The forensic evidence shows 100% the silencer was used. But not by Sheila.

[lookout]

Why thank you kind person.  I try to do my best.

PMSL,he says that to everyone.

[sami]

PMSL,he says that to everyone.

not true ive not said it to supporters

[David1819]

These look like the pictures which were in the 'new evidence' video.

This video suggests Neville's burn marks were done with the rifle nozzle without the silencer Which I agree with. Thread already created.

No the video suggests no silencer was on the gun when fired, your getting mixed up between two separate experiments both carried out in the states. both experiments were repeated by Philip boyce for the documentary. You agree with one of the experiments but you choose to ignore the other?


https://youtu.be/VeLsEeE0zTI?t=48s

[Adam]

No the video suggests no silencer was on the gun when fired, your getting mixed up between two separate experiments both carried out in the states. both experiments were repeated by Philip boyce for the documentary. You agree with one of the experiments but you choose to ignore the other?


https://youtu.be/VeLsEeE0zTI?t=48s

I'm not ignoring anything. I was not aware of another view which you are claiming.

To be honest I will stick with the expert view that one of Sheila's shots was a contact shot. Which is supported by human/Sheila's blood being in the silencer.

The other issue I agree with Bamber. Neville's burn marks were created with the rifle nozzle. He took the silencer off to burn Neville's back and put it away rather than leave it in the kitchen, for obvious reasons. Either that or he realised the rifle was too long for Sheila with the silencer, so took it off upstairs, prior to burning Neville's back. Threads created.

Anyway I'm sure you agree with this thread and my other one from yesterday that the massacre was committed with the silencer on. Which as I said yesterday, is progress from supporters.

[lookout]

Using a rifle as a suicide weapon it would HAVE to be a contact shot so naturally you're going to have THAT person's blood  on the end of the rifle. Also the children's too as well as the others.

[Adam]

Using a rifle as a suicide weapon it would HAVE to be a contact shot so naturally you're going to have THAT person's blood  on the end of the rifle. Also the children's too as well as the others.

There was no blood on the end of the rifle. Only on the end of the silencer.

[lookout]

There was no blood on the end of the rifle. Only on the end of the silencer.

How do you know that when two rifles had been used that night.? The silencer was a red herring !!

[guest2181]

The Arizonian tests carried out in 2011/2012, set out to attempt to prove that the burn marks to Neville were caused by the rifle being heated up in some manner, and that the sound moderator was not attached at the time.

The evidence was not accepted by the CCRC as being sufficient to allow them to send the case back to appeal.


Before the CCRC made their report, I asked that if we simply accepted that the rifle caused the burn marks and they were caused without the silencer attached, then how does that assist the defence?

The answer that I received was that if the sound moderator was proven not to be attached at that stage, then it would be likely that the sound moderator was not attached at any stage.

I don't personally agree that such evidence, if accepted, points towards that conclusion.

The case put forward by the prosecution claims that Jeremy attempted to conceal the the fact that the sound moderator was used, by removing it after Sheila's murder, hiding it at the back of the gun cupboard and placing items in front of the door blocking it from being opened and further give the impression that it was not involved.

If we accept that the burn marks to Neville were caused by the rifle without moderator attached, then is it not possible, or perhaps even likely, that Jeremy caused the burns after hiding the moderator, as a further attempt to give the impression that the sound moderator was not attached during the murders?

[lebaleb]

Personally, I have a hard time imagining the rifle being used to cause the burns. It would have to be very hot to cause such burns and I would have thought the patina on the barrel or the silencer would have been damaged by that.
IMO the poker seems a more likely implement for the job.
What things were placed in front of the gun cupboard? I don't remember reading about that.
I can't imagine Jeremy or anyone else thinking 'I must burn Neville's back with the rifle barrel to make the police believe the silencer was not involved'. Far easier to take the silencer and throw it in the sea or bury it.

[Adam]

The Arizonian tests carried out in 2011/2012, set out to attempt to prove that the burn marks to Neville were caused by the rifle being heated up in some manner, and that the sound moderator was not attached at the time.

The evidence was not accepted by the CCRC as being sufficient to allow them to send the case back to appeal.


Before the CCRC made their report, I asked that if we simply accepted that the rifle caused the burn marks and they were caused without the silencer attached, then how does that assist the defence?

The answer that I received was that if the sound moderator was proven not to be attached at that stage, then it would be likely that the sound moderator was not attached at any stage.

I don't personally agree that such evidence, if accepted, points towards that conclusion.

The case put forward by the prosecution claims that Jeremy attempted to conceal the the fact that the sound moderator was used, by removing it after Sheila's murder, hiding it at the back of the gun cupboard and placing items in front of the door blocking it from being opened and further give the impression that it was not involved.

If we accept that the burn marks to Neville were caused by the rifle without moderator attached, then is it not possible, or perhaps even likely, that Jeremy caused the burns after hiding the moderator, as a further attempt to give the impression that the sound moderator was not attached during the murders?

Agreed. There have been several threads on the burn marks and Arizona tests.

I didn't know there were also items in front of the gun cupboard door. Why would Sheila want to move items in front of the gun cuoboard after putting the silencer away ?

[Adam]

Personally, I have a hard time imagining the rifle being used to cause the burns. It would have to be very hot to cause such burns and I would have thought the patina on the barrel or the silencer would have been damaged by that.
IMO the poker seems a more likely implement for the job.
What things were placed in front of the gun cupboard? I don't remember reading about that.
I can't imagine Jeremy or anyone else thinking 'I must burn Neville's back with the rifle barrel to make the police believe the silencer was not involved'. Far easier to take the silencer and throw it in the sea or bury it.

Bamber burned Neville's back to make sure he was dead. Why didn't he do this for everyone ? Obvious reasons but thread available.

Bamber is saying Neville's burn marks were caused by the rifle nozzle.

[guest2181]

The Arizonian tests carried out in 2011/2012, set out to attempt to prove that the burn marks to Neville were caused by the rifle being heated up in some manner, and that the sound moderator was not attached at the time.

The evidence was not accepted by the CCRC as being sufficient to allow them to send the case back to appeal.


Before the CCRC made their report, I asked that if we simply accepted that the rifle caused the burn marks and they were caused without the silencer attached, then how does that assist the defence?

The answer that I received was that if the sound moderator was proven not to be attached at that stage, then it would be likely that the sound moderator was not attached at any stage.

I don't personally agree that such evidence, if accepted, points towards that conclusion.

The case put forward by the prosecution claims that Jeremy attempted to conceal the the fact that the sound moderator was used, by removing it after Sheila's murder, hiding it at the back of the gun cupboard and placing items in front of the door blocking it from being opened and further give the impression that it was not involved.

If we accept that the burn marks to Neville were caused by the rifle without moderator attached, then is it not possible, or perhaps even likely, that Jeremy caused the burns after hiding the moderator, as a further attempt to give the impression that the sound moderator was not attached during the murders?

The second round of experiments in the US in 2011, set out to prove that the sound moderator was not attached when Sheila was shot.

Their conclusion was that Sheila was shot without moderator attached.

During the original investigation it was noted that there was no indication on Sheila's wounds whether the moderator was attached or not.

So we are left with the choice of accepting the US experts conclusions, or not. The CCRC did not accept them.

If the US experts experts conclusions we're accurate in their own right to show that the sound moderator was not attached when Sheila was killed, then what was the point of carrying out the Arizonian burn mark tests?

In isolation they do not assist the defence, and they do not directly assist the other US experts findings.

[guest2181]

PC Birds statements tell us that there were items in front of the gun cupboard blocking access.

[guest2181]

PC Birds statements tell us that there were items in front of the gun cupboard blocking access.

[lebaleb]

Yet in the photographs of the gun cupboard it shows the door is open. Hardly an attempt to conceal anything.