Prof Knight on Nevill's back burns.

[Cambridgecutie]

He was completing a report.

His '3 distinct burn marks' quote would be said if 100% sure himself or he had got a burns expert in.

It was said at trial he was not sure.  There's no evidence he got a burns expert involved.  Why would he when his main objective was to determine cause of death (gunshot wounds) in a case which all agreed was murder/suicide.  Why waste resources on 3 small marks when they clearly did not contribute to death?

He did not go into the mark on Sheila's abdomen.  No need because it clearly did not contribute to death and all agreed she took her own life.

[ILB]

Bamber has been all over the place with the burns -

Bamber says he didn't do it.

He's not a pathologist, he's a man who's claiming a MOJ, he was a farmer who went down the swanny at 24.

[Cambridgecutie]

Bamber has been all over the place with the burns -

1986 - An expert was hired to claim it was from 'prodding' from a cold instrument.

2012 - Sheila inflicted the burns. But don't know why.

2021 - Nevill laid against a cold aga door. He was moved by the police & put onto a coal scuttle/chair & trousers pulled down.

First time I've heard about the 1986 expert?

[Adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3777.0.html

This is the 2012 CCRC report.

Caroso says they are burns.

Sorry CC/Curiosity. Not 1940's war wounds.

Will read it in more detail.

[ILB]

It was said at trial he was not sure.

Which contradicts his 1985 statement.

He's either sure or isn't.

[Adam]

First time I've heard about the 1986 expert?

Prof Knight.

[Rob_]

It was said at trial he was not sure.  There's no evidence he got a burns expert involved.  Why would he when his main objective was to determine cause of death (gunshot wounds) in a case which all agreed was murder/suicide.  Why waste resources on 3 small marks when they clearly did not contribute to death?

He did not go into the mark on Sheila's abdomen.  No need because it clearly did not contribute to death and all agreed she took her own life.

I would have thought he would be open minded Cc? If foul play other than Sheila was involved it was his job to find it?

He should never have assumed it was a shut and closed case.

Surely he should be looking at the smallest marks and nicks? and the burns to Nevil's back should have aroused special attention?

[ILB]

Me, Jane, Steve, NGB, Hardyboy, Scipio, other former posters believe it was to test for signs of life.

You know this.

I was taught rudimentary first aid as a 13 year old 1981.

It's laughable.

[Cambridgecutie]

Prof Knight.

Prof Knight wasn't a burns expert.  He was the defence pathologist at trial.

[Adam]

Boyce says it was possible to use a hot oven plate to heat a rifle nozzle sufficiently to inflict the burns.

In 5 minutes.

[Cambridgecutie]

I would have thought he would be open minded Cc? If foul play other than Sheila was involved it was his job to find it?

He should never have assumed it was a shut and closed case.

Surely he should be looking at the smallest marks and nicks? and the burns to Nevil's back should have aroused special attention?

But 4 police officers attended throughout the pm's and he was told as far as EP were concerned it was murder/suicide.  He found nothing to contradict the murder/suicide theory. 

Sheila has an unexplained graze to her abdomen but this is barely mentioned.

The marks will never go anywhere with the CCRC/CoA as they could have been adjudicated on at trial.

[Adam]

Dr Fowler believes they were burns. Inflicted minus silencer.

[Cambridgecutie]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3777.0.html

This is the 2012 CCRC report.

Caroso says they are burns.

Sorry CC/Curiosity. Not 1940's war wounds.

Will read it in more detail.

The pathologist who saw the victim/marks said at trial he was unsure they were burns.

The defence pathologist who was working from images was adamant they were not burns.

Why should we believe Dr Caruso over the above? 

The war wounds was just an idea I mooted.  I accept I could be completely wrong.  But we do know he sustained a back injury and spents weeks/months with his back in plaster. 

[Cambridgecutie]

Dr Fowler believes they were burns. Inflicted minus silencer.

The pathologist who saw the victim/marks said at trial he was unsure they were burns.

The defence pathologist who was working from images was adamant they were not burns.

Why should we believe Dr Fowler over the above? 

[Rob_]

But 4 police officers attended throughout the pm's and he was told as far as EP were concerned it was murder/suicide.  He found nothing to contradict the murder/suicide theory. 

Sheila has an unexplained graze to her abdomen but this is barely mentioned.

The marks will never go anywhere with the CCRC/CoA as they could have been adjudicated on at trial.

I think it is if you have some significant new evidence or argument which has not been considered at trial or appeal?

So if it can be proved the Aga caused the burns this would be new evidence?