Prof Knight on Nevill's back burns.

[Adam]

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.

Seems CC/Curiosity is having second thoughts on the 1940's war wounds theory.

Assume she still supports Prof Knight's theory - prodding from a non heated instrument.

Maybe she can expand on how, why & how long that would take.

[Rob_]

I don't think it was the rifle myself looking at this photo?

[snow66!]

I don't think it was the rifle myself looking at this photo?

Do we know if any colour photos of the marks exist Rob!

[Adam]

Both sides should go by the only person who saw Nevill's back. He was a pathologist and submitted a report dated the 30th September 1985.

'Three distinct burn marks'.

Boyce says a rifle could be heated to the required tempreture within 5 minutes.

[Adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1191.0.html

Vanezis did examinations straight after the massacre. The report dated September as they waited for the results of the drug tests.

First thoughts were -

The position of the rifle  Too obvious.

Position of the bible.

Sheila's cleaniness.

Lack of blood on her feet.

Lack of blood on her legs.

[Cambridgecutie]

Both sides should go by the only person who saw Nevill's back. He was a pathologist and submitted a report dated the 30th September 1985.

'Three distinct burn marks'.

Boyce says a rifle could be heated to the required tempreture within 5 minutes.

Both sides should go by the trial testimony when both experts were examined and cross-examined where both concluded inconclusive.

[Cambridgecutie]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,156.msg345.html#msg345

Vanezis did examinations straight after the massacre. The report dated September as they waited for the results of the drug tests.

First thoughts were -

The position of the rifle  Too obvious.

Position of the bible.

Sheila's cleaniness.

Lack of blood on her feet.

Lack of blood on her legs.

The above is post trial.  It could be considered confirmation bias based on the verdict. 

[Adam]

Both sides should go by the trial testimony when both experts were examined and cross-examined where both concluded inconclusive.

Please expand on how 'prodding' with a non heated instrument would cause the 3 marks.

Second & final request.

[Adam]

I do agree that hitting Nevill with extreme force on his back, would cause bruising.

However if they were bruises, Vanezis would have said so. As he did in the locations where Nevill was bruised.

[Adam]

Prof Knight is in a half way house -

Prodding. But not hitting with extreme force.

Not burn marks but not bruising.

Prodding but from a non heated instrument.

[Cambridgecutie]

Please expand on how 'prodding' with a non heated instrument would cause the 3 marks.

Second & final request.

'Prodding' internally or externally?  Hopefully that answers your question!

Final response 

[Adam]

'Prodding' internally or externally?  Hopefully that answers your question!

Final response 

Prof Knight's/CC/Curiosity's claim has been dismissed.

Neither have explained how prodding with a cold instrument can cause such profound marks.

[Adam]

To be fair Prof Knight was hired by the defence.

He agreed with Vanezis that the marks were due to 'prodding'. But said the prodding instrument was not hot.

He did not say how a cold instrument could cause such profound marks, in 3 locations. From 'prodding'.

[snow66!]

Both sides should go by the only person who saw Nevill's back. He was a pathologist and submitted a report dated the 30th September 1985.

'Three distinct burn marks'.

Boyce says a rifle could be heated to the required tempreture within 5 minutes.

There is absolutely no comparison to the rifle barrel though Adam!
Yes, the marks are burns, but the Aga made them!
Clear as day children, clear as day!

[snow66!]

I don't think it was the rifle myself looking at this photo?

Exactly Rob!
No comparison whatsoever!