Ralph's pyjama,s

[ngb1066]

I think I may have said this to you before, but, if this were proved to be the case, that the silencer wasn't on the rifle when the burn marks were made, does that not point more to Bamber than it does to Sheila, the 'crazed killer'? As it surely shows a level of thought not expected in someone having some kind of 'episode'. Also, if the silencer wasn't on the rifle when Nevill was marked, it doesn't mean it wasn't used at all, and therfore, how does this take the defence anyway forward?

I do not accept that this points to Jeremy Bamber.  His evidence was that when he left the rifle leaning against the settle the silencer was not fitted.  I believe the importance of the new evidence relating to the burn marks, together with the report of the New York pathologist concluding that the silencer was not fitted to the rifle when Sheila was shot, is that a central and essential part of the prosecution case at trial is discredited, rendering the convictions unsafe.

   

[vidvic]

I do not accept that this points to Jeremy Bamber.  His evidence was that when he left the rifle leaning against the settle the silencer was not fitted.  I believe the importance of the new evidence relating to the burn marks, together with the report of the New York pathologist concluding that the silencer was not fitted to the rifle when Sheila was shot, is that a central and essential part of the prosecution case at trial is discredited, rendering the convictions unsafe.

   

For that to be the case, surely you have to discredit both the blood and DNA silencer evidence in tandem with the burn mark issue?

[ngb1066]

For that to be the case, surely you have to discredit both the blood and DNA silencer evidence in tandem with the burn mark issue?

The blood and DNA evidence has to be addressed in an appeal, but this can be done by advancing the possibilty of contamination. 

   

[Bridget]

For that to be the case, surely you have to discredit both the blood and DNA silencer evidence in tandem with the burn mark issue?

I agree on the blood evidence, but the court of appeal pretty much did the job of discrediting the DNA evidence for them.

[Patti]

Hi Patti  you are forgiven my dear.  It is quite easy to pull the back of PJ's off the neck and top bit of the back if you think about prodding somebody the obvious place is to stand  behind them as you are stood up straight and not having to lean over and as Ralph was slumped forward the neck and nape would be tight and taut and easier to prod Imagine doing it that is what I do.  ngb thinks the butt of the rifle could be heated enough to cause the burn marks.  Again I am repeating myself Sheila smoked big cigars they would cause these marks the first mark would be when the cigar was at its hottest and would cause a different mark to the one below which would be different again and the same with the one below.  I hope I am making sense.  I will now repeat again about 30 years ago I had a lit cigarette held against the back of my hand for sometime and it caused a hugh round burn mark which was more prominently red around the edges.  The burn went right through the skin into the flesh.  It was quite bad for awhile but healed and I still have the round scar on my hand which will be with me for life.  I had this done when I was going to become a White Witch but changed my mind now I just read tea leaves

Hi Susan   I hear you my dear and you are right, but things have to proven beyond a doubt.  Why would anyone heat the muzzle of the rifle then burn him? If the muzzle had got hot enough, then I think it be enough to say that he was held at gun point if you know what I mean. 

Cigarettes do burn....I was trying to find cigarette burn on dead bodies the other night....I told you about the 3 burns signifying my crazy life.  It is practiced within the Asian community....Right must have my dinner....Your late! lol 

[vidvic]

The blood and DNA evidence has to be addressed in an appeal, but this can be done by advancing the possibilty of contamination. 

 

OK, so you have to prove the silencer wasn't fitted to the gun when Nevill was killed, then prove that both the Blood and the DNA evidence was contaminated? How can you do either when this was tried in 2002?

[vidvic]

I agree on the blood evidence, but the court of appeal pretty much did the job of discrediting the DNA evidence for them.

I don't know if I agree with you there Bridget. I think the finding of Junes DNA on the baffles was pretty conclusive?

[ngb1066]

OK, so you have to prove the silencer wasn't fitted to the gun when Nevill was killed, then prove that both the Blood and the DNA evidence was contaminated? How can you do either when this was tried in 2002?

With evidence which was not available in 2002.

[Bridget]

I don't know if I agree with you there Bridget. I think the finding of Junes DNA on the baffles was pretty conclusive?

It was pretty conclusive that it was there, yes. But, JB was trying to argue that the blood found in the silencer was a combination of Neville and June's (the remote possibility described by the expert at trial) and he had been disadvantaged by the police disposing of the blood samples. So, the court of appeal, in an effort to redress the balance, gave him the benefit of the doubt and concluded (for the purposes of that argument) that the DNA was June's, and that it had come from blood. However, their findings on the DNA evidence overall were that the results were inconclusive because LCN DNA testing is very much more sensitive than anything envisaged in 1985, and so there was a potential for contamination because the silencer was not handled in a manner which would prevent it (for the purposes of LCN testing). Although in the decision this finding was aimed predominantly in the direction of the evidence with regards Sheila's DNA, the same must apply to that of June.

[Bridget]

Oh and apologies for the Oxford commas (you know who you are) but I like them