Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on February 26, 2025, 05:31:PM
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7008.msg329180.html#msg329180
Will go through it now.
-
Prof Knight confirms he did not attend the autopsy with Vanezis.
He is going by photographs and saying a qualified pathologist who did examine the bodies is wrong.
Bamber must have agreed with Prof Knight at trial as he was working for the defence.
However changed his mind for his 2012 and 2021 CCRC referrals.
-
Prof Knight says they are 'deep abrasions from prodding'.
Why would anyone prod Nevill's back with such force it inflicted 'deep abrasions'. Three times!
-
Prof Knight admits his 'deep abrasion' theory is speculation.
Not sure why the defence were so keen to dispute the burn marks. Maybe they thought the prosecution would claim a more composed Bamber would inflict them.
-
He was correct about them being abrasions from prodding, but incorrect about the element of burns.
-
Seems the rest of his trial testimony is about Nevill's other injuries. Agreeing the blows to Nevill's head would have caused concussion.
-
Prof Knight is what CC/Curosity bases her view that they are not burns on.
I would rather go by the pathologist who examined Nevill. Ditto everyone else in the last 39 years.
-
A blunt instrument can cause bruising, lacerations, concussion, bone breaks, black eyes, grazing. These are documented in Vanezis's report.
However Vanezis says the marks on the back are 'distinct burn marks'.
A cold blunt instrument being used to repeatedly and forcefully prod someone in the same place until a mark arises (3 times) makes no sense.
-
Wonder how long it would take to make a mark from 'prodding' with a cold blunt instrument. Three times.
Minutes, hours?
-
He was correct about them being abrasions from prodding, but incorrect about the element of burns.
Here's Prof Knight's CV. Why would anyone choose to accept your opinion over Prof Knight's? What qualifies you to say he is incorrect and on what basis do you believe he is incorrect?
-
Prof Knight confirms he did not attend the autopsy with Vanezis.
He is going by photographs and saying a qualified pathologist who did examine the bodies is wrong.
Bamber must have agreed with Prof Knight at trial as he was working for the defence.
However changed his mind for his 2012 and 2021 CCRC referrals.
Prof Knight said Dr Vanezis also said he was not sure.
-
Prof Knight is what CC/Curosity bases her view that they are not burns on.
I would rather go by the pathologist who examined Nevill. Ditto everyone else in the last 39 years.
Who is "everyone else"?
-
There is a good article in the Doc Maker about the burns/marks on Nevil.
It does look like they were caused by the Aga?
If so we are left with either the police moving Nevil or somehow trying to fit the hours needed to form the marks in to the timeline of events that night?
-
Assume Vanezis would know burn marks when he sees them. If not he gets a burns expect in.
Neither Knight or Vanezis believe they were old 1940's war wounds.
Both believe they were from prodding.
-
Assume Vanezis would know burn marks when he sees them. If not he gets a burns expect in.
Neither Knight or Vanezis believe they were old 1940's war wounds.
Both believe they were from prodding.
Malcom Fletcher believed they were caused by the rifle barrel. He done experiments at Huntington that were not disclosed to the defence.
-
Assume Vanezis would know burn marks when he sees them. If not he gets a burns expect in.
Neither Knight or Vanezis believe they were old 1940's war wounds.
Both believe they were from prodding.
To burn someone with a prod the implement would have to be very hot.
-
Definitely not a signs of life test anyway.
-
Assume Vanezis would know burn marks when he sees them. If not he gets a burns expect in.
Neither Knight or Vanezis believe they were old 1940's war wounds.
Both believe they were from prodding.
But we have seen no evidence that anyone accessed NB's medi records to see if he sustained any recent or historic injury that could account for the marks.
Why would he get a burns expert in? He was concerned with cause of death not superficial marks. Remember too the thinking was murder/suicide.
-
Definitely not a signs of life test anyway.
Wow we agree on something!
A test for sign of life makes no sense from either a psychotic SC or JB. Why would either single out NB? Why not inflict such a test on the other victims?
-
Wow we agree on something!
A test for sign of life makes no sense from either a psychotic SC or JB. Why would either single out NB? Why not inflict such a test on the other victims?
Totally agree.
A simple pulse check suffices.
-
Me, Jane, Steve, NGB, Hardyboy, Scipio, other former posters believe it was to test for signs of life.
Rage/spite is not a possibility as Bamber had just brutally beaten Nevill & shot him 4-8 times. He also needed to keep focused on the job.
-
Totally agree.
A simple pulse check suffices.
The burn mark evidence shows he burnt Nevill's back to check for signs of life.
A slim chance he did both.
-
The burn mark evidence shows he burnt Nevill's back to check for signs of life.
No it doesn't.
You know this.
-
But we have seen no evidence that anyone accessed NB's medi records to see if he sustained any recent or historic injury that could account for the marks.
Why would he get a burns expert in? He was concerned with cause of death not superficial marks. Remember too the thinking was murder/suicide.
He was completing a report.
His '3 distinct burn marks' quote would be said if 100% sure himself or he had got a burns expert in.
-
The burn mark evidence shows he burnt Nevill's back to check for signs of life.
A slim chance he did both.
Where does either pathologist, defence or prosecution make reference to anyone checking for life?
-
Me, Jane, Steve, NGB, Hardyboy, Scipio, other former posters believe it was to test for signs of life.
You often do this a lot, list other people who believe what you do in order to bolster arguments. It's like a primary school playground argument.
-
No it doesn't.
You know this.
Me, Jane, Steve, NGB, Hardyboy, Scipio, other former posters believe it was to test for signs of life.
You know this.
-
Me, Jane, Steve, NGB, Hardyboy, Scipio, other former posters believe it was to test for signs of life.
Rage/spite is not a possibility as Bamber had just brutally beaten Nevill & shot him 4-8 times. He also needed to keep focused on the job.
Test for signs of life after shooting Nevil four times in the head?
It was a .22 not a spud gun.
-
Bamber has been all over the place with the burns -
1986 - An expert was hired to claim it was from 'prodding' from a cold instrument.
2012 - Sheila inflicted the burns. But don't know why.
2021 - Nevill laid against a cold aga door. He was moved by the police & put onto a coal scuttle/chair & trousers pulled down.
-
Me, Jane, Steve, NGB, Hardyboy, Scipio, other former posters believe it was to test for signs of life.
You know this.
So that means it's gospel then?
-
He was completing a report.
His '3 distinct burn marks' quote would be said if 100% sure himself or he had got a burns expert in.
It was said at trial he was not sure. There's no evidence he got a burns expert involved. Why would he when his main objective was to determine cause of death (gunshot wounds) in a case which all agreed was murder/suicide. Why waste resources on 3 small marks when they clearly did not contribute to death?
He did not go into the mark on Sheila's abdomen. No need because it clearly did not contribute to death and all agreed she took her own life.
-
Bamber has been all over the place with the burns -
Bamber says he didn't do it.
He's not a pathologist, he's a man who's claiming a MOJ, he was a farmer who went down the swanny at 24.
-
Bamber has been all over the place with the burns -
1986 - An expert was hired to claim it was from 'prodding' from a cold instrument.
2012 - Sheila inflicted the burns. But don't know why.
2021 - Nevill laid against a cold aga door. He was moved by the police & put onto a coal scuttle/chair & trousers pulled down.
First time I've heard about the 1986 expert?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3777.0.html
This is the 2012 CCRC report.
Caroso says they are burns.
Sorry CC/Curiosity. Not 1940's war wounds.
Will read it in more detail.
-
It was said at trial he was not sure.
Which contradicts his 1985 statement.
He's either sure or isn't.
-
First time I've heard about the 1986 expert?
Prof Knight.
-
It was said at trial he was not sure. There's no evidence he got a burns expert involved. Why would he when his main objective was to determine cause of death (gunshot wounds) in a case which all agreed was murder/suicide. Why waste resources on 3 small marks when they clearly did not contribute to death?
He did not go into the mark on Sheila's abdomen. No need because it clearly did not contribute to death and all agreed she took her own life.
I would have thought he would be open minded Cc? If foul play other than Sheila was involved it was his job to find it?
He should never have assumed it was a shut and closed case.
Surely he should be looking at the smallest marks and nicks? and the burns to Nevil's back should have aroused special attention?
-
Me, Jane, Steve, NGB, Hardyboy, Scipio, other former posters believe it was to test for signs of life.
You know this.
I was taught rudimentary first aid as a 13 year old 1981.
It's laughable.
-
Prof Knight.
Prof Knight wasn't a burns expert. He was the defence pathologist at trial.
-
Boyce says it was possible to use a hot oven plate to heat a rifle nozzle sufficiently to inflict the burns.
In 5 minutes.
-
I would have thought he would be open minded Cc? If foul play other than Sheila was involved it was his job to find it?
He should never have assumed it was a shut and closed case.
Surely he should be looking at the smallest marks and nicks? and the burns to Nevil's back should have aroused special attention?
But 4 police officers attended throughout the pm's and he was told as far as EP were concerned it was murder/suicide. He found nothing to contradict the murder/suicide theory.
Sheila has an unexplained graze to her abdomen but this is barely mentioned.
The marks will never go anywhere with the CCRC/CoA as they could have been adjudicated on at trial.
-
Dr Fowler believes they were burns. Inflicted minus silencer.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3777.0.html
This is the 2012 CCRC report.
Caroso says they are burns.
Sorry CC/Curiosity. Not 1940's war wounds.
Will read it in more detail.
The pathologist who saw the victim/marks said at trial he was unsure they were burns.
The defence pathologist who was working from images was adamant they were not burns.
Why should we believe Dr Caruso over the above?
The war wounds was just an idea I mooted. I accept I could be completely wrong. But we do know he sustained a back injury and spents weeks/months with his back in plaster.
-
Dr Fowler believes they were burns. Inflicted minus silencer.
The pathologist who saw the victim/marks said at trial he was unsure they were burns.
The defence pathologist who was working from images was adamant they were not burns.
Why should we believe Dr Fowler over the above?
-
But 4 police officers attended throughout the pm's and he was told as far as EP were concerned it was murder/suicide. He found nothing to contradict the murder/suicide theory.
Sheila has an unexplained graze to her abdomen but this is barely mentioned.
The marks will never go anywhere with the CCRC/CoA as they could have been adjudicated on at trial.
I think it is if you have some significant new evidence or argument which has not been considered at trial or appeal?
So if it can be proved the Aga caused the burns this would be new evidence?
-
I think it is if you have some significant new evidence or argument which has not been considered at trial or appeal?
So if it can be proved the Aga caused the burns this would be new evidence?
How would that be proven and it's proof of what? How does the Aga causing the burns prove Jeremy innocent?
-
I think it is if you have some significant new evidence or argument which has not been considered at trial or appeal?
So if it can be proved the Aga caused the burns this would be new evidence?
No.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/appeals-court-appeal
Hearing new evidence
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:
it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
Imo the Aga burn thing doesn't appear capable of belief but lets forget that. What would be the reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it at trial?
At trial you can pretty much throw the kitchen sink at it. Once the jury return a verdict, to say your backs up against the wall is an understatement. The grounds for appeal are narrow and focused as you can see from the above.
Even if the CCRC/CoA accepted the Aga/burns how would this overcome the silencer evidence and all the other evidence the prosecution put forward showing it wasn't SC?
I'm sorry but Bamber and his people are nits. And this extends to the solicitor.
-
How would that be proven and it's proof of what? How does the Aga causing the burns prove Jeremy innocent?
They can claim Nevill was moved by the police prior to crime scene photos.
-
They can claim Nevill was moved by the police prior to crime scene photos.
But this wouldn't go anywhere to showing JB wasn't responsible and SC was.
-
No.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/appeals-court-appeal
Hearing new evidence
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:
it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
Imo the Aga burn thing doesn't appear capable of belief but lets forget that. What would be the reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it at trial?
At trial you can pretty much throw the kitchen sink at it. Once the jury return a verdict, to say your backs up against the wall is an understatement. The grounds for appeal are narrow and focused as you can see from the above.
Even if the CCRC/CoA accepted the Aga/burns how would this overcome the silencer evidence and all the other evidence the prosecution put forward showing it wasn't SC?
I'm sorry but Bamber and his people are nits. And this extends to the solicitor.
I agree Cc but that's why I said if it could be proven, from what I have seen on the Doc Maker it's pretty close to proven the Aga caused the burns. That leaves us with the police moving Nevil or the whole prosecution scenario is wrong.
-
But this wouldn't go anywhere to showing JB wasn't responsible and SC was.
Agree.
But they can claim police malpractice at the crime scene.
-
But this wouldn't go anywhere to showing JB wasn't responsible and SC was.
It would show the police completely changed the crime scene, or the tragedy occurred over hours and not a quick in and out by Bamber.
-
How would that be proven and it's proof of what? How does the Aga causing the burns prove Jeremy innocent?
Have you seen the article in the Doc Maker?
I think with 3d modelling it can be proven?
-
Malcom Fletcher believed they were caused by the rifle barrel. He done experiments at Huntington that were not disclosed to the defence.
I do wonder how McKay found out about this. It would be interesting to see.
-
I don't believe Nevill fell sideways on to the aga door.
Besides which the door would be cold!
But appreciate the CT have to keep Bamber in the media.
-
I do wonder how McKay found out about this. It would be interesting to see.
It can't be very convincing if it was not disclosed David? Personally I don't think it was a rifle barrel?
The Aga looks a very strong contender to me, you do modelling so do I if we could get some quality pictures who knows?
Hint hint Jane.
-
Have you seen the article in the Doc Maker?
I think with 3d modelling it can be proven?
Four different experts have said it was caused by the barrel. The only person saying it was the Aga is contradicting himself having said the former.
-
I agree Cc but that's why I said if it could be proven, from what I have seen on the Doc Maker it's pretty close to proven the Aga caused the burns. That leaves us with the police moving Nevil or the whole prosecution scenario is wrong.
But even if it could be proven EP moved NB and the Aga caused the marks how would this exonerate JB? How would it overcome the silencer and the other evidence put forward by the prosecution showing it wasn't SC: hand swabs, hands, nightdress?
-
It can't be very convincing if it was not disclosed David? Personally I don't think it was a rifle barrel?
The Aga looks a very strong contender to me, you do modelling so do I if we could get some quality pictures who knows?
Hint hint Jane.
On the contrary, it could have been undisclosed because it was harmful to the prosecution.
-
On the contrary, it could have been undisclosed because it was harmful to the prosecution.
Yes good point.
-
Four different experts have said it was caused by the barrel. The only person saying it was the Aga is contradicting himself having said the former.
But at trial the HO pathologist said no such thing, nor did the defence pathologist.
-
But even if it could be proven EP moved NB and the Aga caused the marks how would this exonerate JB? How would it overcome the silencer and the other evidence put forward by the prosecution showing it wasn't SC: hand swabs, hands, nightdress?
Well there are only two options it was either the police who moved Nevil, or he was laying by the Aga for several hours before the first shots were fired.
It would mean no crime scene photos could be trusted at the very least.
-
Bamber has been all over the place with the burns -
1986 - An expert was hired to claim it was from 'prodding' from a cold instrument.
2012 - Sheila inflicted the burns. But don't know why.
2021 - Nevill laid against a cold aga door. He was moved by the police & put onto a coal scuttle/chair & trousers pulled down.
Bamber being all over the place proves that he had no idea what made the marks, Adam=innocence!
-
I think it is if you have some significant new evidence or argument which has not been considered at trial or appeal?
So if it can be proved the Aga caused the burns this would be new evidence?
Agree Rob!
-
It would show the police completely changed the crime scene, or the tragedy occurred over hours and not a quick in and out by Bamber.
Agree Rob!
Why cant others see that?
-
The 'Aga burns' will go nowhere. Bamber will take it to judicial review. It will go nowhere. Then JB and his supporters will say the CCRC is corrupt.
-
The 'Aga burns' will go nowhere. Bamber will take it to judicial review. It will go nowhere. Then JB and his supporters will say the CCRC is corrupt.
Bambers 64 and fighting time.
This may well be his last crack of the dice.
-
The 'Aga burns' will go nowhere. Bamber will take it to judicial review. It will go nowhere. Then JB and his supporters will say the CCRC is corrupt.
This is true. They will take all the recent submissions to the High Court, Admin Division, which will go no where. The first application in writing ("on the papers"), will be refused as will a second application ("renewed application to the full court"), orally in front of a panel of High Court judges.
Bamber's supporters will say that the CCRC is corrupt and High Court is corrupt.
I'll say to them "show me what they decided and we can discuss whether their response was reasonable".
-
Then it's an new set of submissions and back to square one.
And again a long period of wilderness.
I've no doubt he will carry on fighting till his last breathe.
But growing old in prison and fighting a MOJ is a tiresome affair.
-
I have no idea whether Boyce's theory is correct or not. As has been pointed out by CC, he is not a burns expert.
-
It would show the police completely changed the crime scene, or the tragedy occurred over hours and not a quick in and out by Bamber.
That's only if you accept the THEORY that not only did the burns come from the AGA, but that Nevill lay unconscious for several hours while the burns formed. It's a none starter because it's a (far fetched) total theory that can never be proven. Bamber will never get another appeal based on theory.
-
That's only if you accept the THEORY that not only did the burns come from the AGA, but that Nevill lay unconscious for several hours while the burns formed. It's a none starter because it's a (far fetched) total theory that can never be proven. Bamber will never get another appeal based on theory.
It won't be a theory for much longer, it should be easy to prove one way or the other if the Aga caused the burns/marks on Nevil.
It's a easy job for a expert in computer graphics/modelling to simulate various positions etc. of someone lying up against the Aga.
We know Nevil's build and the likely depth of penetration of the handles into his skin etc.
-
It won't be a theory for much longer
In my opinion its a non-starter. The marks look nothing like the aga handles and it contradicts the bloodstain patterns on the floor.
To me its obvious what caused them.
PS: Images 4 and 5 I have increased the contrast to make it easier to see.
(https://s8.postimg.cc/5b4a8cfb9/burntrial.png)
(https://s8.postimg.cc/iphd4vm4l/nb_burn.png)
(https://s8.postimg.cc/6c4ixe3zp/nb_burn2.png)
(https://s8.postimg.cc/71nb9qp3p/nb_burn3.png.jpg)
(https://s8.postimg.cc/q80idfdgl/muzzle.jpg)
-
It won't be a theory for much longer, it should be easy to prove one way or the other if the Aga caused the burns/marks on Nevil.
It's a easy job for a expert in computer graphics/modelling to simulate various positions etc. of someone lying up against the Aga.
We know Nevil's build and the likely depth of penetration of the handles into his skin etc.
Did anyone note burns on Nevill's ears or scalp? Because, from the way the stooge is laying -given the length of time it's being claimed Nevill was in that position, i.e. head against a very hot part of the AGA, they'd certainly have been some damage.
-
I don't think those images are shown to the same pixel scale David?
But I am not really worried either way, just trying to find the truth. Though I don't think the marks were caused by the rifle barrel?
-
The pathologist who saw the victim/marks said at trial he was unsure they were burns.
The defence pathologist who was working from images was adamant they were not burns.
Why should we believe Dr Caruso over the above?
The war wounds was just an idea I mooted. I accept I could be completely wrong. But we do know he sustained a back injury and spents weeks/months with his back in plaster.
Seems CC/Curiosity is having second thoughts on the 1940's war wounds theory.
Assume she still supports Prof Knight's theory - prodding from a non heated instrument.
Maybe she can expand on how, why & how long that would take.
-
I don't think it was the rifle myself looking at this photo?
-
I don't think it was the rifle myself looking at this photo?
Do we know if any colour photos of the marks exist Rob!
-
Both sides should go by the only person who saw Nevill's back. He was a pathologist and submitted a report dated the 30th September 1985.
'Three distinct burn marks'.
Boyce says a rifle could be heated to the required tempreture within 5 minutes.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1191.0.html
Vanezis did examinations straight after the massacre. The report dated September as they waited for the results of the drug tests.
First thoughts were -
The position of the rifle Too obvious.
Position of the bible.
Sheila's cleaniness.
Lack of blood on her feet.
Lack of blood on her legs.
-
Both sides should go by the only person who saw Nevill's back. He was a pathologist and submitted a report dated the 30th September 1985.
'Three distinct burn marks'.
Boyce says a rifle could be heated to the required tempreture within 5 minutes.
Both sides should go by the trial testimony when both experts were examined and cross-examined where both concluded inconclusive.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,156.msg345.html#msg345
Vanezis did examinations straight after the massacre. The report dated September as they waited for the results of the drug tests.
First thoughts were -
The position of the rifle Too obvious.
Position of the bible.
Sheila's cleaniness.
Lack of blood on her feet.
Lack of blood on her legs.
The above is post trial. It could be considered confirmation bias based on the verdict.
-
Both sides should go by the trial testimony when both experts were examined and cross-examined where both concluded inconclusive.
Please expand on how 'prodding' with a non heated instrument would cause the 3 marks.
Second & final request.
-
I do agree that hitting Nevill with extreme force on his back, would cause bruising.
However if they were bruises, Vanezis would have said so. As he did in the locations where Nevill was bruised.
-
Prof Knight is in a half way house -
Prodding. But not hitting with extreme force.
Not burn marks but not bruising.
Prodding but from a non heated instrument.
-
Please expand on how 'prodding' with a non heated instrument would cause the 3 marks.
Second & final request.
'Prodding' internally or externally? Hopefully that answers your question!
Final response :P
-
'Prodding' internally or externally? Hopefully that answers your question!
Final response :P
Prof Knight's/CC/Curiosity's claim has been dismissed.
Neither have explained how prodding with a cold instrument can cause such profound marks.
-
To be fair Prof Knight was hired by the defence.
He agreed with Vanezis that the marks were due to 'prodding'. But said the prodding instrument was not hot.
He did not say how a cold instrument could cause such profound marks, in 3 locations. From 'prodding'.
-
Both sides should go by the only person who saw Nevill's back. He was a pathologist and submitted a report dated the 30th September 1985.
'Three distinct burn marks'.
Boyce says a rifle could be heated to the required tempreture within 5 minutes.
There is absolutely no comparison to the rifle barrel though Adam!
Yes, the marks are burns, but the Aga made them!
Clear as day children, clear as day!
-
I don't think it was the rifle myself looking at this photo?
Exactly Rob!
No comparison whatsoever!
-
Exactly Rob!
No comparison whatsoever!
Do you think Bamber & his team were wrong between 2004 - 2012?
-
There is absolutely no comparison to the rifle barrel though Adam!
Yes, the marks are burns, but the Aga made them!
Clear as day children, clear as day!
The guy didn't even get the same outcome ;D
-
Please expand on how 'prodding' with a non heated instrument would cause the 3 marks.
Second & final request.
Why would anyone waste time heating the rifle to prod, when they could kick or prod with a sharp implement?
-
Why would anyone waste time heating the rifle to prod, when they could kick or prod with a sharp implement?
Fowler said it would take 5 minutes to heat the rifle barrel to the required heat. Using an oven plate on the aga.
Which would be quicker than spending hours 'prodding' with a cold instrument until the marks appear.
Do you believe Vanezis was wrong when he said they were '3 distinct burn marks'.
-
The guy didn't even get the same outcome ;D
What with Zoso?
The rifle barrel or the Aga?
-
Do you think Bamber & his team were wrong between 2004 - 2012?
About the rifle barrel making the marks , Adam? Of course! We know what made them now!
No more guessing!
-
If the marks were caused by hours of 'prodding' with a cold instrument, as Prof Knight and CC/Curiosity suggest, then that is called......a bruise.
Perhaps a qualified pathologist such as Vanezis did not notice they were bruise's.
Must admit I have never had a bruise that looked like that.
-
About the rifle barrel making the marks , Adam? Of course! We know what made them now!
No more guessing!
You can't get burn marks from a cold aga door.
I agree with Bamber's 2004-2012 CCRC submission.
They are burn marks inflicted by an instrument other than a silencer.
-
I would be surprised if Vanezis noticed the bruise marks on Nevill's body, then suddenly & incorrectly decided the back marks were not bruise's.
He would know the difference.
-
You can't get burn marks from a cold aga door.
I agree with Bamber's 2004-2012 CCRC submission.
They are burn marks inflicted by an instrument other than a silencer.
Have you an instrument in mind, Adam?
-
Have you an instrument in mind, Adam?
Bamber said in 2004-2012 it was from the rifle barrel minus silencer.
It could have been one of the other rifles or silencers in the gun cupboard. Or the poker which was hanging up in the kitchen.
-
The easiest thing to stand up on a hot aga plate for 5 minutes would be a silencer.
As the CT say 'there was more than one'.
However holding a rifle barrel or poker on a hot aga plate for 5 minutes is not hard.
Zoso suggested a cattle prodder.
As always. Options for Bamber.
-
Considering the largest mark has a an unburned area in the centre. I don't really see what else could have caused it. Also you can see in the top right that the burn mark is bleeding slightly. There is no blood on the AGA handle as far as I can see.
(https://i.ibb.co/92PzK2K/mark.jpg)
-
Bamber said in 2004-2012 it was from the rifle barrel minus silencer.
It could have been one of the other rifles or silencers in the gun cupboard. Or the poker which was hanging up in the kitchen.
I dont think it was a rifle barrel nor a silencer, Adam!
Else the marks would have been more uniform in shape and size!
-
I dont think it was a rifle barrel nor a silencer, Adam!
Else the marks would have been more uniform in shape and size!
They are uniform in location.
The difference in size and darkness will be to do with how hot the instrument was.
-
The easiest thing to stand up on a hot aga plate for 5 minutes would be a silencer.
As the CT say 'there was more than one'.
However holding a rifle barrel or poker on a hot aga plate for 5 minutes is not hard.
Zoso suggested a cattle prodder.
As always. Options for Bamber.
Any metal implement heated to the degree the end was capable of causing a burn would radiate heat and be impossible to hold without inflicting a nasty injury to the hand holding the end.
I'm with Prof Knight they are not burns.
If I was pushed I would say they are marks caused from within eg metal plates, screws or such like which given NB's final resting position ie upper body bent over and spine curved took on that appearance post death.
-
Considering the largest mark has a an unburned area in the centre. I don't really see what else could have caused it. Also you can see in the top right that the burn mark is bleeding slightly. There is no blood on the AGA handle as far as I can see.
(https://i.ibb.co/92PzK2K/mark.jpg)
Pareidolia:
Pareidolia is the tendency to see a pattern or meaning in a random stimulus, like a visual image. For example, you might see a face in a cloud or burnt toast.
You did the same with your 'forensic evidence breakthrough' when you thought you saw SC's handprint in/on the bible but only you could see it!
-
Any metal implement heated to the degree the end was capable of causing a burn would radiate heat and be impossible to hold without inflicting a nasty injury to the hand holding the end.
I'm with Prof Knight they are not burns.
If I was pushed I would say they are marks caused from within eg metal plates, screws or such like which given NB's final resting position ie upper body bent over and spine curved took on that appearance post death.
You wouldn't have to hold a silencer. It would stand up on it's own.
A rifle barrel, poker or cattle prodder would not get too hot to hold. Your hands would be several feet from the area being heated.
-
You wouldn't have to hold a silencer. It would stand up on it's own.
A rifle barrel, poker or cattle prodder would not get too hot to hold. Your hands would be several feet from the area being heated.
The heat would radiate up a metal implement. It's why saucepan handles are made the way they are:
Saucepan handles typically don't cause burns because they are often made from materials like plastic or wood, which are poor conductors of heat, meaning they don't transfer heat from the pan to your hand very efficiently; essentially acting as an insulator, keeping the handle relatively cool even when the pan is hot.
Key points about saucepan handles and heat transfer:
Material matters:
Most saucepan handles are made from materials like plastic or Bakelite, which are designed to resist heat transfer.
Design features:
Some metal handles may have a hollow design or a smaller contact area with the pan to minimize heat conduction.
Heat dissipation:
The long handle design also allows for more surface area to dissipate heat into the air, preventing excessive warming.
-
You wouldn't have to hold a silencer. It would stand up on it's own.
A rifle barrel, poker or cattle prodder would not get too hot to hold. Your hands would be several feet from the area being heated.
And then what? You let if cool down before handling it? You're not thinking it through!
-
The heat would radiate up a metal implement. It's why saucepan handles are made the way they are:
Saucepan handles typically don't cause burns because they are often made from materials like plastic or wood, which are poor conductors of heat, meaning they don't transfer heat from the pan to your hand very efficiently; essentially acting as an insulator, keeping the handle relatively cool even when the pan is hot.
Key points about saucepan handles and heat transfer:
Material matters:
Most saucepan handles are made from materials like plastic or Bakelite, which are designed to resist heat transfer.
Design features:
Some metal handles may have a hollow design or a smaller contact area with the pan to minimize heat conduction.
Heat dissipation:
The long handle design also allows for more surface area to dissipate heat into the air, preventing excessive warming.
So use a tea towel.
I doubt if holding something several feet long on an aga hot plate would travel up to your hands.
-
And then what? You let if cool down before handling it? You're not thinking it through!
Use a tea towel. How do people take food out of an oven?
Your not thinking it through
-
So use a tea towel.
I doubt if holding something several feet long on an aga hot plate would travel up to your hands.
Why don't you try it?!
When PB conducted his experiments he didn't hold the rifle while he was heating it up and why are they wearing safety goggles? See around 17mins in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo&t=630s
-
Why don't you try it?!
When PB conducted his experiments he didn't hold the rifle while he was heating it up and why are they wearing safety goggles? See around 17mins in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo&t=630s
Why would Bamber need safety googles?
-
Considering the largest mark has a an unburned area in the centre. I don't really see what else could have caused it. Also you can see in the top right that the burn mark is bleeding slightly. There is no blood on the AGA handle as far as I can see.
(https://i.ibb.co/92PzK2K/mark.jpg)
So what caused the lower two marks then, because they're of a different size and shape than the top one?
-
So what caused the lower two marks then, because they're of a different size and shape than the top one?
More pareiodolia ::)
-
Perhaps the smaller ones were cigarette burns?
-
Why don't you try it?!
When PB conducted his experiments he didn't hold the rifle while he was heating it up and why are they wearing safety goggles? See around 17mins in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo&t=630s
I can't try it myself as don't have a rifle, cattle prodder or poker.
Very much doubt holding the end of one of those on a hot plate for 5 minutes the heat would travel several feet to the top.
If it did, use a tea towel/oven gloves
-
Agree if standing a silencer on a hot plate for 5 minutes, you may need a tea towel/oven gloves.
A silencer is a lot smaller than a rifle, poker or cattle prodder.
-
I can't try it myself as don't have a rifle, cattle prodder or poker.
Very much doubt holding the end of one of those on a hot plate for 5 minutes the heat would travel several feet to the top.
If it did, use a tea towel/oven gloves
You would need the exact same rifle.
Was a tea towel/oven gloves found in disarray around the kitchen?
-
Looks like Zoso has disappeared again.
I don't mind her disagreeing with me, but she usually posts once (reply 92) then goes.
-
You would need the exact same rifle.
Was a tea towel/oven gloves found in disarray around the kitchen?
One or both is in all kitchens.
Otherwise Bamber could not visit for supper.
-
Perhaps the smaller ones were cigarette burns?
More pareidolia ::)
-
One or both is in all kitchens.
Otherwise Bamber could not visit for supper.
So JB or SC heated up some metal impement on the Aga by holding it with a tea towel or oven gloves and then neatly places them back in-situ ::) As daft as Rivlin's defence strategy that SC used the silencer and neatly placed it back in the cupboard ::)
-
So JB or SC heated up some metal impement on the Aga by holding it with a tea towel or oven gloves and then neatly places them back in-situ ::) As daft as Rivlin's defence strategy that SC used the silencer and neatly placed it back in the cupboard ::)
Why wouldn't he put it back?
He put the silencer back.
-
So what caused the lower two marks then, because they're of a different size and shape than the top one?
God i'm a dummy!
Here's a colour photo right here that i've seen many times!
Must be getting old!
-
Why wouldn't he put it back?
He put the silencer back.
The silencer never left the cupboard.
The idea that either a psychotic SC or psychopathic JB hang around heating up some implement to burn NB's back is absurd. Why would either of them single out NB? Why not June?
-
The silencer never left the cupboard.
The idea that either a psychotic SC or psychopathic JB hang around heating up some implement to burn NB's back is absurd. Why would either of them single out NB? Why not June?
He can't burn anyone else's back. The heat would have gone by the time he got upstairs.
Besides which Sheila can't burn her own back in a murder/suicide.
It was a composed and calculated Bamber.
Agree Sheila would not burn Nevill's back.
-
Do we know if any colour photos of the marks exist Rob!
There must be colour photos somewhere Snow but I have not seen any?
-
Do you think Bamber & his team were wrong between 2004 - 2012?
Well Bamber should know Adam? or perhaps he was not their?
Ah a bit more staging you are going to say!
-
There must be colour photos somewhere Snow but I have not seen any?
I'm afraid i've made a boo boo, Rob!
Colour photos have already been posted on this thread!
As I said, i'm getting old!
-
I'm afraid i've made a boo boo, Rob!
Colour photos have already been posted on this thread!
As I said, i'm getting old!
No you have not made a boo boo Snow, I think you are correct about the Aga?
Now if Jane could take some pictures we might be able to prove or disprove the possibility?
-
No you have not made a boo boo Snow, I think you are correct about the Aga?
Now if Jane could take some pictures we might be able to prove or disprove the possibility?
No, I'm afraid he's wrong, because Boyce's misleading composite photo doesn't tally with the real distance between the handle top and corner of the ball-catch housing, i.e. over 2 inches not 1.25. Jane already measured several months ago and affirmed it to be the former, at nearly twice the distance between the top two marks on Nevill's nape. Use the forensic ruler in the second photo to measure the distance in centimetres yourself, then convert to inches if necessary -
-
No you have not made a boo boo Snow, I think you are correct about the Aga?
Now if Jane could take some pictures we might be able to prove or disprove the possibility?
I meant that there were colour phooos of the burns all along, Rob, and I didn't even notice!
-
No, I'm afraid he's wrong, because Boyce's misleading composite photo doesn't tally with the real distance between the handle top and corner of the ball-catch housing, i.e. over 2 inches not 1.25. Jane already measured several months ago and affirmed it to be the former, at nearly twice the distance between the top two marks on Nevill's nape. Use the forensic ruler in the second photo to measure the distance in centimetres yourself, then convert to inches if necessary -
Thanks for this but you need to allow for the shape of the body in contact with the handles of the Aga.
I need about 20 photos taken from all angles of that area of the Aga plus a ruler in the images would help.
-
No, I'm afraid he's wrong, because Boyce's misleading composite photo doesn't tally with the real distance between the handle top and corner of the ball-catch housing, i.e. over 2 inches not 1.25. Jane already measured several months ago and affirmed it to be the former, at nearly twice the distance between the top two marks on Nevill's nape. Use the forensic ruler in the second photo to measure the distance in centimetres yourself, then convert to inches if necessary -
Bear in mind that the spine is curved and the neck steps in with most people, Curiosity!
Look at the shape of a human body side on!
You may find that the base of the neck stepping in accounts for the extra 0.75 inches you talk about!
The available photos only show the marks from behind remember which is misleading!
Experiment some more please!
-
Thanks for this but you need to allow for the shape of the body in contact with the handles of the Aga.
I need about 20 photos taken from all angles of that area of the Aga plus a ruler in the images would help.
The skin above the backbone on the nape is thin and won't stretch enough to cause an inch difference. I doubt that Jane has the equipment or even the inclination to make such a fuss, when it's obvious that Boyce's experiment is an abject failure.
-
The skin above the backbone on the nape is thin and won't stretch enough to cause an inch difference. I doubt that Jane has the equipment or even the inclination to make such a fuss, when it's obvious that Boyce's experiment is an abject failure.
I will get them somehow, Boyce is a scientist he knows what he is doing. People should be more open minded the top of the back is very flexible.
I am more interested in the shape of the marks rather than the distance which depends on how someone is lying and how they were lying when the photo was taken.
-
I will get them somehow, Boyce is a scientist he knows what he is doing. People should be more open minded the top of the back is very flexible.
I am more interested in the shape of the marks rather than the distance which depends on how someone is lying and how they were lying when the photo was taken.
The handle's shape/impression on pigskin bears no resemblance whatsoever to the top mark/burn on the nape -
-
The handle's shape/impression on pigskin bears no resemblance whatsoever to the top mark/burn on the nape -
I don't know what Boyce did in his tests?
To just say it's not the Aga is what the CCRC does, I will try and find out for myself.
-
I don't know why the defence hired Prof Knight.
He just gave an unconvincing testimony saying from the photos it looks like bruising from 'prodding'.
Maybe the defence thought the prosecution were going to make a big thing of the burns.
-
I don't know why the defence hired Prof Knight.
He just gave an unconvincing testimony saying from the photos it looks like bruising from 'prodding'.
Maybe the defence thought the prosecution were going to make a big thing of the burns.
At the time of the trial they probably did not seem that important, but today if it can be shown the Aga caused them, to me it's massive.
-
At the time of the trial they probably did not seem that important, but today if it can be shown the Aga caused them, to me it's massive.
Agree Rob!
-
At the time of the trial they probably did not seem that important, but today if it can be shown the Aga caused them, to me it's massive.
Agree they are burns. Not war wounds or bruising from prodding which CC/Curiosity supports.
-
Agree they are burns. Not war wounds or bruising from prodding which CC/Curiosity supports.
I think they are burns, they also to me look fresh and PV initially at least thought they were burns.
Whatever they are it's what caused them I am interested in, though I know you like to show Bamber in a bad light and say he used the rifle.
-
I think they are burns, they also to me look fresh and PV initially at least thought they were burns.
Whatever they are it's what caused them I am interested in, though I know you like to show Bamber in a bad light and say he used the rifle.
Bamber believed they were caused by the rifle until 2 years ago.
-
What with Zoso?
The rifle barrel or the Aga?
BOTH!
-
Fowler said it would take 5 minutes to heat the rifle barrel to the required heat. Using an oven plate on the aga.
Which would be quicker than spending hours 'prodding' with a cold instrument until the marks appear.
Do you believe Vanezis was wrong when he said they were '3 distinct burn marks'.
A kick or a prod would have taken seconds.
Why would the killer want marks to appear? I don't believe the marks had anything to do with the murders and Venezis didn't really know either.
They may be burns - who knows - more to the point for the purpose of this case, it doesn't matter because it doesn't tell you who the killer is.
-
A kick or a prod would have taken seconds.
Why would the killer want marks to appear? I don't believe the marks had anything to do with the murders and Venezis didn't really know either.
They may be burns - who knows - more to the point for the purpose of this case, it doesn't matter because it doesn't tell you who the killer is.
I agree.
Still think the marks might be connected to NB's broken back. Any plate and screws may have taken on the appearance of the marks especially given his resting position ie head towards floor, spine curved etc.
https://images.app.goo.gl/XzAUh4ScDNJ7EsLJ6
-
Bamber believed they were caused by the rifle until 2 years ago.
2 years ago or 4 years ago? I thought the Aga burns form part of the CCRC submission Mar 2021?
-
Agree they are burns. Not war wounds or bruising from prodding which CC/Curiosity supports.
It seems a very strange coincidence to me that NB broke his back and in all liklihood had screws and plates fitted in the exact same position the marks appear:
https://images.app.goo.gl/XzAUh4ScDNJ7EsLJ6
The screws and plates might well have appeared the way they did as a result of NB's resting position ie head towards floor, spine curved, blood draining away and the effects of post death.
-
2 years ago or 4 years ago? I thought the Aga burns form part of the CCRC submission Mar 2021?
Believe the aga marks were brought up later. Mainly to keep Bamber in the media.
-
The handle's shape/impression on pigskin bears no resemblance whatsoever to the top mark/burn on the nape -
There aren't even any burns on it, just indents ;D
-
There aren't even any burns on it, just indents ;D
They are burns. As Vanezis said after examining the body.
-
They are burns. As Vanezis said after examining the body.
Well, surely a decision about the marks is imminent, Adam!
-
Well, surely a decision about the marks is imminent, Adam!
Why would they be? ;D
-
Well, surely a decision about the marks is imminent, Adam!
They'll string it out until the last day of the month to make him suffer a bit more.
-
Why would they be? ;D
Wasn't a decision expected from the CCRC in March, Zoso?
-
They'll string it out until the last day of the month to make him suffer a bit more.
And then refer, Curiosity??
-
And then refer, Curiosity??
I would lower your expectations but no one here can answer that.
-
It seems a very strange coincidence to me that NB broke his back and in all liklihood had screws and plates fitted in the exact same position the marks appear:
https://images.app.goo.gl/XzAUh4ScDNJ7EsLJ6
The screws and plates might well have appeared the way they did as a result of NB's resting position ie head towards floor, spine curved, blood draining away and the effects of post death.
I agree, i can remember you reporting this awhile ago, the only thing that put me off, wouldn't it have been in Neville's medical records and possibly Vanezis/Knight would have linked the two?
-
I agree, i can remember you reporting this awhile ago, the only thing that put me off, wouldn't it have been in Neville's medical records and possibly Vanezis/Knight would have linked the two?
I presume there would have been X rays taken at post mortem. If he did have plates and screws these would have been identified. PV ordered X rays when first contacted.
-
I presume there would have been X rays taken at post mortem. If he did have plates and screws these would have been identified. PV ordered X rays when first contacted.
Good point Bubo!
-
I presume there would have been X rays taken at post mortem. If he did have plates and screws these would have been identified. PV ordered X rays when first contacted.
I knew it wouldn't sit comfortably with you! Its too simple, straightforward, plausible, ticks all the boxes and doesn't involve thousands of conspiracy theories! ::)
The main objective of a PM is to determine cause of death. Given all victims sustained more than one gunshot wound, 8 in the case of NB, why would it follow that complete body xrays would be undertaken? Esepcially if he could determine cause of death from one or more of the gunshot wounds.
Not necessarily. If xrays were taken in that area some metals are difficult to detect and/or can be hidden by bone.
Where's the evidence Dr Vanezis ordered xrays? Ordered them from where?
He does refer to observing a fragmented bullet on a radiograph which he was unable to locate in the body cavity.
-
I agree, i can remember you reporting this awhile ago, the only thing that put me off, wouldn't it have been in Neville's medical records and possibly Vanezis/Knight would have linked the two?
I believe NB's back surgery was carried out during WW2? I've no idea if medi records are updated during wartime?
We also know NB had a preference for going private: JB and SC's schooling, SC and June's psychiatric care. Private medi treatment is not always added to the notes.
Is there any evidence Dr Vanezis/Prof Knight requested victims' medi records? Not really sure why they would when the cause of death was gunshot wound.
Both thought the marks were recent. Well I think they probably were recent but imo they were caused internally rather than externally. NB's spine and neck were stretched with blood moving away from the area and the skin drying out, I think the surgical hardware started to protrude from within. Had he have remained in that position unattended I think the hardware might have burst through the skin.
-
I believe NB's back surgery was carried out during WW2? I've no idea if medi records are updated during wartime?
We also know NB had a preference for going private: JB and SC's schooling, SC and June's psychiatric care. Private medi treatment is not always added to the notes.
Is there any evidence Dr Vanezis/Prof Knight requested victims' medi records? Not really sure why they would when the cause of death was gunshot wound.
Both thought the marks were recent. Well I think they probably were recent but imo they were caused internally rather than externally. NB's spine and neck were stretched with blood moving away from the area and the skin drying out, I think the surgical hardware started to protrude from within. Had he have remained in that position unattended I think the hardware might have burst through the skin.
So you think they were recent but not from 'prodding' from a cold instrument as Knight said.
Internal. A pity Vanezis made a mistake saying they were 'distinct burn marks'.
-
I knew it wouldn't sit comfortably with you! Its too simple, straightforward, plausible, ticks all the boxes and doesn't involve thousands of conspiracy theories! ::)
The main objective of a PM is to determine cause of death. Given all victims sustained more than one gunshot wound, 8 in the case of NB, why would it follow that complete body xrays would be undertaken? Esepcially if he could determine cause of death from one or more of the gunshot wounds.
Not necessarily. If xrays were taken in that area some metals are difficult to detect and/or can be hidden by bone.
Where's the evidence Dr Vanezis ordered xrays? Ordered them from where?
He does refer to observing a fragmented bullet on a radiograph which he was unable to locate in the body cavity.
-
A frontal x-ray of SC's neck wounds was taken and probably others from the side, so why not some of NB's severe mouth and throat wounds. Any metallic objects, such as screws and plates in the spine wouldn't have been missed, surely. Hence no comment from Vanezis because none were observed. Just because more x-rays are not in the public domain, doesn't mean none exist.
-
A frontal x-ray of SC's neck wounds was taken and probably others from the side, so why not some of NB's severe mouth and throat wounds. Any metallic objects, such as screws and plates in the spine wouldn't have been missed, surely. Hence no comment from Vanezis because none were observed. Just because more x-rays are not in the public domain, doesn't mean none exist.
Given the circumstances the adults would need checking for broken hands, arms , legs ribs etc etc.
-
Not sure why CC/Curiosity says they are not burns.
His 2004-2012 & current submission are based on them being burns.
Thought she wanted him released.
-
Given the circumstances the adults would need checking for broken hands, arms , legs ribs etc etc.
Very true, Bubo, very true!
-
Not sure why CC/Curiosity says they are not burns.
His 2004-2012 & current submission are based on them being burns.
Thought she wanted him released.
CC and Curiosity are two different people living many miles apart, Adam. You should know that by now!
-
CC and Curiosity are two different people living many miles apart, Adam. You should know that by now!
The problem is that we do not know that. You and CC may be telling the truth, but we have no way of knowing. Unfortunately we have been conned before.
-
A frontal x-ray of SC's neck wounds was taken and probably others from the side, so why not some of NB's severe mouth and throat wounds. Any metallic objects, such as screws and plates in the spine wouldn't have been missed, surely. Hence no comment from Vanezis because none were observed. Just because more x-rays are not in the public domain, doesn't mean none exist.
SC's neck wounds were the cause of death. NB's mouth and throat wounds were not the cause of death.
Any xrays would need to home in on that area and any hardware not obscured by bones. Metals with a low atonomic number don't block much radiation making them difficult to see.
Bearing in mind too when Dr Vanezis examined NB he would have been lying flat as opposed to the found position with his head hanging forward and his spine curved and stretched with the metal hardware causing friction internally.
-
The problem is that we do not know that. You and CC may be telling the truth, but we have no way of knowing. Unfortunately we have been conned before.
May? I am definitely telling the truth. She is certainly female whereas I'm thoroughly male and doubt we'll ever meet, enough said.
-
May? I am definitely telling the truth. She is certainly female whereas I'm thoroughly male and doubt we'll ever meet, enough said.
I am not doubting you, but you must surely understand why some are skeptical in view of the history on this.
-
CC and Curiosity are two different people living many miles apart, Adam. You should know that by now!
Are we? Can't recall if we ever discussed which part of the country we reside in?
I would say your grammar is better than mine. Certainly your IT skills are. But I trump on logic! Surely these aspects of our posts are noticeable to others!?
-
SC's neck wounds were the cause of death. NB's mouth and throat wounds were not the cause of death.
Any xrays would need to home in on that area and any hardware not obscured by bones. Metals with a low atonomic number don't block much radiation making them difficult to see.
Bearing in mind too when Dr Vanezis examined NB he would have been lying flat as opposed to the found position with his head hanging forward and his spine curved and stretched with the metal hardware causing friction internally.
I'm not sure what surgically-inert metal was used from 1939-45 and onwards, but if titanium it would show up on radiographs according to - https://www.quora.com/Does-titanium-show-on-an-X-ray
-
I'm not sure what surgically-inert metal was used from 1939-45 and onwards, but if titanium it would show up on radiographs according to - https://www.quora.com/Does-titanium-show-on-an-X-ray
https://sciencenotes.org/list-metals/
Key points about titanium and X-rays:
Low density compared to other metals:
Titanium has a relatively low atomic number, meaning it doesn't absorb X-rays as strongly as heavier metals like lead, which is why it might appear less distinct on an X-ray image.
-
That statement was made post trial.
Which officer was asked to take xrays and where was this supposed to take place?
-
It seems plates and screws were made of stainless steel/metal alloys and more recently titanium all of which have low atomic numbers/top quartile decending.
-
Are we? Can't recall if we ever discussed which part of the country we reside in?
I would say your grammar is better than mine. Certainly your IT skills are. But I trump on logic! Surely these aspects of our posts are noticeable to others!?
Are you not from Cambridge(shire) and still live in that region, whereas I'm from ooop north with a corresponding Lancashire twang, although more Rhodes Boyson than ghastly Gallagher-ish.
-
It seems plates and screws were made of stainless steel/metal alloys and more recently titanium all of which have low atomic numbers/top quartile decending.
But still visible in radiographs.
-
Are you not from Cambridge(shire) and still live in that region, whereas I'm from ooop north with a corresponding Lancashire twang, although more Rhodes Boyson than ghastly Gallagher-ish.
I was born in Cambridge. I currently live about a 20 min drive west of Cambridge city. So long as you don't sound like Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He has a very unfortuate tone!
-
I was born in Cambridge. I currently live about a 20 min drive west of Cambridge city. So long as you don't sound like Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He has a very unfortuate tone!
Can I grow a beard, wear my black M&S pully and dispense with the suit and tie, if we should ever meet?
-
But still visible in radiographs.
As I said in an earlier post, difficult, due to the low atomic number! Also metal hardware can be obscured by bones.
https://healthunlocked.com/advanced-prostate-cancer/posts/151672565/best-imaging-method-with-orthopedic-hardware-interference
-
Can I grow a beard, wear my black M&S pully and dispense with the suit and tie, if we should ever meet?
So long as you don't pull threads from your M&S pully and twang them between your teeth to the tune of 'Everybody wants to rule the world'!
-
Dr Vanezis' trial testimony refers to xrays. As far as I can see these were all connected to bullet entry wounds, wound tracks and bullets within the body cavity.
-
There were a lot of items he could use to burn Nevill's back.
The gun cupboard had several guns and silencers. There was also a poker in the kitchen.
There may have been other options. It was a big house with lots of clutter.
Bamber's 2004-2012 CCRC application was the burns were inflicted by the murder weapon minus silencer.
-
It would have been impossible to find out what Bamber used.
Something as small as my knife showed no burn evidence after being held on an oven plate heated at it's maximum tempreture.
The 'Tonight' programme reported no evidence of burns after heating a rifle & silencer with a flame.
-
Dr Vanezis' trial testimony refers to xrays. As far as I can see these were all connected to bullet entry wounds, wound tracks and bullets within the body cavity.
He was unlikely to describe what he did not find.
-
He was unlikely to describe what he did not find.
No idea what you mean?
During his examination and cross examination at trial xrays are referred to but these are all in connection with bullet entry wounds, wound tracks and the recovered bullets ie internal injuries. As far as I can see from a quick read, I will read it again more thoroughly, he does not refer to xrays when describing the external injuries eg the blows NB sustained from a blunt instrument thought to have been the rifle. So on this basis there's no reason to believe he would have xrayed the marks on NB's back. And when being examined and cross examined on the marks he does not refer to xrays.
-
I was born in Cambridge. I currently live about a 20 min drive west of Cambridge city. So long as you don't sound like Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He has a very unfortuate tone!
Actually more south west than west.
-
Not sure why CC/Curiosity says they are not burns.
His 2004-2012 & current submission are based on them being burns.
Thought she wanted him released.
Not sure why you say they are burns.
The fact they are in the submissions is not evidence of anything.
I think JB should be acquitted on the basis he is a MoJ but he will never be acquitted on anything connected to the marks on NB's back.
-
Ive reread Dr Vanezis' and Prof Knight's trial testimonies and there's nothing about xrays in the area of the marks so the surgical hardware would have fallen under the radar.
-
So you think they were recent but not from 'prodding' from a cold instrument as Knight said.
Internal. A pity Vanezis made a mistake saying they were 'distinct burn marks'.
Prof Knight was correct imo. The marks were from prodding with a cold 'instrument' but they came from within the body/internally as opposed to externally. The marks were caused by surgical hardware attached to NB's spine protruding through the skin. As we know when a person dies blood pools in the lowest part of the body. Given NB's found position the top of his neck, location of the surgical hardware, was the highest part of his body. The combination of his head hanging forward, spine stretched, no blood and skin drying caused the surgical hardware to protrude against the skin from within the body resulting in the marks identified at pm.
-
On the contrary, it could have been undisclosed because it was harmful to the prosecution.
Neither the defence or prosecution made anything of it at trial because the expert evidence from Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight was inconclusive.
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/forensic-evidence
This is what the OS said about Nevill's burns.
Although they are now saying the aga inflicted them.
-
They do not say why Sheila burned Nevill's back. She also had time restrictions. Heating the instrument on the aga plate takes 5 minutes.
-
She also had time restrictions.
How much?
-
Considering the largest mark has a an unburned area in the centre. I don't really see what else could have caused it. Also you can see in the top right that the burn mark is bleeding slightly. There is no blood on the AGA handle as far as I can see.
(https://i.ibb.co/92PzK2K/mark.jpg)
David, where did you get the image on the left, if you don't mind me asking?
-
David, where did you get the image on the left, if you don't mind me asking?
From the clip that Boyce appeared in.
-
Considering the largest mark has a an unburned area in the centre. I don't really see what else could have caused it. Also you can see in the top right that the burn mark is bleeding slightly.There is no blood on the AGA handle as far as I can see.
(https://i.ibb.co/92PzK2K/mark.jpg)
No that's your perception. Neither Dr Vanezis or Prof Knight said anything about bleeding and there was no corresponding blood stain on NB's pj top.
-
Considering the largest mark has a an unburned area in the centre. I don't really see what else could have caused it. Also you can see in the top right that the burn mark is bleeding slightly. There is no blood on the AGA handle as far as I can see.
(https://i.ibb.co/92PzK2K/mark.jpg)
Is it possible that the bleeding was caused when Nevills body was man handled into the body bag and transported to the morgue?
The damaged skin pulling appart?
Remember, the photos of the marks were taken at the morgue!
Well I presume they were taken at the morgue after Nevills pyjama jacket was removed??
-
Is it possible that the bleeding was caused when Nevills body was man handled into the body bag and transported to the morgue?
The damaged skin pulling appart?
Remember, the photos of the marks were taken at the morgue!
Well I presume they were taken at the morgue after Nevills pyjama jacket was removed??
Please stop posting as fact without substance. There's no evidence from Dr Vanezis or Prof Knight about the marks bleeding.
-
Please stop posting as fact without substance. There's no evidence from Dr Vanezis or Prof Knight about the marks bleeding.
Well, Dave thinks its blood Cutie, if so , I was just trying to give a reason why there was no blood on the Aga handle.
That is, the wound opened up when Nevill was moved by the police.Either from scuttle or Aga.
Whether the police moved Nevill from the Aga or not is being considered as you know!
Some of us think that it is possible that Nevill got up from the Aga on his own before being shot and ending up on the scuttle!
-
Well, Dave thinks its blood Cutie, if so , I was just trying to give a reason why there was no blood on the Aga handle.
That is, the wound opened up when Nevill was moved by the police.Either from scuttle or Aga.
Whether the police moved Nevill from the Aga or not is being considered as you know!
Some of us think that it is possible that Nevill got up from the Aga on his own before being shot and ending up on the scuttle!
David is not an expert. There is no expert evidence whatsoever that the marks on NB's back involved any bleeding.
There is no expert evidence NB was moved by the police. On the contrary, the expert evidence shows his found position as depicted on soc images was entirely consistent with rigor mortis.
-
David is not an expert. There is no expert evidence whatsoever that the marks on NB's back involved any bleeding.
There is no expert evidence NB was moved by the police. On the contrary, the expert evidence shows his found position as depicted on soc images was entirely consistent with rigor mortis.
In that case, Nevill got up from the Aga by himself before being shot and killed on the scuttle!
OK,OK! I know you think the marks are old wounds Cutie, and you therefore disagree with Boyce!
BUT!! Are you sure you're right and Boyce is wrong Cutie??
-
In that case, Nevill got up from the Aga by himself before being shot and killed on the scuttle!
OK,OK! I know you think the marks are old wounds Cutie, and you therefore disagree with Boyce!
BUT!! Are you sure you're right and Boyce is wrong Cutie??
Please desist with the overuse of exclamation marks when discussing the victims as it comes over as disrespectful.
Boyce is not a pathologist. My views are aligned with those of Prof Knight.
-
Please desist with the overuse of exclamation marks when discussing the victims as it comes over as disrespectful.
Boyce is not a pathologist. My views are aligned with those of Prof Knight.
Prodding.
-
Prodding.
Yes, prodding of sorts from surgical hardware.
-
Please desist with the overuse of exclamation marks when discussing the victims as it comes over as disrespectful.
Boyce is not a pathologist. My views are aligned with those of Prof Knight.
I didn't realize I was being disrespectful Cutie, grammar and such has never been a strong point of mine.
I will try to stick to full stops.
Well as Adam says, whose views do we go by, Knight, or Vaneziz who examined the bodies??
-
New AGA / wounds related images are available. Details to follow on another thread.
-
New AGA / wounds related images are available. Details to follow on another thread.
Look forward to that ,Roch.
-
I didn't realize I was being disrespectful Cutie, grammar and such has never been a strong point of mine.
I will try to stick to full stops.
Well as Adam says, whose views do we go by, Knight, or Vaneziz who examined the bodies??
The upshot of Dr Vanezis' trial testimony was that he was unsure what caused the marks.
-
The upshot of Dr Vanezis' trial testimony was that he was unsure what caused the marks.
Why is it so important to you that Boyce is wrong, Cutie?
Does the possibility of the Aga making the marks upset your own crime scene scenario in some way?
-
Why is it so important to you that Boyce is wrong, Cutie?
Does the possibility of the Aga making the marks upset your own crime scene scenario in some way?
I go by the evidence and facts neither of which support the Aga causing the marks on NB's back.
-
I go by the evidence and facts neither of which support the Aga causing the marks on NB's back.
Well, someone is going to have to make a decision about the marks sooner or later, Cutie.
Do you think the CCRC will be in the process of asking for expert opinion at the moment?
How else are they going to be able to make a decision about them?
-
Well, someone is going to have to make a decision about the marks sooner or later, Cutie.
Do you think the CCRC will be in the process of asking for expert opinion at the moment?
How else are they going to be able to make a decision about them?
I doubt the CCRC will waste resources considering the marks when they do not meet the CPS criteria for an appeal. We have discussed this time and time again. I really don't know what is difficult to understand about it.
-
I doubt the CCRC will waste resources considering the marks when they do not meet the CPS criteria for an appeal. We have discussed this time and time again. I really don't know what is difficult to understand about it.
OK, thanks Cutie, we will wait and see.
-
Why is it so important to you that Boyce is wrong, Cutie?
Does the possibility of the Aga making the marks upset your own crime scene scenario in some way?
Why do you think it's important to people that he's wrong? They think he's wrong because they just don't agree with it. Personally, I think it's ridiculous but if he had a GOOD theory, that would be different. This one produced no similar results, requires Nevil to have laid on his side in the same position (though he body would have been relaxed if unconscious) for quite some time. Some think he then called Bamber (with a concussion) or that the police then moved him to the coal scuttle where he was photographed. It's mad! And that's at best.
-
Why do you think it's important to people that he's wrong? They think he's wrong because they just don't agree with it. Personally, I think it's ridiculous but if he had a GOOD theory, that would be different. This one produced no similar results, requires Nevil to have laid on his side in the same position (though he body would have been relaxed if unconscious) for quite some time. Some think he then called Bamber (with a concussion) or that the police then moved him to the coal scuttle where he was photographed. It's mad! And that's at best.
This belief must surely imply that he was shot by the police? He had numerous and very bloody wounds. Where was the blood on the Aga? Did those police 'responsible ' for moving him take showers prior to leaving?
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12385.msg577854.html#msg577854
-
Why do you think it's important to people that he's wrong? They think he's wrong because they just don't agree with it. Personally, I think it's ridiculous but if he had a GOOD theory, that would be different. This one produced no similar results, requires Nevil to have laid on his side in the same position (though he body would have been relaxed if unconscious) for quite some time. Some think he then called Bamber (with a concussion) or that the police then moved him to the coal scuttle where he was photographed. It's mad! And that's at best.
I will have a look at the Doc maker articles and see what they are saying. Zoso!
Seems i'm still subscribed, the rascals.
-
I presume there would have been X rays taken at post mortem. If he did have plates and screws these would have been identified. PV ordered X rays when first contacted.
Correct
-
Steve Austin may have had 3 internal screws then. But he cost 6 million dollars.
-
Steve Austin may have had 3 internal screws then. But he cost 6 million dollars.
That's a bit before your time, Adam.
-
Always thought Steve was the first bionic man. But it was Nevill.
-
Always thought Steve was the first bionic man. But it was Nevill.
I would have thought it was a no brainer that the marks were connected to NB's broken back.
-
I would have thought it was a no brainer that the marks were connected to NB's broken back.
'We have the technology'.
-
'We have the technology'.
Bit before your time that Adam. You must be watching recent repeats.
-
Bit before your time that Adam. You must be watching recent repeats.
It is one of my favourites.
-
It is one of my favourites.
The bionic woman was sad. Her op didn't go to plan.
-
The bionic woman was sad. Her op didn't go to plan.
That was very distressing to me.
Steve was upset.
-
That was very distressing to me.
Steve was upset.
Think I preferred Lee Majors in The Fall Guy.
-
'We have the technology'.
You forgot: we can rebuild him..https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xwoufl
-
Always thought Steve was the first bionic man. But it was Nevill.
Not that I'm obsessed with the White House Farm murders, but..https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/157581743#/?channel=RES_BUY
-
That was very distressing to me.
Steve was upset.
Adam: there's someone Cambridgecutie wants you to meet..
..her cousin, Westendcutie: https://youtu.be/bp908q3Gxpc
-
It is one of my favourites.
Here you go Adam. You might care to wind on to 45 minutes as nothing much happens before, apart from the accident, the operation and a bit of love interest. Towards the end there's a bit to whet gringo's appetite: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=the+six+million+dollar+man+episodes&mid=71DA2D44E45E62F3CBE771DA2D44E45E62F3CBE7&FORM=VIRE
-
Adam: there's someone Cambridgecutie wants you to meet..
..her cousin, Westendcutie: https://youtu.be/bp908q3Gxpc
Actually she's quite good for a novice.