Colour of burns

[Cambridgecutie]

It was June who would have done that.

 

What evidence exists that June was at any stage in the kitchen after she sustained gunshot wounds in bed evidenced by a mountain of physical evidence?

[Cambridgecutie]

It does not matter whether he was dead. Burns change once contact happens. Usually like any wound the healing process starts. Invariably this is blood being sent to the damaged area. Professor Knight did not commit because he did not see red areas around the wounds. Once death occurs other systems kick in which involves the dying of cells throughout the body. Skin status will depend on a huge number of factors especially age.

He could have been alive when he was first burnt for a period and burnt further after death so there is no way of telling how long he was alive or dead. What is clear that the wounds were black and that might be a way to analyse the situation. I have always thought that black was related to necrosis in living organisms.

And you don't think Prof Knight was capable of distinguishing pre and post death wounds?   

[Hardy Boy]

Based on the 'three hour knockout' () at what stage is it being claimed NB sustained his non gunshot wounds?

After the three hour knockout, he got up, phoned Jeremy and ran upstairs to confront Sheila, who then shot him, she followed him downstairs and she battered and shot him again and he fell in the chair?  That’s Rob and snow’s theory?

Bubo thinks that Neville was killed beside the Aga and June placed his head on the cushions and could possibly have prayed for him?  Then the police entered WHF and shot June upstairs and then moved Neville from the Aga to the chair to burn evidence that they shot June?

[Roch]

No not seen it Roch, and to be honest the Video was enough………does he answer these questions in it Roch, does he explain Where is the blood pooling consistent with Nevill being moved hours after death?  In his video there is no clear floor contact showing how the body is settle alongside the Aga, the body seems to be held in this position, Posed in other words and propped up by him resting on his arm?
Why does he use a three inch height difference between the Aga used and the WHF one, it seems that the crime scene Aga at WHF is irrelevant when he’s relying on body contact and height?
Why does the stooge conveniently hold himself up and extend his neck, rather than collapsing naturally as a dead person would?  Why does the edit cut away to not to show the stooge’s support, or balance?

He’s doing exactly the same as the Millbank tape recording, editing to suit the conclusion, selective recording and selective editing.

You may find one or two answers to the questions you are asking. He asks some pertinent questions himself - about the kitchen crime scene.

[Hardy Boy]

You may find one or two answers to the questions you are asking. He asks some pertinent questions himself - about the kitchen crime scene.

Is it on You Tube Roch?  Have you got a link?  He will do for me then, I like honesty.

[Adam]

What evidence exists that June was at any stage in the kitchen after she sustained gunshot wounds in bed evidenced by a mountain of physical evidence?

Bubobubo has suggested June fought Sheila & read prays to an injured Nevill in the kitchen. June also shot Sheila with a shot gun & was shot by the raid team upon entrance.

Do you think Nevill decided to ring Jeremy when he saw Sheila go upstairs with the rifle?

[Cambridgecutie]

From my perspective if there is evidence that NB was moved and attempts to cover this up were made then any part of the Crown's case is called into question as to whether that too is the whole truth. Including the work of the FSS I might add.

The only perspectives that ultimately count are those held by the CoA. 

Even if it can be evidenced that NB was moved, and to my mind there is not a scintilla of evidence for this, it will fail because it in no way gets to the heart of the case namely the blood flake supposedly found inside the silencer. 

CoA would begrudgingly concede 'yes naughty police officers moved Mr Bamber and did not fess up' however this does not explain:

- why defence did not adjudicate this at trial
- how a flake of blood supposedly found inside the silencer matched SC's blood groups
- the sctaches on the Aga mantle
- the paint on the silencer
- why SC's nightdress was free of debris when FSS claim it would have expected to find some on someone who fired a rifle 25/6 times
- why SC's handswabs did not support someone handling the cartriges as FSS claim
- Julie Mugford's testimony

I have no idea what is difficult to understand about this?

[Roch]

It's quite a large article.

Part One of the Aga article:

https://open.substack.com/pub/thedocmaker/p/cooking-up-a-lie-the-aga-affair?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4tvp4h

Part Two of the Aga article:

https://open.substack.com/pub/thedocmaker/p/cooking-up-a-lie-the-aga-affair-part?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4tvp4h

[Cambridgecutie]

The only perspectives that ultimately count are those held by the CoA. 

Even if it can be evidenced that NB was moved, and to my mind there is not a scintilla of evidence for this, it will fail because it in no way gets to the heart of the case namely the blood flake supposedly found inside the silencer. 

CoA would begrudgingly concede 'yes naughty police officers moved Mr Bamber and did not fess up' however this does not explain:

- why defence did not adjudicate this at trial
- how a flake of blood supposedly found inside the silencer matched SC's blood groups
- the sctaches on the Aga mantle
- the paint on the silencer
- why SC's nightdress was free of debris when FSS claim it would have expected to find some on someone who fired a rifle 25/6 times
- why SC's handswabs did not support someone handling the cartriges as FSS claim
- Julie Mugford's testimony

I have no idea what is difficult to understand about this?

Oh btw it goes without saying the CoA hearing the evidence about moving NB is hypothetical because it would not pass CCRC in the first place.

[Roch]

Is it on You Tube Roch?  Have you got a link?  He will do for me then, I like honesty.

It's mainly written article with images. In two parts. Re the video, the only part worth watching is the MET detective bit. You will have seen the rest. I have posted up the two article links.

[Adam]

Oh btw it goes without saying the CoA hearing the evidence about moving NB is hypothetical because it would not pass CCRC in the first place.

Do you think Nevill phoned Jeremy when Sheila went upstairs with the rifle?

All we know from Jeremy was that Sheila had the rifle & had gone crazy.

[Hardy Boy]

It's mainly written article with images. In two parts. Re the video, the only part worth watching is the MET detective bit. You will have seen the rest. I have posted up the two article links.

Thanks Roch, yes I had read it before.  I have a very lot of Flaws in what he’s saying though   I did write some down some time back,  😂😂😂. I’m sure you’ll be interested 🙈. I’ll try and do it in stages because I have to copy and reconstruct my Narrative.

[Bubo bubo]

The only perspectives that ultimately count are those held by the CoA. 

Even if it can be evidenced that NB was moved, and to my mind there is not a scintilla of evidence for this, it will fail because it in no way gets to the heart of the case namely the blood flake supposedly found inside the silencer. 

CoA would begrudgingly concede 'yes naughty police officers moved Mr Bamber and did not fess up' however this does not explain:

- why defence did not adjudicate this at trial The cause was ambiguous at the time of the trial
- how a flake of blood supposedly found inside the silencer matched SC's blood groups. Created by FSS
- the scratches on the Aga mantle. Created by family and or police post incident
- the paint on the silencer Ditto
- why SC's nightdress was free of debris when FSS claim it would have expected to find some on someone who fired a rifle 25/6 times. Dependent on distances and is only an opinion. 
- why SC's handswabs did not support someone handling the cartriges as FSS claim. She could have washed her hands.
- Julie Mugford's testimony. A pack of lies. Hitman an example

I have no idea what is difficult to understand about this?

[Roch]

Thanks Roch, yes I had read it before.  I have a very lot of Flaws in what he’s saying though   I did write some down some time back,  😂😂😂. I’m sure you’ll be interested 🙈. I’ll try and do it in stages because I have to copy and reconstruct my Narrative.

Might be good idea to refresh yourself with the content of both articles. Then you can re-check your old notes or do new ones. You could always ask the DM directly but you might need to subscribe to do that.

[snow66!]

Notice the doc-maker says the burns took at least 4hrs to form, but more likely 5-6 ?
That in itself raises a few questions!