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

[Adam]

Stop beating yourself up asking why Bamber burned Nevill's back Adam!
The answer is quite simple,and you know it,he didn't,the Aga did!
Mystery solved!
No spite or rage,no torture,no checking to see if he was dead! Just an accident pure and simple!
Accept this my boy!

Thank you Snow.

Nevill must have had a sore head and painful back after regaining conciousness from Sheila's knock out blow.

[Jane]

Thank you Snow.

Nevill must have had a sore head and painful back after regaining conciousness from Sheila's knock out blow.

I should say! (Some) supporters are treating this as if it was film in which the character simply bounces back to life after an attack.

If what they claim of Nevill is true, the poor man defies all medical knowledge. He lays, unconscious for several hours -that's some serious concussion- then up he gets, clear headed enough to make a coherent phone call, ie, no stumbling over words, no slurring of speech, which gives no indication of him having been injured..................

............'Course, I supposed it might be claimed that he was showing confusion by ringing his son, rather than police? Although he doesn't seem to have had a problem dialing the number.

[Cambridgecutie]

Stop beating yourself up asking why Bamber burned Nevill's back Adam!
The answer is quite simple,and you know it,he didn't,the Aga did!
Mystery solved!
No spite or rage,no torture,no checking to see if he was dead! Just an accident pure and simple!
Accept this my boy!

The prosecution did not claim the above.  How could it when the experts were unable to conclude what the marks were and when they occurred.

[Cambridgecutie]

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).

When I read the above I thought bits had been copied and pasted from a post I, CC, made in the past but it appears the entire post was copied, pasted and reposted under the user name 'killingeve'!?

It also appears most of my posts are missing from my profile!?

The profile with username 'killingeve' appears to be no longer active!?

[snow66!]

The prosecution did not claim the above.  How could it when the experts were unable to conclude what the marks were and when they occurred.

I wonder what the police or prosecution or indeed the CPS would have made of the marks if they knew the Aga made them Cutie?
It would have taken an incredible explaination to find Bamber guilty!
Talk about a fly in the ointment!
And that is what Boyce's evidence is,and why all guilters want to dismiss it.
If the Aga made the marks,it is very difficult to include them in a JB scenario.
In all honesty,if the CPS knew the Aga made the marks in 1985 JB would never have been charged.
So,I believe if the CCRC accept the Aga burned Nevill JB should get a retrial at least.

[Cambridgecutie]

https://ccrc.gov.uk/the-application-process/

Present new evidence

For the CCRC to send your case back to the appeal court, we normally need to identify something new and significant, capable of making the court view your case differently.

This could be fresh evidence or a new legal argument, such as a new witness or a new scientific development. It has to be something not covered at your trial or appeal.

When making an application to the CCRC, it is important to think about what went wrong in your case, and what is new.

We cannot revisit or investigate things already known by the jury, the judge, or the magistrates.

Even if you believe that they made the wrong decision, repeating points made during earlier proceedings will not help your application.

[Cambridgecutie]

I wonder what the police or prosecution or indeed the CPS would have made of the marks if they knew the Aga made them Cutie?
It would have taken an incredible explaination to find Bamber guilty!
Talk about a fly in the ointment!
And that is what Boyce's evidence is,and why all guilters want to dismiss them.
If the Aga made the marks,it is very difficult to include them in a JB scenario.
In all honesty,if the CPS knew the Aga made the marks in 1985 JB would never have been charged.
So,I believe if the CCRC accept the Aga burned Nevill JB should get a retrial at least.

You're taking the piss imo. 

[snow66!]

You're taking the piss imo.

Why Cutie?
Lets just suppose the Aga did indeed make the burns,dont you agree this casts doubt on JBs guilt?

[snow66!]

https://ccrc.gov.uk/the-application-process/

Present new evidence

For the CCRC to send your case back to the appeal court, we normally need to identify something new and significant, capable of making the court view your case differently.

This could be fresh evidence or a new legal argument, such as a new witness or a new scientific development. It has to be something not covered at your trial or appeal.

When making an application to the CCRC, it is important to think about what went wrong in your case, and what is new.

We cannot revisit or investigate things already known by the jury, the judge, or the magistrates.

Even if you believe that they made the wrong decision, repeating points made during earlier proceedings will not help your application.

So,the Aga burning Nevill is indeed new evidence that wasn't available to the Jury then Cutie.
Perfect!
Perfect indeed!

[Jane]

You're taking the piss imo. 

So,the Aga burning Nevill is indeed new evidence that wasn't available to the Jury then Cutie.
Perfect!
Perfect indeed!

You're taking the piss imo. 

Is my impression, also!

[Hardy Boy]

Is my impression, also!

The CT will no doubt say once the Boyce’s theory has been rejected  “We have evidence that Neville was moved by the raid team”  it adds to their conspiracy Portfolio collection.

I repeat, they have to prove that all the Raid team lied in their Statements,  it’s impossible unless they admit to doing so.

[Zoso]

So,the Aga burning Nevill is indeed new evidence that wasn't available to the Jury then Cutie.
Perfect!
Perfect indeed!

Utterly useless because the results didn't produce the SAME markings, nor do they confirm a killer.

[snow66!]

Is my impression, also!

Thank you Jane.Kind words!
I just hope the CCRC dont have the same view of Boyce and his evidence!

[Jane]

Thank you Jane.Kind words!
I just hope the CCRC dont have the same view of Boyce and his evidence!

Which words are those, Snow? I was concurring with another poster.

[Zoso]

Thank you Jane.Kind words!
I just hope the CCRC dont have the same view of Boyce and his evidence!

You mean Boyce and his 'latest' theoretical show?