Theoretical conclusions over burn marks to Nevill

[Hartley]

How much information do you have about the instruction and purpose of the 'Arizonian tests'?

Just a hypothesis, but I wonder if the actual experiments were solely concerned with the marks left on a persons skin following a contact shot with and without a sound moderator attached to the rifle. The marks to Nevill being an afterthought?

I find it slightly interesting that there is admission that their is need for further work as it doesn't appear to be a particularly confident ground, as an actual submission to the CCRC. Hence why I think it's an afterthought. In it's current form, that particular argument has absolutely no chance of forcing the CCRC to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

(I'd like to start another discussion in a moment, speculatively, about what the actual indications are, should further testing indicate that the marks to Nevills back are proven to be caused by the barrel of the rifle heated in any manner) Link to discussion: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2536.0.html

In the mean time, following on from what I have written above, the original submission provisionally rejected in February 2011, have, as I understand it, had no further submissions, which could alter the CCRC's decision about what has previously been submitted.

Therefore, the only current item, which would force the case to be referred, is the marks left on a person receiving a contact shot with or without a silencer attached, as per what I believe to be the main thrust of the 'Arizonian Tests'.

Meaning, that if the CCRC can dismiss the 'Arizonian' contact shot mark experiment results (wow that was a mouthful), then a referral will not take place?

Obviously that is based simply on my own interpretation of what has been submitted by the defence and does not cater for any submissions lodged by 'Agent Z'.

Following on from the above. Let's just, for the sake of discussion, accept that the marks to Nevills back were caused by the barrel of the Anschutz 525 (the official murder weapon) heated up in some manner, without the sound moderator attached.

In isolation of any other theories, what do you think that would indicate? :

[Buddy]

I don't know obviously, but would it be possible that Ralph at some time leant against the aga in a sitting position which caused the burns to his back. I should add I no absolutly nothing about aga's.

[ngb1066]

Following on from the above. Let's just, for the sake of discussion, accept that the marks to Nevills back were caused by the barrel of the Anschutz 525 (the official murder weapon) heated up in some manner, without the sound moderator attached.

In isolation of any other theories, what do you think that would indicate? :

In my view it suggests first of all that it is unlikely that the silencer featured in the events at WHF.  It is of course possible, although unlikely, that the silencer was attached at some stage and then removed, but if it was not attached when Sheila was shot and not attached during the events in the kitchen it seems unlikely that it was attached at all.  In view of the significance of the evidence relating to the silencer at trial this new evidence seriously undermines the central plank of the prosecution case.

The next thing this would indicate is that for some reason whoever killed Nevill applied the hot rifle barrel to his neck.  There are I suppose two logical explanations.  The first is that it was a form of torture, horrible as that is to contemplate.  The second is that it was to see if there was any reaction by Nevil, i.e to establish whether he was dead. I prefer the second explanation, but I accept that it is only conjecture.

 

[Newbury1]

Following on from the above. Let's just, for the sake of discussion, accept that the marks to Nevills back were caused by the barrel of the Anschutz 525 (the official murder weapon) heated up in some manner, without the sound moderator attached.

In isolation of any other theories, what do you think that would indicate? :

Before death - torture? (although anyone thinking of torture would - imo - choose areas of the body where more pain would be inflicted)

After death - checking for signs off life? (although a battering and 8 bullets incl 4 shots into the brain would surely have convinced the killer that he was dead!).

Is there any significance that can be drawn from the positioning of the marks (i.e. three small circular marks close together in a row down the middle, but towards the top, of Nevill back)??

Has it been confirmed that the three marks were made independently of each other, as opposed to say a three pronged instrument that could have made all three marks a the same time?

[Hartley]

In my view it suggests first of all that it is unlikely that the silencer featured in the events at WHF.  It is of course possible, although unlikely, that the silencer was attached at some stage and then removed, but if it was not attached when Sheila was shot and not attached during the events in the kitchen it seems unlikely that it was attached at all.  In view of the significance of the evidence relating to the silencer at trial this new evidence seriously undermines the central plank of the prosecution case.

The next thing this would indicate is that for some reason whoever killed Nevill applied the hot rifle barrel to his neck.  There are I suppose two logical explanations.  The first is that it was a form of torture, horrible as that is to contemplate.  The second is that it was to see if there was any reaction by Nevil, i.e to establish whether he was dead. I prefer the second explanation, but I accept that it is only conjecture.

 

Okay, so in isolation, a sound moderator-less hot rifle barrel causing the wounds to Nevill, is a bit interesting and a bit of a conundrum, but it's only when coupled with evidence (if it exists) which indicates that Sheila was shot without the sound moderator attached, that it becomes ...... weighty (for want of a better word)?

[Hartley]

Before death - torture? (although anyone thinking of torture would - imo - choose areas of the body where more pain would be inflicted)

After death - checking for signs off life? (although a battering and 8 bullets incl 4 shots into the brain would surely have convinced the killer that he was dead!).

That sounds logical to me.

[ngb1066]

Okay, so in isolation, a sound moderator-less hot rifle barrel, is a interesting and a bit of a conundrum, but it's only when coupled with evidence (if it exists) which indicates that Sheila was shot without the sound moderator attached, that it becomes ...... weighty (for want of a better word)?

I think that is a reasonable summary of the position. 

 

[Hartley]

I think that is a reasonable summary of the position.

Okay, so where does the blood discovered in the sound moderator come into play, particularly since the DNA testing which is indicative of a number of the victims blood being found in the sound moderator?

Would the above be allegedly put down to either contamination, or foul play in the form of planted evidence?

[Roch]

Okay, so where does the blood discovered in the sound moderator come into play, particularly since the DNA testing which is indicative of a number of the victims blood being found in the sound moderator?

Would the above be allegedly put down to either contamination, or foul play in the form of planted evidence?

In my opinion there is such serious doubt about the authenticity of the sound moderator, I'm not sure the defence should be the side being asked.  That is only my opinion though and I expect that the CCRC have not been brought to the same position, therefore for them, it may remain a question aimed towards the defence. 

[Newbury1]

The burn marks on Nevills back did not form a significant part of the 1986 trial and I believe were written off as a mystery!

I'm probably going a bit CSI here, but was the Anschutz barrel end ever tested for coal/coke carbon residue in 1985/86 (if heated up in an Aga oven) and if not I guess the rifle is still available somewhere for further testing (or has it been wiped clean since 1985)??

Having noticed recently that a poker was found in the gun cupboard - where allegedly the (a) silencer was found - is this just another coincidence?

[Hartley]

In my opinion there is such serious doubt about the authenticity of the sound moderator, I'm not sure the defence should be the side being asked.  That is only my opinion though and I expect that the CCRC have not been brought to the same position, therefore for them, it may remain a question aimed towards the defence.

Yes I understand your view on that, and if you will allow me just a little bit of sarcasm without taking offence, then I would say it is hardly surprising that members of a pro-Bamber forum hold that view.

However, regardless of both of our views, rightly or wrongly, in the eyes of the law, your doubts are not mirrored at this time, therefore they could not be used to reinforce another argument, well they could, but only on this forum.

[Newbury1]

Okay, so where does the blood discovered in the sound moderator come into play, particularly since the DNA testing which is indicative of a number of the victims blood being found in the sound moderator?

Would the above be allegedly put down to either contamination, or foul play in the form of planted evidence?

In my opinion the defence are working on no silencer used at all (undermining all silencer evidence used to incriminate JB), therefore the silencer evidence was planted, the blood in the silencer evidence was then either planted, contaminated or non human altogether!!

 

[Hartley]

The burn marks on Nevills back did not form a significant part of the 1986 trial and I believe were written off as a mystery!

I'm probably going a bit CSI here, but was the Anschutz barrel end ever tested for coal/coke carbon residue in 1985/86 (if heated up in an Aga oven) and if not I guess the rifle is still available somewhere for further testing (or has it been wiped clean since 1985)??

Having noticed recently that a poker was found in the gun cupboard - where allegedly the (a) silencer was found - is this just another coincidence?

It might be my imagination working overtime, but I would hazard a guess that it is for exactly that reason that NGB has mentioned that experiments were carried out on a rifle being put in the oven. I can't imagine that they would have ignored the 'coke fired' Aga due to misinformation given by the likes of Hartley about the Aga being oil fired. 

[campion]

Following on from Hartley's and Rochford's views on the silencer/blood contamination, I feel that after the conclusions are drawn on whether a silencer was on the rifle, then an all out attack should be made by the defence on all involved with the silencers discovery. I can't at the moment see how three Medical Examiner's reports can be challenged.

[Hartley]

Following on from Hartley's and Rochford's views on the silencer/blood contamination, I feel that after the conclusions are drawn on whether a silencer was on the rifle, then an all out attack should be made by the defence on all involved with the silencers discovery. I can't at the moment see how three Medical Examiner's reports can be challenged.

I'm sure the CCRC will take everything into account.