the-doc-maker blog.

[Zoso]

Yes, as Roch said, the doc maker has posted the full Boyce video, Rob.
It explains why there is the discrepancies in the spacings of the burn marks, which have been spoken about on the forum here. Its to do with Nevills head being tilted forward or back when he was against the Aga, cant remember which.
I think they are correct that the Aga made the burns, but like you, I dont believe the police moved the body, although this is definately the route that JB and his legal team are going down, Rob.
God knows what the CCRC will decide!

On the Aga? They won't decide anything on that. Firstly, it's a theory (that didn't produce the same results) and secondly, it doesn't tell you Bamber is guilty OR innocent. I keep telling you this!

[snow66!]

On the Aga? They won't decide anything on that. Firstly, it's a theory (that didn't produce the same results) and secondly, it doesn't tell you Bamber is guilty OR innocent. I keep telling you this!

In the full video they did produce the same results Zoso!
It is all down to Nevills head being tilted forward or back while lying against the Aga, I believe!
And it doesn't matter what you tell me, Zoso, its the CCRC who are deciding on the Aga evidence, possibly this month I believe.

[Roch]

This would be good profile pic for Adam, as he is a cyclist who is interested in JB's journey on the night of the killings..

[Rob_]

This would be good profile pic for Adam, as he is a cyclist who is interested in JB's journey on the night of the killings..

Oh dear Roch he will go on for days and days you can see perfectly at night now!

[Cambridgecutie]

On the Aga? They won't decide anything on that. Firstly, it's a theory (that didn't produce the same results) and secondly, it doesn't tell you Bamber is guilty OR innocent. I keep telling you this!

And if could have been adjudicated on at trial.

[snow66!]

And if could have been adjudicated on at trial.

I see! So the CCRC will throw out the Aga evidence without even looking at it, claiming that it could have been adjunicated on at trial then, Cutie?
Its a wonder JBs legal team didn't tell him that he was wasting his time and money going to Boyce for his expert opinion.

[Cambridgecutie]

I see! So the CCRC will throw out the Aga evidence without even looking at it, claiming that it could have been adjunicated on at trial then, Cutie?
Its a wonder JBs legal team didn't tell him that he was wasting his time and money going to Boyce for his expert opinion.

Well if the CCRC don't then the CoA certainly would evidenced by the following:

519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.

I don't know what's difficult to understand about it?  If its something that could have been adjudicated on at trial and the defence or prosecution chose not to then its lost forever!  Its a bit like your annual ISA allowance: use it or lose it!

[snow66!]

Well if the CCRC don't then the CoA certainly would evidenced by the following:

519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.

I don't know what's difficult to understand about it?  If its something that could have been adjudicated on at trial and the defence or prosecution chose not to then its lost forever!  Its a bit like your annual ISA allowance: use it or lose it!

I dont think that is a similar type of evidence Cutie, but time will tell.
Wonder if ngb has an opinion, he is most qualified to give advice on this issue.

[Rob_]

Don't waste your breath Snow, if the Aga evidence can be proven and I mean proven beyond any doubt it changes the whole scenario of what happened that night.

You cannot put before the jury something that is not known either by the prosecution or the defense until over 30 years latter. 

[Cambridgecutie]

Don't waste your breath Snow, if the Aga evidence can be proven and I mean proven beyond any doubt it changes the whole scenario of what happened that night.

How does it change the whole scenario and more importantly how does it show it wasn't JB and was SC?

You cannot put before the jury something that is not known either by the prosecution or the defense until over 30 years latter.

But it could have been known if the defence decided to work out what the marks were and came to the conclusion they were caused by the Aga as JB and his team have done. 

When it gets rejected you cannot say 'Oh those ghastly people at the CCRC if only they could see what we can see!'  I am telling you now it will not go anywhere.  In fact its embarrassing. 

[snow66!]

Don't waste your breath Snow, if the Aga evidence can be proven and I mean proven beyond any doubt it changes the whole scenario of what happened that night.

You cannot put before the jury something that is not known either by the prosecution or the defense until over 30 years latter.

Thanks Rob, thats the way I look at it too!

[Cambridgecutie]

I dont think that is a similar type of evidence Cutie, but time will tell.
Wonder if ngb has an opinion, he is most qualified to give advice on this issue.

You don't need to be legally qualified to comprehend the CPS appeal criteria.  A read of Bamber v Regina 2002 provides a good insight.  You can get a feel for the thinking of the appeal court judges

[Cambridgecutie]

Thanks Rob, thats the way I look at it too!

I am just being realistic. 

[snow66!]

I am just being realistic.

I think Rob and me are looking for justice and fairness, Cutie.
We are not interested in loopholes in the law to prevent evidence being heard.

[Cambridgecutie]

I think Rob and me are looking for justice and fairness, Cutie.
We are not interested in loopholes in the law to prevent evidence being heard.

Well I am afraid you are not going to find justice and fairness for JB with the Aga/marks on NB's back as they do not meet the CPS criteria for 'leave to appeal'.  He is being ill advised and it could be argued doing more harm than good. 

Evidence will be heard if it meets the criteria laid out by the CPS for 'leave to appeal'.