours after death, and gets fixed in about 6 to 8 hours after death. However, it is worth noting that the timing of livor mortis is highly variable. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554464/#:~:text=It%20begins%20to%20be%20apparent,to%20the%20fixation%20of%20lividity.

[Bubo bubo]

Who knows. He didn't burn any other other victims (although they were upstairs). I would have thought if he was unsure whether Nevill was dead, he would just shoot him another time.

Exactly

[Adam]

Who knows. He didn't burn any other other victims (although they were upstairs). I would have thought if he was unsure whether Nevill was dead, he would just shoot him another time.

Why else did Bamber burn Nevill's back?

Rage, spite & torture have been suggested.  Three burn marks are not compatible with these. 

[ILB]

Why else did Bamber burn Nevill's back?

Rage, spite & torture have been suggested.  Three burn marks are not compatible with these.

You are talking bollocks.

You have no idea the mindset of Shelia Caffell or Jeremy Bamber.