Theoretical conclusions over burn marks to Nevill

[bob]

  hi bob are you ok??!!

Fine thanks maggie. You?
 

[maggie]

Fine thanks maggie. You?

  im fine bob buti don't quite believe what i'm seeing.

[bob]

  im fine bob buti don't quite believe what i'm seeing.

What's that then?

[bob]

I do not doubt this? I can easy see that there were witches at the farm. I have seen the photos and it could be very scary there. Do we know if any preists ever visited to investigate for poltergists?

I, for one, am very keen to hear more of your poltergeist theories Wodge...

[Newbury1]

Nick is this done on all guns; also has it been done for over 26 years? Just asking!

Yes on most decent make guns, and it would  have been applied to the Anschutz, which is why ngb is going to take up the point with Simon McKay.

IF gun bluing is effected by extreme heat and it can be proved that the Anschutz bluing has been effected by extreme heat then it would go some way to supporting the idea that the Anschutz may have been heated (without a silencer fitted) and used to burn Nevill.

However the converse to that is that if the bluing is effected by extreme heat and the the Anschutz bluing shows no sign of being heated then it will go against the defense stance!

This last point would be more in favour of the CCRC carrying out the test to countermand the Arizona gun test proposal put forward by the defence.

[Newbury1]

Does anyone think that the burnmarks were made by Jeremy ?

I'm struggling to understand why JB or Sheila would do it.

A point to consider is; were the burn marks actually inflicted on the night.

The CCRC could simply throw out the Arizona gun test idea on the basis that these tests would only stand if it could be proved the burn marks were made on the night - and I think that would be hard to prove!!

[Newbury1]

I'm not sure if this has already been put on the Forum, but is anyone able to supply a screen shot of the burn marks on Nevills back, compared with the test marks made to the pig skin, as shown on the Tonight programme.

I have looked on the picture thread and cannot find a screen shot there!

[Patti]

I'm not sure if this has already been put on the Forum, but is anyone able to supply a screen shot of the burn marks on Nevills back, compared with the test marks made to the pig skin, as shown on the Tonight programme.

I have looked on the picture thread and cannot find a screen shot there!

Nick I can do a screen shot, but I have no idea on how to put it on here....I can save as....and forward the
shot to someone who is more computer literate; if this helps...

[Newbury1]

Nick I can do a screen shot, but I have no idea on how to put it on here....I can save as....and forward the
shot to someone who is more computer literate; if this helps...

Hi Patti, take the screen shot as suggested (I cannot as I am at work and cannot access the Tonight programme) and save as to one of your files (as you have pointed out).

Then create a post and attach saved shot using Attachments and other options - then Browse - find saved file and attach - that should work!

I hope this makes sense!!

Thanks.

[Patti]

Hi Patti, take the screen shot as suggested (I cannot as I am at work and cannot access the Tonight programme) and save as to one of your files (as you have pointed out).

Then create a post and attach saved shot using Attachments and other options - then Browse - find saved file and attach - that should work!

I hope this makes sense!!

Thanks.

I have to go out, but as soon as I get back I will do it.....fingers crossed it works..I will also post in the
archives...

[sika]

Having read through the second appeal hearing I would, quite frankly, be amazed if the CCRC refer this back on the strength of the silencer evidence.  I noted how the CCRC took quite a bashing in the judges assessment of the evidence.  If after 10 years of raking over this case again, this is the best new evidence Bamber's team can produce, what will his next step be?  I think the legal system bends over backwards to ensure that justice is seen to be done, therefore offering up false hope in cases such as Bambers.  I've said it before and I will say it again,  If ALL these people conspired to get someone locked up for a crime they did not commit,then surely at least one would have cracked by now, especially as this case is still very much in the public's consciousness. 

[G]

Having read through the second appeal hearing I would, quite frankly, be amazed if the CCRC refer this back on the strength of the silencer evidence.  I noted how the CCRC took quite a bashing in the judges assessment of the evidence.  If after 10 years of raking over this case again, this is the best new evidence Bamber's team can produce, what will his next step be?  I think the legal system bends over backwards to ensure that justice is seen to be done, therefore offering up false hope in cases such as Bambers.  I've said it before and I will say it again,  If ALL these people conspired to get someone locked up for a crime they did not commit,then surely at least one would have cracked by now, especially as this case is still very much in the public's consciousness.

Well all I can say is that if you were on the CCRC then bamber will definitely not receive a submission to the court of appeal. For the way they handled the evidence that was presented to them last year was atrocious. For they dictated that police testimonies were more powerful than photographic evidence. Judging by what I have read so far about this case I have come to the conclusion that this has been a gross miscarriage of justice. One big question remains. What was so much evidence witheld from the court in the actual trial? This in itself points to a police cover-up. You may ask for what reason? Well that is the right question, but unfortunately too many people have come to the wrong answer and assume that there is no sense in the police covering up evidence. If that is the case then the police would find no difficulty in submitting that evidence. But for some reason they do find difficulty in doing so.
As it stands the man did not receive a fair trial. What makes you say that? you say. For the simple reason that all the evidence that convicted him was from those who were not neutral. (1) A girlfriend who he had dumped and so had a grudge against him. (2) The silencer was found by the family with other family as witnesses. It was received and accepted without doubt by the police even after it had been tampered with.

[Patti]

Not worked try again....This shows the burn marks on Nevill's back...

Please note that the test is done on pig skin, which simulates our own skin and the nozzle
had been been burned to 200 degrees as shown in the diagram.

However, the crime investigator said more test would be needed, because the nozzle would not have reached that temperature after firing several shots.

In the case of Shelia, it was his opinion that a moderator had not been used when she was shot.

In the case of the burns on Nevill's back, it was his opinion due to size and shape that the nozzle end of the rifle could have been used on his back, but he went on to say no moderator was used....This giving an indication that a moderator was not used during the killings.....

[sika]

Well all I can say is that if you were on the CCRC then bamber will definitely not receive a submission to the court of appeal. For the way they handled the evidence that was presented to them last year was atrocious. For they dictated that police testimonies were more powerful than photographic evidence. Judging by what I have read so far about this case I have come to the conclusion that this has been a gross miscarriage of justice. One big question remains. What was so much evidence witheld from the court in the actual trial? This in itself points to a police cover-up. You may ask for what reason? Well that is the right question, but unfortunately too many people have come to the wrong answer and assume that there is no sense in the police covering up evidence. If that is the case then the police would find no difficulty in submitting that evidence. But for some reason they do find difficulty in doing so.
As it stands the man did not receive a fair trial. What makes you say that? you say. For the simple reason that all the evidence that convicted him was from those who were not neutral. (1) A girlfriend who he had dumped and so had a grudge against him. (2) The silencer was found by the family with other family as witnesses. It was received and accepted without doubt by the police even after it had been tampered with.

I would concede, G man, that the police's failure to disclose all their material to the defence is a little baffling.  I don't know if anyone has ever offered an innocent explanation for this.  I don't know if this is common practice,  I suspect that it probably is.

[G]

Not worked try again....This shows the burn marks on Nevill's back...

Please note that the test is done on pig skin, which simulates our own skin and the nozzle
had been been burned to 200 degrees as shown in the diagram.

However, the crime investigator said more test would be needed, because the nozzle would not have reached that temperature after firing several shots.

In the case of Shelia, it was his opinion that a moderator had not been used when she was shot.

In the case of the burns on Nevill's back, it was his opinion due to size and shape that the nozzle end of the rifle could have been used on his back, but he went on to say no moderator was used....This giving an indication that a moderator was not used during the killings.....

That is if it was the muzzle of the gun that burnt him? To me they look nothing like the shape of the muzzle of a gun? If it was then it must have been red hot. More like a poker.