Questions for the OS about Neville's rifle back burn marks :

[Adam]

From the OS - The judge said in his summing up that it was “a fact” that the moderator was on the rifle in the kitchen. New evidence from Dr Caruso, a leading burns specialist confirms that Nevill’s burn injuries were made by the end of the rifle’s barrel'.

Questions:

Would Sheila in her rage, decide to heat the rifle end and burn Neville's back ?

Why wasn't the silencer left in the kitchen by Sheila, if taken off  ?

Why would Sheila put the silencer in a box at the back of the gun cupboard. Underneath other boxes prior to burning Neville's back ?

Why did Sheila want to check if Neville was still alive prior to killing herself ?

Why wouldn't Sheila heat the rifle with the silencer on ?

What made Sheila decide to burn Neville's back with the end of the rifle, as a way of checking whether he was still alive ?

Would Sheila not have enough things to do already before the police arrived ?

Would Sheila not assume Neville was already dead ?

Was Sheila's aim simply to kill her children and herself. Providing Neville was immobilised, she could do this. So why burn his back to check for signs of life ?

Did Bamber need Neville dead ?

Did Neville put up a ferocious fight for life. So could have still been alive in the kitchen ?

Was Bamber calculating enough to burn the rifle and Neville's back to check for signs of life ?

Was Bamber composed enough to check for signs of life by taking a silencer off, putting it away and burning Neville's back with a heated rifle end ?

Could the silencer have been taken off and put away because Bamber wanted to check on Neville ? He was still unaware that the rifle was too long for Sheila with the silencer on, but felt it would be more effective to burn Neville with the rifle end, rather than a silencer end.

Had Bamber realised the rifle was too long for Sheila with the silencer on, and had put the silencer away. Then at the last minute decided to use the rifle to burn Neville, before laying the rifle on Sheila ?

Would the silencer have melted if put into the aga ? Was Bamber aware of this ?

What was the point of the expensive Arizona tests ?  It just showed the silencer may not have been on the rifle when Neville's back was burnt.

Is there still not a strong chance that the burn marks were caused with the silencer attached to the rifle ?

[Adam]

It is possible that Bamber had shot Sheila with the silencer and had still not realised it was too long for her to shoot herself.

He then decided to check again on Neville downstairs, and decided to burn his back for signs of life, which he believed is more effective without the silencer on. 

After taking the silencer off, he decided to simply put it away, virtually out of sight. Which is better than leaving it lying around in the kitchen. People would ask why did Sheila take it off.

Not having a silencer on display also deflects attention away from Bamber. As he would be much more likely to attempt an execution with a silencer attached.

[Adam]

I agree with the OS, that the burn marks were probably caused by the rifle without the silencer attached.

Heating the silencer after June, Sheila and Neville had been shot, would have surely destroyed the white hair, paint and human blood inside.

Bamber simply made a last minute decision to burn Neville's back. Taking off the silencer and putting it away beforehand.

[Adam]

The Arizona tests did more harm than good.

It just gives another reason why the silencer would be found in the gun cupboard. With paint, a hair and human blood on. Bamber simply felt it would be more effective to burn Neville's back, with just the end of the rifle.

Bamber's allegation that Sheila committed the massacre, because the burn marks may have been inserted without the silencer attached, is incredibly weak.

[Adam]

So really there are 4 reasons why Bamber would take the silencer off -

He realised the rifle was too long for Sheila.

He wanted to poke Neville's back and believed it was better to do this with the rifle end.

He didn't want the silencer being associated with the massacre. As an execution attempt by him would be attempted with the minimum of noise, with the silencer. 

A combination of all or some of the above.


Once the silencer is taken off, he would put it away. It's either going to be left on the rifle, or nowhere to be seen. So the silencer was put In a box, virtually out of site. Until those greedy relatives went snooping around.

[maggie]

So really there are 4 reasons why Bamber would take the silencer off -

He realised the rifle was too long for Sheila.

He wanted to poke Neville's back and believed it was better to do this with the rifle end.

He didn't want the silencer being associated with the massacre. As an execution attempt by him would be attempted with the minimum of noise, with the silencer. 

A combination of all or some of the above.


Once the silencer is taken off, he would put it away. It's either going to be left on the rifle, or nowhere to be seen. So the silencer was put In a box, virtually out of site. Until those greedy relatives went snooping around.

He did all that but forgot to wipe it properly, in fact as we are told there was blood and hair stuck to it when it was discovered, I doubt he wiped it at all.... difficult to believe he could be quite that sloppy.

[susan]

He did all that but forgot to wipe it properly, in fact as we are told there was blood and hair stuck to it when it was discovered, I doubt he wiped it at all.... difficult to believe he could be quite that sloppy.

Hi Maggie
IMO the silencer was never used in the shootings at WHF I have no evidence to back this theory but all sounds fishy to me.

[Adam]

Yes there are lots of reasons why Bamber didn't wipe down the silencer.  At least ten reasons -

He was not aware of back splatter.

He did not know the rifle with the silencer on was too long for Sheila.

He was not aware there was paint on the silencer. The massacre may have been committed in the dark.

He did not notice the hair due to the darkness.

Paint or a hair on the silencer does not make Bamber guilty.

He did not see the blood, inside the silencer baffles.

He was not expecting the police to suspect him and look for the silencer. He was right. They didn't.

If the police did suspect him, why would they look for the silencer ?

He was not expecting the relatives to look for the silencer.

He was not expecting people like the relatives to find the silencer. Even if they looked. It was in a box, underneath other boxes, a dartboard, and a gun at the back of the gun cupboard.

[Adam]

Hi Maggie
IMO the silencer was never used in the shootings at WHF I have no evidence to back this theory but all sounds fishy to me.

What are you're views on the 18 questions on the thread page ? Do you believe Sheila would burn Neville's back ?

[Adam]

Bamber taking the silencer off to burn Neville's back means he would not bother wiping it.

He was not aware the silencer was  an incriminating piece of evidence. Besides which he was putting it away so it would not be part of the crime scene.

He just put it back in the gun cupboard, where it should be. Which at the time was easier than putting it back onto the rifle.

[maggie]

Hi Maggie
IMO the silencer was never used in the shootings at WHF I have no evidence to back this theory but all sounds fishy to me.

Definitely fishy susan, it doesn't make any sense at all to me.  So many conflicting stories around the finding of the silencer and AEs description of the blood makes me question if she ever actually saw it but rather that is how she imagined it, we know the blood could not possibly look like a blob of blood or jam or anything like that a couple of hours after never mind days.

[susan]

Definitely fishy susan, it doesn't make any sense at all to me.  So many conflicting stories around the finding of the silencer and AEs description of the blood makes me question if she ever actually saw it but rather that is how she imagined it, we know the blood could not possibly look like a blob of blood or jam or anything like that a couple of hours after never mind days.

Maggie
very well put.

[maggie]

Bamber taking the silencer off to burn Neville's back means he would not bother wiping it.

He was not aware it was an incriminating piece of evidence. He just put it back in the gun cupboard, where it should be.

What? Why?  He may have put it back in the cupboard with blood on it, though it's difficult to believe but that is only a small part of the whole story and to me the whole story is not convincing.

[Adam]

What? Why?  He may have put it back in the cupboard with blood on it, though it's difficult to believe but that is only a small part of the whole story and to me the whole story is not convincing.

If he took off the silencer to burn Neville's back, that is the only reason he took it off

He didn't know about back splatter or that Sheila couldn't shoot herself with the silencer on. So why clean it ? It would not be part of the crime scene anyway as he was putting it away.

After burning Neville's back he simply put the silencer away, which was easier than to put it back on the gun.

[Adam]

People ask why Bamber didn't clean the silencer. Although it was not part of the crime scene.

Post 13 is a perfectly credible answer. Supported by the OS who believe Neville's burn marks were done with the rifle without the silencer attached.