The beauty of THREE marks for supporters

[killingeve]

It will be a view. I do not believe in answering complex questions with one liners. Still playing silly games I see.

There's nothing remotely complex about the marks on Nevill's back in relation to the case.  They are a non-feature.

[Roch]

Vanezis trial testimony was not even harmful to Bamber.

It was extremely harmful to Bamber. He lied about the existence of fight wounds on Sheila Caffell. 

It is not my 'perception' that the wounds exist.  Anymore than it is my perception regarding Sheila's hair colour.  We don't need Vidal Sassoon to have worked with her body post mortem, to tell us what colour Sheila's hair was.

[killingeve]

It was extremely harmful to Bamber. He lied about the existence of fight wounds on Sheila Caffell. 

Did Prof Knight  for the defence lie too?

Why did these so-called "fight wounds" not feature in Vanezis pm notes?  This was at a time all concerned thought it was murder/suicide.

I tell what is harmful to Bamber: spurious claims that simply do not stack up with all the known facts. 

It is not my 'perception' that the wounds exist.  Anymore than it is my perception regarding Sheila's hair colour.  We don't need Vidal Sassoon to have worked with her body post mortem, to tell us what colour Sheila's hair was.

We might if it was coloured and case relevant.

[Roch]

Did Prof Knight  for the defence lie too?

Why did these so-called "fight wounds" not feature in Vanezis pm notes?  This was at a time all concerned thought it was murder/suicide.

I tell what is harmful to Bamber: spurious claims that simply do not stack up with all the known facts. 

We might if it was coloured and case relevant.

If anyone can show me evidence of what Knight was tasked to do, in respect of negatives, crime scene and post mortem images, then please do so.  Even better if there's any evidence of the methods he used for such examinations.

As for spurious claims, I would have thought the negatives are negatives. They are inanimate objects which record a snapshot from one or two days in August 1985. As such, I do not think the label spurious can be applied to them. 

 

[ngb1066]

Think it was in very early stages but then fell by the wayside.

I believe the documentary is still planned.

[Roch]

At what point do you believe Nevill was lying against the Aga?

Personally I'm with Rob on this, IF the Aga was responsible. I'm not sure why Boyce chose to narrow down the options.

[Zoso]

There's nothing remotely complex about the marks on Nevill's back in relation to the case.  They are a non-feature.

Exactly, they don't answer who the killer is - they just create more questions which can't be answered. Boyce's claim that it mean Nevill was moved by the police is ridiculous and I would tell him that myself

[Roch]

Exactly, they don't answer who the killer is - they just create more questions which can't be answered. Boyce's claim that it mean Nevill was moved by the police is ridiculous and I would tell him that myself

Boyce's claim may be erroneous. But that doesn't exclude the Aga being the cause of the marks. If Boyce's claim is erroneous, but the Aga did cause the marks, then that impacts upon the sequence and circumstances of events.

[killingeve]

Boyce's claim may be erroneous. But that doesn't exclude the Aga being the cause of the marks. If Boyce's claim is erroneous, but the Aga did cause the marks, then that impacts upon the sequence and circumstances of events.

Both pathologists agreed soc images of Nevill are consistent with rm.  The idea Nevill was on the floor wedged against the Aga with the police moving him as per soc images is a complete non-starter.

[killingeve]

Personally I'm with Rob on this, IF the Aga was responsible. I'm not sure why Boyce chose to narrow down the options.

Boyce is a ballistics expert not a pathologist.  11 years ago Boyce was claiming the marks were caused by the barrel of the rifle having been heated up.

[Roch]

Both pathologists agreed soc images of Nevill are consistent with rm.  The idea Nevill was on the floor wedged against the Aga with the police moving him as per soc images is a complete non-starter.

You haven't read my post properly CC.

[Roch]

Boyce is a ballistics expert not a pathologist.  11 years ago Boyce was claiming the marks were caused by the barrel of the rifle having been heated up.

Yes but three problems occurred.

Firstly, the peer reviewer advised more experimentation was required to confirm this - but the CT ran out of time / funding.

Secondly, the only way to heat the end of the barrel to sufficient temperature would be by using the Aga.

Thirdly, in more recent times the Aga itself has come into focus as a potential cause.

Point 1 somehow allowed the CCRC to ghost all the expert evidence regarding Sheila's throat. Which has been left unchallenged.

Start at the oldest articles on CCRC Watch and work your way up. Only then will you understand the claptrap about the blood in the SM being stronger than the burns experts.

[killingeve]

You haven't read my post properly CC.

What point are you endeavouring to make then?

[Roch]

What point are you endeavouring to make then?

Boyce's suggestions that the police moved Nevill and that the Aga caused the burns are not mutually exclusive. On the info we have so far, the Aga can cause the burns without police moving Nevill. 

[killingeve]

Boyce's suggestions that the police moved Nevill and that the Aga caused the burns are not mutually exclusive. On the info we have so far, the Aga can cause the burns without police moving Nevill.

Boyce needs to stick to his area of expertise. 

There's no evidence the police moved Nevill.  Both pathologists agreed rm was consistent with his found position. 

Numerous means of heating a metal implement to inflict burns but there's no evidence of it happening here.