The Arizona tests:

[Adam]

Correct me if I am wrong.

My understanding is the tests were to check the marks on Neville. To determine what they were.

Jeremy's camp claimed in a TV documentary that the marks were more consistent with burn marks from the rifle with the silencer off.

That does not mean anything. The rifle was found on Sheila with the silencer off. The silencer found in a box days later. So the burn marks could have been made after the killer put the silencer away.

There is no concrete evidence the burn marks were from the rifle. Or were made on the massacre night.

Seems a lot of time and money spent for nothing.

[guest154]

Seems a lot of time and money spent for nothing.

Agreed.


The tastes were strange. Even if they had conclusively proved the point they set out to make (which they didn't) the results weren't useful since as you say the silencer was OFF the fun when found on Sheila, so no one is saying thwe silencer on on throughout the ENTIRE murder.

If I had donated money to pay for these tests, I'd have a lot of questions about the neccesity for them.

[ngb1066]

Agreed.


The tastes were strange. Even if they had conclusively proved the point they set out to make (which they didn't) the results weren't useful since as you say the silencer was OFF the fun when found on Sheila, so no one is saying thwe silencer on on throughout the ENTIRE murder.

If I had donated money to pay for these tests, I'd have a lot of questions about the neccesity for them.

The report based upon tests in Arizona carried out by the leading burns expert Dr Caruso should be considered alongside the report prepared by the eminent patholgist in New York, an expert in gunshot wounds.  Together their reports suggested strongly that the silencer was not fitted at any stage. 

[Adam]

What would have been a lot more productive was if they could prove the contact shots were made without the silencer on.

But that would not be possible as the gun end/silencer would not leave a mark on the flesh. Anyway I  have never read that there was blood on the rifle end.

Maybe the tests were just a way to keep Jeremy in the public eye.

[guest154]

The report based upon tests in Arizona carried out by the leading burns expert Dr Caruso should be considered alongside the report prepared by the eminent patholgist in New York, an expert in gunshot wounds.  Together their reports suggested strongly that the silencer was not fitted at any stage.

I understand your desire to defend the tests and New York report  since you were working as part of the defence at the time or shortly before the tests were carried out. But a strong "suggestion" is just an expert opinion - and most experts have different opinions.

The ITV documentary didn't  feel clear, didn't feel finished or convincing. 

CCRC rejected - JR found the CCRC acted lawfully in their decision.  I think that says it all about the tests, opinons and not conclusions.

[lookout]

The professionals in America DID prove that the silencer wasn't fitted. There's been enough threads/diagrams about them.

If you read ALL posts instead of those who are very much anti,then you wouldn't " selectively miss " these other posts.

[guest154]

The professionals in America DID prove that the silencer wasn't fitted. There's been enough threads/diagrams about them.

If you read ALL posts instead of those who are very much anti,then you wouldn't " selectively miss " these other posts.

That's just not true, Lookout. It's believing things like this that aren't true that give you a firm belief in Bambers innocence.

[ngb1066]

I understand your desire to defend the tests and New York report  since you were working as part of the defence at the time or shortly before the tests were carried out. But a strong "suggestion" is just an expert opinion - and most experts have different opinions.

The ITV documentary didn't  feel clear, didn't feel finished or convincing. 

CCRC rejected - JR found the CCRC acted lawfully in their decision.  I think that says it all about the tests, opinons and not conclusions.

The problem was that time ran out and further work which was required and which could have strengthened considerably the conclusions of the experts was not possible.  The experts instructed were world leaders in their respective fields and their reports were peer reviewed. 

[Neil]

The problem was that time ran out and further work which was required and which could have strengthened considerably the conclusions of the experts was not possible.  The experts instructed were world leaders in their respective fields and their reports were peer reviewed.

I don't understand the CCRCs procedure at all.  How could time have run out?  Why would it matter if it took another two years until the case could be assessed?  Is it now possible to re submit the same ground for appeal, but this time with fully concluded reports? 

[Neil]

The report based upon tests in Arizona carried out by the leading burns expert Dr Caruso should be considered alongside the report prepared by the eminent patholgist in New York, an expert in gunshot wounds.  Together their reports suggested strongly that the silencer was not fitted at any stage.

Are any of the pathologists conclusions in the public domain?  I don't remember much from the documentary. 

[lookout]

That's just not true, Lookout. It's believing things like this that aren't true that give you a firm belief in Bambers innocence.

Naturally,that's the idea. My belief in his innocence.

[ngb1066]

I don't understand the CCRCs procedure at all.  How could time have run out?  Why would it matter if it took another two years until the case could be assessed?  Is it now possible to re submit the same ground for appeal, but this time with fully concluded reports?

The CCRC set a final deadline which was very difficult as Simon McKay had not long been instructed.  If further tests were completed and finished reports prepared, this could form part of the basis for a fresh application.

[guest154]

The CCRC were very flexible with the Bamber case and gave him extensions.

[guest154]

  If further tests were completed and finished reports prepared, this could form part of the basis for a fresh application.

You'd think that this would be happening, if the tests were begining to prove the kind of things they are made out to have been you'd think they would now be being completed.

[ngb1066]

I don't understand the CCRCs procedure at all.  How could time have run out?  Why would it matter if it took another two years until the case could be assessed?  Is it now possible to re submit the same ground for appeal, but this time with fully concluded reports?

The reports have not been published so they are not in the public domain, but they were referred to in the High Court judgement in the Judicial Review application.  Personally I would favour putting the final submissions and the supporting reports in the public domain as I do not believe any harm could result from it.  However, it is not my decision and I feel bound by a duty of confidentiality not to post the material here.