Prof Knight on Nevill's back burns.

[Zoso]

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?

How would that be proven and it's proof of what? How does the Aga causing the burns prove Jeremy innocent?

[Cambridgecutie]

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?

No.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/appeals-court-appeal

Hearing new evidence
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.

Imo the Aga burn thing doesn't appear capable of belief but lets forget that.  What would be the reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it at trial? 

At trial you can pretty much throw the kitchen sink at it.  Once the jury return a verdict, to say your backs up against the wall is an understatement.  The grounds for appeal are narrow and focused as you can see from the above.

Even if the CCRC/CoA accepted the Aga/burns how would this overcome the silencer evidence and all the other evidence the prosecution put forward showing it wasn't SC?

I'm sorry but Bamber and his people are nits.  And this extends to the solicitor. 

[Adam]

How would that be proven and it's proof of what? How does the Aga causing the burns prove Jeremy innocent?

They can claim Nevill was moved by the police prior to crime scene photos.

[Cambridgecutie]

They can claim Nevill was moved by the police prior to crime scene photos.

But this wouldn't go anywhere to showing JB wasn't responsible and SC was.

[Rob_]

No.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/appeals-court-appeal

Hearing new evidence
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.

Imo the Aga burn thing doesn't appear capable of belief but lets forget that.  What would be the reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it at trial? 

At trial you can pretty much throw the kitchen sink at it.  Once the jury return a verdict, to say your backs up against the wall is an understatement.  The grounds for appeal are narrow and focused as you can see from the above.

Even if the CCRC/CoA accepted the Aga/burns how would this overcome the silencer evidence and all the other evidence the prosecution put forward showing it wasn't SC?

I'm sorry but Bamber and his people are nits.  And this extends to the solicitor.

I agree Cc but that's why I said if it could be proven, from what I have seen on the Doc Maker it's pretty close to proven the Aga caused the burns. That leaves us with the police moving Nevil or the whole prosecution scenario is wrong.

[Adam]

But this wouldn't go anywhere to showing JB wasn't responsible and SC was.

Agree.

But they can claim police malpractice at the crime scene.

[Rob_]

But this wouldn't go anywhere to showing JB wasn't responsible and SC was.

It would show the police completely changed the crime scene, or the tragedy occurred over hours and not a quick in and out by Bamber.

[Rob_]

How would that be proven and it's proof of what? How does the Aga causing the burns prove Jeremy innocent?

Have you seen the article in the Doc Maker?

I think with 3d modelling it can be proven?

[David1819]

Malcom Fletcher believed they were caused by the rifle barrel. He done experiments at Huntington that were not disclosed to the defence.

I do wonder how McKay found out about this. It would be interesting to see.

[Adam]

I don't believe Nevill fell sideways on to the aga door.

Besides which the door would be cold!

But appreciate the CT have to keep Bamber in the media.

[Rob_]

I do wonder how McKay found out about this. It would be interesting to see.

It can't be very convincing if it was not disclosed David? Personally I don't think it was a rifle barrel?

The Aga looks a very strong contender to me, you do modelling so do I if we could get some quality pictures who knows?

Hint hint Jane.

[David1819]

Have you seen the article in the Doc Maker?

I think with 3d modelling it can be proven?

Four different experts have said it was caused by the barrel. The only person saying it was the Aga is contradicting himself having said the former.

[Cambridgecutie]

I agree Cc but that's why I said if it could be proven, from what I have seen on the Doc Maker it's pretty close to proven the Aga caused the burns. That leaves us with the police moving Nevil or the whole prosecution scenario is wrong.

But even if it could be proven EP moved NB and the Aga caused the marks how would this exonerate JB?  How would it overcome the silencer and the other evidence put forward by the prosecution showing it wasn't SC: hand swabs, hands, nightdress? 

[David1819]

It can't be very convincing if it was not disclosed David? Personally I don't think it was a rifle barrel?

The Aga looks a very strong contender to me, you do modelling so do I if we could get some quality pictures who knows?

Hint hint Jane.

On the contrary, it could have been undisclosed because it was harmful to the prosecution.

[Rob_]

On the contrary, it could have been undisclosed because it was harmful to the prosecution.

Yes good point.