The beauty of THREE marks for supporters

[Roch]

It's rather Bizzare really, the Prosecution at trial said they were burn Marks and the defence argued that they wasn't, now they want to overturn his conviction and argue they are burn marks afterall caused by the AGA and want to blame the police for moving him or Sheila knocked him unconciouss for hours before killing him.  Rivlin, "These marks are almost certainly not burn marks" "they show none of the features of burns"

Let's imagine Knight was right.  Where does that leave Vanezis?  How can Vanezis not know that 'they show none of the features of burns'? 

[Hardy Boy]

Let's imagine Knight was right.  Where does that leave Vanezis?  How can Vanezis not know that 'they show none of the features of burns'?

Vanezis thought they were burn Marks in his opinion, Rivlin isn't a burns expert and knight conceded that unlike Vanezis he didn't see the body.

[snow66!]

I don't think they were deep, it was suggested hot enough to burn through Pyjama's and not burn them, but hot enough to superficially burn the skin?   Knight thought they were Bruises and Rivlin put to Vanezis that they were almost certainly NOT burn marks, they show none of the features of burn marks, such as for example peeling of the skin margins, it was suggested by Vanezis that it was almost  like a tattooing of the skin.

If they were bruises HB we are back to coincidences,ie,someone inflicted three bruises that mirror the image taken from the Aga,and bruises that happen to be slap bang in the same position on Nevills back were he to have layed down with his back against the oven.
I think you know that there is no getting away from the fact that the Aga did indeed make the marks HB.

[Jane]

If they were bruises HB we are back to coincidences,ie,someone inflicted three bruises that mirror the image taken from the Aga,and bruises that happen to be slap bang in the same position on Nevills back were he to have layed down with his back against the oven.
I think you know that there is no getting away from the fact that the Aga did indeed make the marks HB.

Snow, I'm beginning to think you're doing a wind up!

[Hardy Boy]

If they were bruises HB we are back to coincidences,ie,someone inflicted three bruises that mirror the image taken from the Aga,and bruises that happen to be slap bang in the same position on Nevills back were he to have layed down with his back against the oven.
I think you know that there is no getting away from the fact that the Aga did indeed make the marks HB.

It was the defence who thought and insisted they were bruises, Vanezis said in his opinion they were burns, theyv'e argued the toss they were Bruises and now admit they were wrong by arguing that they are Burns, so the prosecution was right afterall don't you think?

[Adam]

It was the defence who thought and insisted they were bruises, Vanezis said in his opinion they were burns, theyv'e argued the toss they were Bruises and now admit they were wrong by arguing that they are Burns, so the prosecution was right afterall don't you think?

Bamber has always said they are burns.

[Hardy Boy]

If they were bruises HB we are back to coincidences,ie,someone inflicted three bruises that mirror the image taken from the Aga,and bruises that happen to be slap bang in the same position on Nevills back were he to have layed down with his back against the oven.
I think you know that there is no getting away from the fact that the Aga did indeed make the marks HB.

It was the Defence suggestion that they was Bruises caused by Prodding.

[Bubo bubo]

I don't think they were deep, it was suggested hot enough to burn through Pyjama's and not burn them, but hot enough to superficially burn the skin?   Knight thought they were Bruises and Rivlin put to Vanezis that they were almost certainly NOT burn marks, they show none of the features of burn marks, such as for example peeling of the skin margins, it was suggested by Vanezis that it was almost  like a tattooing of the skin.

Can you provide a source for who suggested this? Thanks. Further you are presupposing he was wearing the top when up against the Aga. There is a significant tear in his PJ top. This type of damage occurs when cloth is caught on a sharp object and both the weft and warp of the material fractures in a semi rectangular shape. It is therefore possible that his top was caught on something as part of a struggle  say and to release himself he allowed it to be removed from his body to give himself greater freedom of movement.

[snow66!]

Snow, I'm beginning to think you're doing a wind up!

Not so Jane!

[Jane]

Sheila's going crazy, she's just wacked me and knocked me out for hours and iv'e burnt my f...ing back    Now she's running around with a rifle.

None of which comes under the heading of "Phone a friend". It's phone the emergency services PDQ!!!!

[Hardy Boy]

Can you provide a source for who suggested this? Thanks. Further you are presupposing he was wearing the top when up against the Aga. There is a significant tear in his PJ top. This type of damage occurs when cloth is caught on a sharp object and both the weft and warp of the material fractures in a semi rectangular shape. It is therefore possible that his top was caught on something as part of a struggle  say and to release himself he allowed it to be removed from his body to give himself greater freedom of movement.

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, your suggesting that he was up against the AGA.  Yes i know there was a tear in the PJ's about 2 inch from the marks.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7638.0;attach=44913;image

[Hardy Boy]

Can you provide a source for who suggested this? Thanks. Further you are presupposing he was wearing the top when up against the Aga. There is a significant tear in his PJ top. This type of damage occurs when cloth is caught on a sharp object and both the weft and warp of the material fractures in a semi rectangular shape. It is therefore possible that his top was caught on something as part of a struggle  say and to release himself he allowed it to be removed from his body to give himself greater freedom of movement.

Or a tear big enough to insert a hot object if the PJ's was to oneside?

[snow66!]

It was the Defence suggestion that they was Bruises caused by Prodding.

I think if you look at the photo of the burn marks in the archive you will see that they are not bruises caused by prodding HB,or if they are,they have been made by two seperate items ie,the top mark is larger and more oval than the other two.
Surely if someone was prodding Nevill the marks would all be uniform,yet they are not.

Now lying against the Aga on the other hand,that is a different matter all together,obviously the main handle is indeed going to make a bigger more oval mark than the other two smaller points of contact.
Dont you agree HB?

[Hardy Boy]

I think if you look at the photo of the burn marks in the archive you will see that they are not bruises caused by proding HB,or if they are,they have been made by two seperate items ie,the top mark is larger and more oval than the other two.
Surely if someone was proding Nevill the marks would all be uniform,yet they are not.

Now lying against the Aga on the other hand,that is a different matter all together,obviously the main handle is indeed going to make a bigger more oval mark than the other two smaller points of contact.
Dont you agree HB?

So your more experienced than Knight and Rivlin then, they seen quite a few photo's of the marks, more than the one your looking at and he thinks they are Bruises.  The defence argued that they was bruises at trial. 

I would say, Vanezis was right all all along wouldn't you agree, in his opinion they were burns, Vanezis  was spot on, because this guy Boyce and Bamber now wants the CCRC to look into the marks as Burns.

[snow66!]

So your more experienced than Knight and Rivlin then, they seen quite a few photo's of the marks, more than the one your looking at and he thinks they are Bruises.  The defence argued that they was bruises at trial. 

I would say, Vanezis was right all all along wouldn't you agree, in his opinion they were burns, Vanezis  was spot on, because this guy Boyce and Bamber now wants the CCRC to look into the marks as Burns.

Yes,of course Vanezis was right about them being burns HB,but like everyone else involved,including JB,he just couldn't work out what made them.