Author Topic: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back  (Read 26009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4775
  • Total likes: 70
  • I preferred the factory fitted iron sight!
Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #120 on: August 06, 2015, 02:09:58 PM »
You're a doubting Thomasina!  @)(++(*

Not if Carol Ann Lee and Paul Harrison have anything to do with it... they both think he's guilty as sin!  %56&

Right... Lunchtime. 8((()*/

It's difficult to say what CAL's views are based on her book.  PH has hedged his bets with SC murdering NB and June, the twins are an unknown and NB murdering SC. 
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4775
  • Total likes: 70
  • I preferred the factory fitted iron sight!
Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #121 on: February 28, 2017, 01:40:29 PM »
I have always doubted the so-called burn marks to NB's back and it seems I'm not alone.  According to Prof Knight's trial testimony he told the court he did not think they were burns.  It appears Dr Vanezis was not 100%.  As per the attached.

http://www.uc.pt/fmuc/DocumentosHomepage/2009/Maio/CVKnight

At the time of JB's trial Prof Knight was far more experienced than Dr Vanezis.
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #122 on: February 28, 2017, 03:42:40 PM »
I have always doubted the so-called burn marks to NB's back and it seems I'm not alone.  According to Prof Knight's trial testimony he told the court he did not think they were burns.  It appears Dr Vanezis was not 100%.  As per the attached.

http://www.uc.pt/fmuc/DocumentosHomepage/2009/Maio/CVKnight

At the time of JB's trial Prof Knight was far more experienced than Dr Vanezis.

While I am no fan of Vanezis his claim that based on the photos they are not burns is hardly scientific.  Burns can and do look like that in photographs. The ultimate way to know whether a burn or a bruise would be examining the skin on person for searing.  Vanezis is the only one in a position to have done that.  The reason why it is preferred for defense experts to do their own autopsy is precisely because photos can't substitute for a physical examination.  Nothing he recorded about the attributes precludes them being burns and the photos can't prove they are not burns so we are effectively at Vanezis' mercy as to them being burns.

 


“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli