The window Jeremy used for entry

[Roch]

Still be very interesting to see what the CCRC have to say in reply to Boyces Aga experiments though Roch.

Despite appearances of a good match, they will say it is insufficient, speculative and not from a burns expert.  The state doesn't want to see contradictory evidence regarding Bamber's conviction. Even if a CCRC employee wanted to refer, they would come up against a brick wall in the chain of command.

[Bubo bubo]

They'll say it's not enough to counter whatever. Even if might be. They don't want new evidence in this case. They want to back up all the enquiries and appeals otherwise the justice system will look stupid. Don't build your hopes up. We don't live in an honest state.

Whilst I share some of your scepticism it will be a question of whether the failures were due to mass malfeasance on most if not all issues by EP. Their behaviour and manipulation of evidence to address issues as they arose is the main reason for failures.

[snow66!]

Despite appearances of a good match, they will say it is insufficient, speculative and not from a burns expert.  The state doesn't want to see contradictory evidence regarding Bamber's conviction. Even if a CCRC employee wanted to refer, they would come up against a brick wall in the chain of command.

Having watched the short video again the marks do indeed match perfectly Roch.

Very compelling evidence.

[Roch]

Whilst I share some of your scepticism it will be a question of whether the failures were due to mass malfeasance on most if not all issues by EP. Their behaviour and manipulation of evidence to address issues as they arose is the main reason for failures.

The powers that be are becoming more intolerant of rogue officers who commit sexual crimes. But regarding police officers who fit people up, that's a step too far for them. Scheduled for 2038.

[David1819]

Having watched the short video again the marks do indeed match perfectly Roch.

Very compelling evidence.

The marks do not refute any of the prosecution's evidence (Julie mugford and the silencer) nor do they implicate Sheila. Plus the expert who is making these claims is contradicting what he said to the CCRC back in 2011.

This is not going to help at all.

[Roch]

The marks do not refute any of the prosecution's evidence (Julie mugford and the silencer) nor do they implicate Sheila. Plus the expert who is making these claims is contradicting what he said to the CCRC back in 2011.

This is not going to help at all.

Nevertheless, it could help in people's understanding of the case. Paleontologists used to think that the claws of Anomalocaris were a shrimp. Then they realised that what they really were. That's life.

[Bubo bubo]

The marks do not refute any of the prosecution's evidence (Julie mugford and the silencer) nor do they implicate Sheila. Plus the expert who is making these claims is contradicting what he said to the CCRC back in 2011.

This is not going to help at all.

They do if accepted. They suggest that the crime scene was changed before recording began
 I know he was wrong before but if they have backup from burns spcialists. It should help. Remember also that this and the window entry are just 2 of ten grounds.

[snow66!]

The marks do not refute any of the prosecution's evidence (Julie mugford and the silencer) nor do they implicate Sheila. Plus the expert who is making these claims is contradicting what he said to the CCRC back in 2011.

This is not going to help at all.

I disagree slightly Dave,I think the marks DO implicate Sheila IF they took several hours to form,therefore Mugford and the silencer evidence would be irrllevant and worthless.

Too optimistic?

[snow66!]

Boyce wasn't wrong and isn't wrong.He stated the burn marks COULD have been made by the rifle barrel but NOT the silencer,that is all,could have been made!

With the Aga evidence he says there is a strong possibility that the Aga made the marks,he claims nothing as fact.

[Roch]

They do if accepted. They suggest that the crime scene was changed before recording began.
 I know he was wrong before but if they have backup from burns spcialists. It should help. Remember also that this and the window entry are just 2 of ten grounds.

Might they instead suggest that Nevill was temporarily unconscious, at some point during the incident?

[David1819]

I disagree slightly Dave,I think the marks DO implicate Sheila IF they took several hours to form,therefore Mugford and the silencer evidence would be irrllevant and worthless.

Too optimistic?

How does Nevils dead body laying by an oven implicate Sheila and undermine the Silencer and Julie Mugford?

[snow66!]

How does Nevils dead body laying by an oven implicate Sheila and undermine the Silencer and Julie Mugford?

Thats a slightly complicated question Dave.

If the Aga burns are accepted there are currently two chains of thought,one where Nevill was dead when he was lying against the Aga,hence someone moved him several minutes or hours later, and the other where Nevill was just badly injured when he fell against the Aga and got up again before being shot and killed slumped over the chair/scuttle.

The main question to be answered is how long the burns took to form ,that is,how long was Nevill lying against the Aga before moving or being moved by someone else.This will reveal to a great extent who killed him,Sheila or Jeremy.

[Zoso]

Thats a slightly complicated question Dave.

If the Aga burns are accepted there are currently two chains of thought,one where Nevill was dead when he was lying against the Aga,hence someone moved him several minutes or hours later, and the other where Nevill was just badly injured when he fell against the Aga and got up again before being shot and killed slumped over the chair/scuttle.

The main question to be answered is how long the burns took to form ,that is,how long was Nevill lying against the Aga before moving or being moved by someone else.This will reveal to a great extent who killed him,Sheila or Jeremy.

No, there are three chains of thought, the third is that the Aga had nothing to do with anything and he was never laid against it.

[Roch]

No, there are three chains of thought, the third is that the Aga had nothing to do with anything and he was never laid against it.

Don't let your stance get in the way of new discoveries.

[snow66!]

No, there are three chains of thought, the third is that the Aga had nothing to do with anything and he was never laid against it.

I said IF the Aga burns are accepted there are two chains of thought,that is two alternate scenarios.A live Nevill and a dead Nevill lying against it.

Your are simply dismissing the Aga proposal altogether Zoso,so you do not have a chain of thought regarding it at all.
As Roch says,better to keep an open mind regarding NEW evidence just in case.
Personally,I dont think the CCRC can sweep the Aga proposal aside very easily,not without being ridiculed,the findings are too strong.
Every expert at the time were in agreement that the marks were probably made on the night of the murders but could not work out how,both the silencer and poker were considered possible but didn't really fit too well under experiment.

Now however,I believe Boyce has finally hit the nail on the head and any surviving experts who were concerned with the case will endorse his findings and give him a pat on the back.

The Aga evidence WILL affect the case and give all those with a sense of fair play doubt of Bambers guilt.