Why only Neville's back was burnt:

[Adam]

He and Neville were next to the aga.

Neville's body was in the perfect position for Bamber to burn his back.

Neville put up most resistance and put up a 'tremendous' fight for life. So may have still had signs of life 

The twins were shot 5 and 8 times all shots in the head, and were only 6.  So unlikely to survive.

Bamber couldn't burn Sheila's back. She was supposed to have committed suicide.

The twins were lying on their backs. Bamber would have to move them.

Bamber couldn't burn everyone's backs. It would look too suspicious.

The burning instrument may not stay hot enough to be effective while being taken upstairs.

Bamber may not have had time to burn everyones back.

Bamber was satisfied June was dead. She had been shot several times in the head.

Bamber burnt Neville's back just before he left WHF as he had to exit the kitchen window and pass Neville. This is if he did not use the rifle head.

If Bamber used the rifle head on Neville before returning upstairs,  he didn't want to burn it too much in case he damaged it.

Neville showed signs of life after each burn. So had to be burnt three times. No one upstairs showed signs of life after their 2, 3, 5 and 7 shots.

Bamber was shooting a dead or knocked out Neville next to the aga. Why not burn his back as well ?

[lookout]

 Ahhhhh,but the three adults all had marks of sorts on their arms ?

[Adam]

The burn marks are very important.

Bamber agrees they are from the rifle minus the silencer. Which means he could have put the silencer away after using it to commit the massacre. Then decided to burn Neville's back with the rifle minus the silencer.

So is another very strong reason why the silencer was in the box at the back of the gun cupboard. With blood and paint in.

Supporters then say why didn't Bamber burn everyone's back ? Answers are now above.

[Steve_uk]

The burn marks are very important.

Bamber agrees they are from the rifle minus the silencer. Which means he could have put the silencer away after using it to commit the massacre. Then decided to burn Neville's back with the rifle minus the silencer.

So is another very strong reason why the silencer was in the box at the back of the gun cupboard. With blood and paint in.

Supporters then say why didn't Bamber burn everyone's back ? Answers are now above.

I'm not sure his supporters are asking that question. Didn't someone try an experiment to replicate the burn marks but couldn't heat the gun to a high enough temperature?

[Adam]

I'm not sure his supporters are asking that question. Didn't someone try an experiment to replicate the burn marks but couldn't heat the gun to a high enough temperature?

Sherlock has. And Holly did just now on the Red forum. It's a natural thing for supporters to say as a defence mechanism. So supporters have said it.

The only experiment I know of is the one Bamber carried out. Which had him saying the burn marks were from the end of the rifle without the silencer attached. 

[Adam]

Bamber's experiment was to try to discredit the blood evidence. By showing Sheila may have committed the massacre without the silencer attached. This failed on many levels.

If it wasn't Sheila's blood, whose human blood was it ?

Who put the aga paint into the silencer if it was not attached during the kitchen fight ?

Who put the white hair in the silencer ?

Sheila may have simply committed the massacre with the silencer on. Then taken it off to burn Neville. But why would Sheila bother taking it off at all ? And why bother putting it away, almost out of sight ?

[maggie]

Bamber's experiment was to try to discredit the blood evidence. By showing Sheila may have committed the massacre without the silencer attached. This failed on many levels.

If it wasn't Sheila's blood, whose human blood was it ?

Who put the aga paint into the silencer if it was not attached during the kitchen fight ?

Who put the white hair in the silencer ?

Sheila may have simply committed the massacre with the silencer on. Then taken it off to burn Neville. But why would Sheila bother taking it off at all ? And why bother putting it away, almost out of sight ?

Think if we knew the answer to all your questions this forum wouldn't exist Adam. 

[Steve_uk]

Bamber's experiment was to try to discredit the blood evidence. By showing Sheila may have committed the massacre without the silencer attached. This failed on many levels.

If it wasn't Sheila's blood, whose human blood was it ?

Who put the aga paint into the silencer if it was not attached during the kitchen fight ?

Who put the white hair in the silencer ?

Sheila may have simply committed the massacre with the silencer on. Then taken it off to burn Neville. But why would Sheila bother taking it off at all ? And why bother putting it away, almost out of sight ?

I don't think Sheila did put it away. I also can't see her messing with a stiff gun and burning Nevill's back without at least getting a couple of fingernails chipped. But don't forget the relatives had possession of the house post-murders and had time to scratch the mantelshelf with the silencer if they so wished. But if the Defence is arguing that the silencer is a red herring in the case it has to explain whether there was a silencer mark on Sheila's neck as depicted in the Andrew Hunter book draft..

[Adam]

There is a thread on why Sheila would not burn Neville's back.

Now there is a thread on why Bamber would only burn Neville's back and no one else's.

Bamber believes Neville's back was burnt without the silencer on. So indirectly agreeing he took the silencer off after committing the massacre to burn Neville's back. All simple.

Why did Bamber hide the silencer away after taking it off ? Surely another thread is not needed ?

[lookout]

One pathologist seemed to think the burns were done on another occasion,not necessarily on the night of the murders.

[maggie]

There is a thread on why Sheila would not burn Neville's back.

Now there is a thread on why Bamber would only burn Neville's back and no one else's.

Bamber believes Neville's back was burnt without the silencer on. So indirectly agreeing he took the silencer off after committing the massacre to burn Neville's back. All simple.

Why did Bamber hide the silencer away after taking it off ? Surely another thread is not needed ?

Surely not, Adam!!

[Steve_uk]

One pathologist seemed to think the burns were done on another occasion,not necessarily on the night of the murders.

That's interesting lookout. I wonder if Jeremy gave his parents a talking to for how he perceived they had treated him down the years before any shots were discharged, giving June a black eye in the process.

[lookout]

That's interesting lookout. I wonder if Jeremy gave his parents a talking to for how he perceived they had treated him down the years before any shots were discharged, giving June a black eye in the process.

Presumably it would also include Sheila's abdominal injury too ? I think there was a fracas the night before the murders.
Who was it who'd said that there were always rows going on ? I take it between June and Neville as the other two weren't always there. Maybe Neville was a shouty man.

[Jane]

Presumably it would also include Sheila's abdominal injury too ? I think there was a fracas the night before the murders.
Who was it who'd said that there were always rows going on ? I take it between June and Neville as the other two weren't always there. Maybe Neville was a shouty man.

Maybe it was just gossip.

[lookout]

Maybe it was just gossip.

Ohhh,a lot of gossip round there I'm sure. Some folk thrive on it.