UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: John on April 13, 2012, 05:17:46 PM
-
As requested here are a sample of photos relating to the so-called burn marks on Nevill's back.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZGIgb.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/JD8QM.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Kfguh.jpg)
112
-
Thanks John. 3 completely different marks then?
-
Thanks John. 3 completely different marks then?
I haven't studied them yet but yes, definitely three different marks.
Reminds me more of gouges from a sharp object like a damaged rifle stock. I wonder did they bleed since these photos would have been the cleaned up version. What do you think?
-
very difficult to tell from these pictures. If I hadn't have read that these are burn marks, I could think that the 2 smaller ones were moles?
-
I wonder what could have hit neville when he was toppled from his chair onto the floor before being perched in the coal scuttle?
-
very difficult to tell from these pictures. If I hadn't have read that these are burn marks, I could think that the 2 smaller ones were moles?
The marks are certainly not consistent with the end of a rifle being pushed into ones back. In any event, the rifle failed to get anywhere near the temperatures associated with such burns and that is fact. Even Simon McKay had no answer to that one.
Could a lighted cigarette create such marks?
-
Does anybody know where on Ralph´s back those marks are?
-
I thought he was found with a pyjama top on as well.
-
very difficult to tell from these pictures. If I hadn't have read that these are burn marks, I could think that the 2 smaller ones were moles?
The marks are certainly not consistent with the end of a rifle being pushed into ones back. In any event, the rifle failed to get anywhere near the temperatures associated with such burns and that is fact. Even Simon McKay had no answer to that one
Could a lighted cigarette create such marks?
remember that photo of macdonald coming out of court?
-
Could that other forum BE more boring? They've been yacking all day and got precisely nowhere. Don't these people work for a living?
-
Also weren't his pyjama bottoms partially pulled down?
-
Also weren't his pyjama bottoms partially pulled down?
They could have slid down (can you say that in English?) during the altercation, no one knows.
-
Also weren't his pyjama bottoms partially pulled down?
They could have slid down (can you say that in English?) during the altercation, no one knows.
Slid down is fine Abs .... the burn marks I understand were high on the back close to the neck.
-
very difficult to tell from these pictures. If I hadn't have read that these are burn marks, I could think that the 2 smaller ones were moles?
The marks are certainly not consistent with the end of a rifle being pushed into ones back. In any event, the rifle failed to get anywhere near the temperatures associated with such burns and that is fact. Even Simon McKay had no answer to that one.
Could a lighted cigarette create such marks?
I would say so, yes. Because the photos of Neville's back are black and white you can't really tell what colour the middle part of the largest wound is, but I've seen cigarette burns which have a lighter coloured moulten looking centre, and a darker outer rim.
One thing I've been wondering though, is where the theoretical temperature of 200 degrees comes from. Human skin will burn at much lower temperatures than that.
-
A thought occurs that if Jeremy was telling the truth and Nevill was still alive at just after 3am, how come when Nevill was found there were clear signs of advanced rigor mortis? He could only have been dead for a bit more than 4 hours by this time, would rigor mortis be so clearly visible after such a relatively short amount of time? At Tesko Towers they explain this by saying rigor mortis was sped up by the heat from the Aga. The Aga seems pretty pivotal to the defence doesn't it?
-
A thought occurs that if Jeremy was telling the truth and Nevill was still alive at just after 3am, how come when Nevill was found there were clear signs of advanced rigor mortis? He could only have been dead for a bit more than 4 hours by this time, would rigor mortis be so clearly visible after such a relatively short amount of time? At Tesko Towers they explain this by saying rigor mortis was sped up by the heat from the Aga. The Aga seems pretty pivotal to the defence doesn't it?
Nevill was shot some time between 2am and 3am so he would have been dead for around 5 hours by the time the police broke into the kitchen. The advanced state of rigor mortis confirms this.
-
Rigor mortis is speeded up by both temperature and strenuous activity prior to death, so both the Aga and the struggle in the kitchen could have been factors.
-
Rigor mortis is speeded up by both temperature and strenuous activity prior to death, so both the Aga and the struggle in the kitchen could have been factors.
This has come up before Weety. I don't believe the Aga was on that night as there was no reason to be burning oil on a warm August night. Where did that comment come from originally?
Point is too, if it was on why was it on? Did Jeremy Bamber put it on for some reason?
-
But but but.... if the Aga wasn't on, how did Sheila heat the muzzle of the gun up? The marks on Neville's back PROVE the Aga was on.
8(0(*
The Aga was solid fuel at the time, converted to oil later according to Hartley and Vidvic if I recall correctly.
-
But but but.... if the Aga wasn't on, how did Sheila heat the muzzle of the gun up? The marks on Neville's back PROVE the Aga was on.
8(0(*
The Aga was solid fuel at the time, converted to oil later according to Hartley and Vidvic if I recall correctly.
I don't believe that somehow because the Aga cooker would betray the fact that it was solid fuel. Such a cooker has a door on the front for feeding it with logs and coal. I have one in my own kitchen at the moment which is about the same age as that which was fitted at White House farm. The cooker in the Bamber kitchen does not have such a door and as the entire cooker is made of cast iron it was unlikely to have been altered.
No one keeps a solid fuelled Aga lit all night in summer and even if they do it is simply on a minimum with very little heat being produced.
Those marks or burns on Nevill's back are certainly interesting. Why would anyone want to do such a thing and were they applied as he lay slumped in his chair?
(http://i.imgur.com/yYF6d.jpg)
-
I have just noticed that in the original picture taken shortly after the murders that the two heat lids are down and a kettle sits to the side. That cooker certainly looks dormant.
(http://i.imgur.com/KRqE8.jpg)
-
I have just noticed that in the original picture taken shortly after the murders that the two heat lids are down and a kettle sits to the side. That cooker certainly looks dormant.
(http://i.imgur.com/KRqE8.jpg)
Jesus. Poor Ralph. When I think of the revolting comments "smiffy" used to make about this image.....
It would have taken at least 2 police officers to pick Ralph up and position him like that, and I would imagine they would be bloodstained. I wonder who they were?
-
I have just noticed that in the original picture taken shortly after the murders that the two heat lids are down and a kettle sits to the side. That cooker certainly looks dormant.
(http://i.imgur.com/KRqE8.jpg)
Jesus. Poor Ralph. When I think of the revolting comments "smiffy" used to make about this image.....
It would have taken at least 2 police officers to pick Ralph up and position him like that, and I would imagine they would be bloodstained. I wonder who they were?
Smiffy of course being Mike Teskowski himself and only someone sick in the head himself could have made such comments ...... karma. When you see photos like that you realise just what a monster Bamber truly is.
I am beginning to realise how delighted I am going to be when the CCRC do the right thing! Bamber dies in prison ... and the ex-con porn pervert Teskowski has wasted 23 years of his sad life getting Bamber's cause absolutely nowhere! Preece and McKay will have wasted their time and Roach's new job will be redundant!
This time next week it will be party time! 8((()*/
-
Tim, if you think that is bad the photos of the children are a million times worse. Can you just imagine what Julie Mugford went through when she identified Nevill, June and Sheila and those two innocent babes, Nicholas and Daniel. I still think it was a police ploy to see if Julie would crack. I know that if I had saw and heard what DS Stan Jones saw and heard that afternoon in Bambers home just hours after the murders then I would have done the same thing.
I wonder did that experience do the trick and work on Julie to the extent that her conscience wouldn't allow her to keep quiet? It is also worth considering if Jeremy Bamber had not taken up with Collins and distanced himself from Julie, would he have spent 26 years in prison? Would Sheila have been made the scape goat leaving Jeremy to inherit everything or was it only a matter of time before Julie cracked?
-
I haven't seen photos of June or the twins and I hope it stays that way.
Wasn't it the case that Julie went to identify the bodies because Ann wasn't sure she could tell the twins apart? I realise she was being helpful but I don't know how she did it knowning at that time her own boyfriend had paid someone to do the murders .... or so Bamber had told her!
Julie said she hoped to get somekind of spiritual message from Sheila when she saw the bodies!!! Hmmmm strange!
-
The three marks on Nevill back are almost identical to those on his arm. All were most probably sustained in the beating which he received in the kitchen when the rifle stock was broken. It would be interesting to know if there was any blood found on the broken piece of stock found on the kitchen floor.
-
The three marks on Nevill back are almost identical to those on his arm. All were most probably sustained in the beating which he received in the kitchen when the rifle stock was broken. It would be interesting to know if there was any blood found on the broken piece of stock found on the kitchen floor.
I said earlier that I thought the three burn marks at the top of Nevill's back midline could have been penetrating wounds, but having looked at the Vanezis autopsy report again, in which he states they were burn marks, I'm now thinking they could have been inflicted by a cigarette/heated metal to test if he was still alive. To make sure he had done a thorough job, I think Bamber would have gone to each body in turn again to see if there were any signs of life before leaving. Other than that the only other explanation imho is that they were old scars or skin blemishes.
Whatever they were, it was the eight bullets and severe beating which killed him, not three paltry burn marks.
And roll on Friday...., the suspense is killing me. 8((()*/
-
I have never spent a second on Bamber and the Bamberettes off the forums but if the appeal is granted I am going to get active in exposing McChancer at every possible turn. Two reasons: I do not now believe he has taken Bamber's case on for any other reason than to refeather his own empty nest. And secondly for giving those comments to the Canadian press before an appeal has even been granted; quite disgusting behaviour ... shame on him!
McTwunt!
-
Do keep up. The police Stated that the aga was alight. A cigarette burn! Do me a favour. Since when did a cigarette leave a burn leave a hollow ring?
You have obviously not studied the case, but are jumping on the band wagon to score points.
There is a wealth of information, and I suggest you read some of it.
It was not oil fired.
If you're so sure that the police said the Aga was lit, then please post an attachment of any statement they made to back up your claim...., or is this just hearsay?
The burn marks don't look hollow to me, but then that's a matter of opinion...,
-
Of course they look hollow in black and white photos. In the coloured photos they don't look quite like that.
-
Of course they look hollow in black and white photos. In the coloured photos they don't look quite like that.
We don't have the benefit of the coloured photos on this site Mat..., maybe on the closed shop forum.
-
OMG, I tried googling cigarette burn marks - and there were pictures of BABIES with such marks. I am close to tears, I wish I hadn´t seen that.
About Ralph´s marks - if they were cigarette burn marks, wouldn´t there have been some black smudging from ashes around the marks?
-
Hi, Abs ?{)(**
Hows you today? All well i hope 8((()*/
-
OMG, I tried googling cigarette burn marks - and there were pictures of BABIES with such marks. I am close to tears, I wish I hadn´t seen that.
About Ralph´s marks - if they were cigarette burn marks, wouldn´t there have been some black smudging from ashes around the marks?
Not necessarily, if excess cigarette/cigar ash was tapped off first, Abs. Nevill was found with pyjama top on and I can find no reference to burn holes in it in Vanezis' reports. And any ash smudges could have been brushed off by the top when the body was removed for post-mortem, when I presume the photographs were taken.
-
OMG, I tried googling cigarette burn marks - and there were pictures of BABIES with such marks. I am close to tears, I wish I hadn´t seen that.
About Ralph´s marks - if they were cigarette burn marks, wouldn´t there have been some black smudging from ashes around the marks?
Not necessarily, if excess cigarette/cigar ash was tapped off first, Abs. Nevill was found with pyjama top on and I can find no reference to burn holes in it in Vanezis' reports. And any ash smudges could have been brushed off by the top when the body was removed for post-mortem, when I presume the photographs were taken.
Perhaps - I would still think there would be some residue left on the skin. Skin has a little moisture and ashes blended with moisture is totally black and would stick to the skin.
Anyway, if Ralph was burnt with a cigarette, there would have been some serious anger directed at him especially, since none of the others were burnt that way.
-
Rigour can start after 90 minutes but usually it's evident after 2 hours. So by 4 hours, it will have definately been there.
-
I doubt very much that these are cigarette burns. These are probably burns from the barrel of the rifle used by Bamber. I believe that Nevil was frogmarched down the stairs by Bamber for two reasons; firstly he wanted Nevil in to be found in the kitchen in order to back up his story of receiving a distress call from his father. Secondly I think Bamber had run out of bullets in the intial attack in the main bedroom Bamber fired off more bullets than expected and simply ran out. This was to be Bamber's first miscalculation. We must remember that the bullets for the gun were next to the telephone downstairs in the kitchen. The ONLY way for Bamber to complete both tasks would be for him to force Nevil downstairs at the point of the barrel fitted with a silencer the tip of which was now scolding hot from discharging the contents of a whole magazine. Nevil was viciously manhandled at barrel point down the stairs, bleeding profusely from wounds he had already received in the bedroom. It was now that Bamber's second miscalculation occurred. Nevil made a grab for the gun and managed to get a firm grip of the barrel or silencer. It was at this point I believe the struggle - one for life the other for death - occurred. Bamber fearing that Nevil could escape and raise the alarm desparately tried to wrench the gun from Nevil's grasp. The two men obviously were pulling the rifle between them to-and-fro, leaving the kitchen furniture in some disarray and scratch marks on the mantlepiece. I believe that Nevil now weakening from his wounds released his grip slightly and Bamber managed to wrest it from him. It was here that Bamber upturned the empty rifle and swung it like club making contact with Nevils' head, jaw and arms so viciously that the wooden stock of the gun broke, knocking the beleagured farmer unconscious. It was at this point that Bamber has the precious seconds to reach the kitchen counter and reload the rifle. He then walked calmly up to the motionless figure and coldly pumped four more shots into him as he slumped at a jaunty angle on the back of the chair, killing him instantly. In a final gory act, Nevil's head fell forward in to the coal scuttle into the position where he was later found by police.
This gruesome event was the precursor of what was the come for the rest of the family. Nevil, I suspect was the first to die, although not the first to be shot. That terrible honour belonged to June. Rather chillingly both of Bamber's parents would have been aware of exactly whom their attacker was - Both were not killed instantly and they both would have looked into his evil eyes, and both would have realised exactly what they had brought into their home and would have suffered a terrible, agonising death at the hands of the arrogant, psychopathic, greedy ingrate they gave a home to.
-
Agreed, I am quite at ease and understand most aspects of the Bamber case. I find it a very simple case and one of the last mysteries for me was solved just tonight. Other cases I struggle with but doubtlessly this sort of forum will help me.
The one that really upset me was the Stephan Kiszko case which was terrible in its consequences.
Welcome Outlook. Just out of interest what was one of the last mysteries about the case for you? And how was it solved?
Well I pride myself on my logical approach but I could not get my head around the alleged "burn" marks on Mr Bamber's back. Then I found a link on this site that solved it for me (to my simple mind anyway). Obvious when it is pointed out. I cannot imagine why the appeal court and forensics are so confused. All these "experts" messing around with AGAs and blowlamps Pah...
I cannot find the thread now, most annoying. I think it was David or John that solved it for me. Here is the Youtube video that clears it all up for me though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgz0lqGVouo
-
Well I pride myself on my logical approach but I could not get my head around the alleged "burn" marks on Mr Bamber's back. Then I found a link on this site that solved it for me (to my simple mind anyway). Obvious when it is pointed out. I cannot imagine why the appeal court and forensics are so confused. All these "experts" messing around with AGAs and blowlamps Pah...
I cannot find the thread now, most annoying. I think it was David or John that solved it for me. Here is the Youtube video that clears it all up for me though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgz0lqGVouo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgz0lqGVouo)
The thread and post were here, by the way.... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=914.msg29705#msg29705 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=914.msg29705#msg29705)
That's what I thought on first viewing it.... a hot cartridge shell had rebounded onto Nevill's nape to cause the burns (weren't only three shells rather than four from the final four gunshots found on the kitchen floor)... but looking at the size of the .22 Eley shells (the diameter of the circular flange or rim at the bottom being only about 7mm.) in comparison to the circular/oval shaped burns (10mm.dia. and above), do they not seem too small?
And then again there were three burns of various sizes, whereas with a single hot shell wouldn't you expect to find just the one mark?
Stills of Nevill's burn marks from the ITV documentary (only three burns in total, the middle two are the same one)
(http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/640/sburns.jpg)
.22 rimfire bullets with millimetre scale.
(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/434/22lr.jpg)
-
Ah thank you. I could not find it anywhere.
I hate to speculate as members state we must stick to facts but three shots fired quickly from the same pose would result in the three cartridge cases going in essentially the same direction but landing in a random orientation for the first impact and then bouncing off in an unpredictable manner but then I am no ballistics expert. The three marks are generally the same size the uppermost being lighter in nature. The lower one is a slightly different nature having a centre mark. Also a slight increase in size "may"(?) be expected due to skin elasticity making the wound larger over several hours. There may be some pathology expertize in this respect? It is not clear to me where exactly the wounds are on Mr Bamber's back or the muscle groups involved under the skin. Assuming he was standing and then fell forward "Would the skin and muscle tissue stretch and distort as his body came to rest?" (I am not calling for further tests as that would change nothing).
The idea of one or more of the cartridge cases being the cause makes more sense to me as opposed to heating up the barrel or silencer in the Aga (and we don't know even if it was on) or with a blow lamp or cigar or cigarette burns. I just felt that impact from hot cartridge cases was more likely than heating up the AGA and gun barrel or having a cigar. I do not buy into the argument of "post-mortem torture" at all.
It was just until I saw the video I had no idea of the cartridge cases being red hot and being ejected in a generally forward direction. Not being an experienced gun owner I had expected them to be ejected sideways like in a miltary automatic weapon and being relatively cool.
Maybe there is a more appropriate thread for this sort of discussion?
-
I must admit, the three burn marks on Nevill's back have never been explained to my satisfaction. They were used by Simon McKay in the last application submitted to the CCRC as evidence but rejected as being simply more speculation. McKay responded asking for more tests.
The thing is though, we don't even know for sure when they were made. McKay makes one very big assumption in all of this and that is that the marks were made on the morning of the murders. He puts forward the theory that the marks were made by the hot tip of the rifle but this has been shown to not be the case. Tests have shown that the rifle tip never gets anywhere near the temperatures required to inflict such burn marks.
We then have the various theories put forward by the blue forum that the assailant went to the bother of heating the rifle on the Aga cooker before making the marks on Nevill's back. Considering that time was of the essence in this viscous attack I don't believe for a minute that is what occurred.
-
Just so everyone knows, I have moved the posts relating to Stephan Kiszko to a new topic within the general discussion board, it can be found here. (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1037.0)
The posts relating to the three burn marks on Nevill's back have been merged into the original thread.
Thank you, that is very kind. I know I was drifting "Off-topic," this is more logical.
It often happens that two or more cases are referred to in a single post so it is quite the norm. Jackie being an expert at this of course. @)(++(*
In relation to the burn marks, could they have been made as a means of ascertaining if Nevill was still alive?
-
In relation to the burn marks, could they have been made as a means of ascertaining if Nevill was still alive?
It would have involved less hassle if he'd simply felt for a wrist pulse, but he probably realised he'd get his fingers covered in blood, leaving tell-tale fingerprints, or more likely he would have no idea where to feel for it anyway.
-
The burn marks on Mr Bambers's back were circular so surely this would mean that the bullet end would only have come into contact with the skin for a picot second until it bounced off/fell to the ground? Would such limited contact have been sufficient to cause burning? Surely the example Myster gives is different in that the shirt was able to keep the bullet in contact with the skin for a period of time?
What would the statistical chances be of this happening three times will all three marks in such close proximity?
If this is a possibility surely it would be a known phenomeon with ballistic experts?
Perhaps I have picked up incorrectly? It certainly sounds more logical though than cigars, heating up various instruments and torture.
-
Here are the three images again enhanced which compare the three marks on Nevill's back with the tests carried out by Simon McKay and Mark Williams-Thomas for the ITV documentary.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZGIgb.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/JD8QM.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Kfguh.jpg)
-
In relation to the burn marks, could they have been made as a means of ascertaining if Nevill was still alive?
It would have involved less hassle if he'd simply felt for a wrist pulse, but he probably realised he'd get his fingers covered in blood, leaving tell-tale fingerprints, or more likely he would have no idea where to feel for it anyway.
Death is actually very difficult to diagnose. Checking for pulse, heart beat, breath on mirrors and pupil dilation are commonly shown but they are not reliable. There is one very reliable method but it is never shown on TV for obvious reasons and it is what gives the lie to the idea that Sheila was alive after the first shot, let alone running around the house, hiding silencers, having a wash and barking like a dog.
-
I could be wrong but doesn't it appear that the skin is broken as well as being burned?
-
The burn marks on Mr Bambers's back were circular so surely this would mean that the bullet end would only have come into contact with the skin for a picot second until it bounced off/fell to the ground? Would such limited contact have been sufficient to cause burning? Surely the example Myster gives is different in that the shirt was able to keep the bullet in contact with the skin for a period of time?
What would the statistical chances be of this happening three times will all three marks in such close proximity?
If this is a possibility surely it would be a known phenomeon with ballistic experts?
Perhaps I have picked up incorrectly? It certainly sounds more logical though than cigars, heating up various instruments and torture.
I agree. My view is that one (?) bullet "may" have caught in Mr Bamber's shirt and that caused the wounds.
The thought of the killer having "A Hamlet moment" afterwards or stokeing up the AGA is just too repellent for me.
-
If you look at the image below is the upper mark the worst with the second one being lesser and the third the least?
(http://i.imgur.com/ZGIgb.jpg)
Would it be possible that all three were made one after the other and as the offending weapon cooled it left lesser marks?
-
If you look at the image below can you notice that the top mark would appear to be worst with the second one being lesser and the third the least?
(http://i.imgur.com/ZGIgb.jpg)
Would it be possible that all three were made one after the other and as the offending weapon cooled it left lesser marks?
Oh I see what you mean. The pictures are confusing they get reversed and are not helped by the idiots that did the heated barrel test reversing one of the arrow labels to screw everyone up. Do you think they do this deliberately? and they are supposedly called experts!!!
Certainly the lower wound is less significant that the top one but the process appears different in nature. Difficult to say from B/W photos.
What is significant is that you can see the clear difference between pig and human skin. No wonder this "evidence" was rejected.
-
Something else too. The "centimeters" on the left hand side are different to the "centimeters" on the right hand side. The pictures of Mr Bamber's wounds suffer from perspective distortion such that the top wound is accurate in size but the lower wounds are 10% to 20% enlarged because of the distortion.
The left hand side are accurate and do not suffer from perspective distortion.
How do people get away with this. "Evidence" presented as "similar" but on different materials, labels stuck on the wrong way around and perspective distortion all over the place. It is just amateur night in a Karaoke bar.
-
I could be wrong but doesn't it appear that the skin is broken as well as being burned?
The skin is also puckered and blistered, which suggests that Ralph was alive. Those wounds still look old, to me.
I wonder if they could be some sort of lesion (ecthyma?)
-
First let me get the obvious out of the way, the burns on Nevill do not look exactly like the test burns that were created by the firearms expert. The test burns are more round, smaller in diameter, have more than one ring visible because the threads created additional rings and do not have the dark imprint that is present in the middle of Nevill’s burns. Thus if simply going by looks the claim they matched is false.
Also, while they tested what it would do at 200C they didn’t explain how to get the rifle barrel that hot. 10 bullets fired in succession sure would not manage that. While reloading the mag it would cool down some. Firing another 10 still would not get it to 200C. But anyway even at that temp the middle did not burn anyway.
Are they in fact burns or bruises? From both a legal and scientific standpoint it is impossible to simply look at a photo and say ok this burn and it was definitely caused by XYZ. We are not talking about a gunshot wound. Thus the injuries in question could potentially predate the murders and have been caused by something on the farm. Unfortunately the best people to ask if there was some burning incident or the like that occurred prior to the murders are dead. The farm workers may or may not have had a reason to learn about burns but surely after this much time would not likely remember something minor like that. You have to rule out other causes before you can say it definitely happened during the murders. You would have to try to figure out how old it was and by looking at photos simply nothing more that can’t be accomplished.
For the sake of argument let’s assume the burns were incurred during the murders. Were any comparisons done with marks a sound suppressor would have made? Nope. Based on my own experience with sound suppressors they get pretty damn hot which is why I have used a cover to protect my hands. If a rifle barrel can get hot enough to cause a burn like the test burns then so can a sound suppressor. The shape of the burn would depend on the shape of the sound suppressor and what exact portion were touched. Remember these are not gunshot wounds so were not necessarily caused by being flush against where a bullet would shoot out of something.
Sound suppressors capture a lot of powder and thus get pretty dirty inside. If I press the tip of a dirty suppressor into my skin I can get 2 round impressions plus some soot in the middle. The widest circle quickly dissipates but he dirt needs to be cleaned off my skin and if the silencer were hot near the hole then potentially could cause some kind of damage that would last longer than the outer ring. I have no interest in heating a dirty the suppressor to see if it will make a burn impression with soot inside that looks like the burns on Nevell. It certainly is a possibility though and the study did not attempt to recreate it and rule it out.
If I were going to try to prove that the burn marks were made by a gun without its silencer then I would test the impression caused by the gun with silencer and without trying to recreate the conditions on the night of the crime to the best extent possible.
As a practical matter, even if the rifle barrel without the silencer attached were a perfect match in the burn pattern that still doesn’t prove that a silencer wasn’t used to commit the murders. These were not gunshot wounds thus could have been made after the shots were fired. Jeremy could have removed the silencer and then poked him in the back a few times to make sure he wasn’t still conscious. He could have done the same with the silencer still on. We don’t know since no test was done as to what kind of burn marks would be produced by the silencer.
We don’t even know for sure they are really burns they could have been something else though.
Thus as the appeal court ruled the test conclusions were purely speculative and do not in fact establish anything conclusively.
From a forensic standpoint the gunshot wounds are the ones most important in trying to assess the characteristics of the gun that cause the wounds. Some of the best evidence about whether a silencer was used is biological evidence found on the silencer. There was definitely human blood on and in the silencer. How would it have gotten there if not used in the commission of murders? Unfortunately, some of the blood samples were expended during testing early on before advanced DNA testing was available. June’s DNA was most certainly present though. How would her blood get in it unless it had been used? The rifle didn’t have any blood evidence inside despite numerous very close range or contact wounds. That suggests he silencer was indeed used.
At what point the silencer was removed is not all that important. The only reason for Sheila to remove it would have been because she could not kill herself with it attached. In which case she would have left it out not put it away so police would not discover it.
At the end of the day limited tests like this do not prove that the silencer was not used. You need to prove something that is to the exclusion of all other possibilities to result in such evidence and Jeremy’s lawyers can’t come up with anything like that. The killer could have removed the silencer then hit him with the gun and even could have fired a few shots without it to try to throw off investigators. The silencer itself must be examined to see if there is evidence it was used for a least some of the shots and the blood evidence says yes it was.
-
It is not clear from the pathologist's report that the burn marks were fresh wounds. He notes the wounds:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=680
When referring to other injuries ie non gun shot he does not make reference to the burns which to my mind tells me that they were not caused on 7th/8th Aug '85:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=742;image
Perhaps this is the reason NB wore his hair slightly longer ie to conceal the marks?
When NB was a RAF pilot he suffered a plane crash resulting in a serious back injury. At this time a surgical procedure existed where rods were inserted into the back down the spinal column and I am wondering whether these burn marks were in any way connected to this?
Alternatively as a farmer and working outside were the burn marks removal of abnormal growths, skin cancer or the like?
I think testing has shown that no matter how many times the rifle was fired it does not get hot enough to cause skin burning. One theory is that the rifle end was heated up in or on the Aga but as I said it is not clear to me from the pathologist's report that the burn marks were caused on 7th/8th Aug '85. Surely NB's medi records would confirm either way?
-
It is not clear from the pathologist's report that the burn marks were fresh wounds. He notes the wounds:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=680
When referring to other injuries ie non gun shot he does not make reference to the burns which to my mind tells me that they were not caused on 7th/8th Aug '85:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=742;image
Perhaps this is the reason NB wore his hair slightly longer ie to conceal the marks?
When NB was a RAF pilot he suffered a plane crash resulting in a serious back injury. At this time a surgical procedure existed where rods were inserted into the back down the spinal column and I am wondering whether these burn marks were in any way connected to this?
Alternatively as a farmer and working outside were the burn marks removal of abnormal growths, skin cancer or the like?
I think testing has shown that no matter how many times the rifle was fired it does not get hot enough to cause skin burning. One theory is that the rifle end was heated up in or on the Aga but as I said it is not clear to me from the pathologist's report that the burn marks were caused on 7th/8th Aug '85. Surely NB's medi records would confirm either way?
Honestly they look like bruises more than burns but only someone analyzing the flesh could say for sure. We don't have enough evidence as to whether he had any wounds like this before the murders or not.
A hot gun isn't going to cause a severe burn unless someone decided to heat the end like a branding iron.
At the end of the day they are a waste of time to even consider since there is no way to prove they didn't predate the murders and could very well be cuts caused by the broken stock, the scope or something else that struck him. They can't help determine anything dispositive. Something dispositive is something that proves something the exclusion of all other possibilities and a key point hinges upon what it proves. At this stage of the game the defense needs to come up with something that challenges one of the main pillars of the case. It has to be strong enough to say that something that convicted him should not have reached the jury or something extremely exculpatory that could have changed the jury's mind should have reached the jury but was improperly withheld.
-
At trial nothing was made of the burn marks. The CoA doc makes reference to them only ie the fact they were there:
42. The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.
The pathologist's report headed up "Statements - report of PM Then second statement following questions of counsel" states the following:
"Injuries to Mr Bamber (other than gunshot)
Head wounds (from butt of gun?)
Arm wounds (from barrel of gun)"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=742
In the ITV docu shown circa Apr '12 Mark Williams Thomas states at circa 16.30 in that the wounds were inflicted the night of the tragedies. He then goes on to explain about tests being carried out 8-)(--)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
Did the pathologist make a mistake and omit the burns in his statement above? Seems unlikely to me given the high profile nature of the case and the fact he was being asked specific questions by counsel. 8-)(--)
-
I am keen to know what others think ie were the burn marks pre tragedy or during?
I note the pathologist details all marks to the victim's body whether they happened during the tragedy or not eg SC's scars from breast implants. However in relation to say the burn marks and scars from implants he simply states they were there he does not go into detail. Whereas with the gunshot wounds he describes the exact location and provides measurements and other detailed information.
Now don't laugh...but I wonder if I approach Peter Vanezis he might agree to a Q&A session on the 'UK Justice Forum'. Nothing ventured: nothing gained.
-
I am keen to know what others think ie were the burn marks pre tragedy or during?
I note the pathologist details all marks to the victim's body whether they happened during the tragedy or not eg SC's scars from breast implants. However in relation to say the burn marks and scars from implants he simply states they were there he does not go into detail. Whereas with the gunshot wounds he describes the exact location and provides measurements and other detailed information.
Now don't laugh...but I wonder if I approach Peter Vanezis he might agree to a Q&A session on the 'UK Justice Forum'. Nothing ventured: nothing gained.
If they had been fresh wounds wouldn't there have been blood trails associated with them?
Good luck with the Q&A session.
-
If they had been fresh wounds wouldn't there have been blood trails associated with them?
Good luck with the Q&A session.
Yes exactly! They would be open and weeping.
Remind me whose idea it was to spend resources on investigating the burns 8(0(* What did the specialists say...something along the lines of more testing required...think they saw someone coming... @)(++(*
-
At trial nothing was made of the burn marks. The CoA doc makes reference to them only ie the fact they were there:
42. The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.
The pathologist's report headed up "Statements - report of PM Then second statement following questions of counsel" states the following:
"Injuries to Mr Bamber (other than gunshot)
Head wounds (from butt of gun?)
Arm wounds (from barrel of gun)"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=742
In the ITV docu shown circa Apr '12 Mark Williams Thomas states at circa 16.30 in that the wounds were inflicted the night of the tragedies. He then goes on to explain about tests being carried out 8-)(--)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
Did the pathologist make a mistake and omit the burns in his statement above? Seems unlikely to me given the high profile nature of the case and the fact he was being asked specific questions by counsel. 8-)(--)
The location and nature of the marks makes them irrelevant to the murders. There was no way to assess when or how they got there. Because they were on the back, even if they were made during the murders they are of no value of explaining any detail of importance. The wounds to his arms were defensive wounds which is significant in establishing he was still conscious at the time and defending himself. The linear wounds are consistent with being struck by the rifle as he blocked with his hands. The blows to his head would have rendered him unconscous and are what broke the stock. The punches to his face would have been delivered face to face and thus would have resulted in evidence being left on the killer in some fashion and relate to the strength of the killer and height etc.
The wounds to the back do not tell us anythign significant about the murders or who could have committed them. That is why they were ignored at trial and ignored in discussions about the case.
We don't know when they were made or what made them and will never know. Evne if we were to somehow find out it would not help provide any evidence of who committed the murders or significantly change how the killings went down. The location, nature and sheer uncertainty as to when they were inflicted makes them a red herring.
If you want to build a case you stick with the main issues proving the main actions of the killer that resulte din death. If you want to attack a case you attack those pillars proving guilt. When you can't then you resort to red herrings instead hoping to deflect attention from the pillars or lack thereof.
It is a waste of time for us to ponder these marks because:
1) We have no way of ever knowing whether they were pre murder or not
2) no way of knowing if they were scabs or what the nature was because the skin wasn't tested in detail to assess so no way of ever knowing what made the marks
3) the location and nature even if inflicted during the murders doesn't have any way to impact our understanding of who committed the crimes. There are wounds that offer interpretative clues but these are not among those
Our speculation about the marks thus would be a total waste of time.
-
The location and nature of the marks makes them irrelevant to the murders. There was no way to assess when or how they got there. Because they were on the back, even if they were made during the murders they are of no value of explaining any detail of importance. The wounds to his arms were defensive wounds which is significant in establishing he was still conscious at the time and defending himself. The linear wounds are consistent with being struck by the rifle as he blocked with his hands. The blows to his head would have rendered him unconscous and are what broke the stock. The punches to his face would have been delivered face to face and thus would have resulted in evidence being left on the killer in some fashion and relate to the strength of the killer and height etc.
The wounds to the back do not tell us anythign significant about the murders or who could have committed them. That is why they were ignored at trial and ignored in discussions about the case.
We don't know when they were made or what made them and will never know. Evne if we were to somehow find out it would not help provide any evidence of who committed the murders or significantly change how the killings went down. The location, nature and sheer uncertainty as to when they were inflicted makes them a red herring.
If you want to build a case you stick with the main issues proving the main actions of the killer that resulte din death. If you want to attack a case you attack those pillars proving guilt. When you can't then you resort to red herrings instead hoping to deflect attention from the pillars or lack thereof.
It is a waste of time for us to ponder these marks because:
1) We have no way of ever knowing whether they were pre murder or not
2) no way of knowing if they were scabs or what the nature was because the skin wasn't tested in detail to assess so no way of ever knowing what made the marks
3) the location and nature even if inflicted during the murders doesn't have any way to impact our understanding of who committed the crimes. There are wounds that offer interpretative clues but these are not among those
Our speculation about the marks thus would be a total waste of time.
Scipio if I want to ponder the burn marks I will do so. I do not need you telling me what I can and can't do. HOW VERY DARE YOU! It's not a mandatory requirement that you have to respond to each and every one of my posts. If you don't see the relevance in what I am posting then ignore it. I look at the case from many, many different perspectives. Furthermore I did not start the thread and other posters have contributed to it too so why single me out and accuse me of all sorts eg resorting to red herrings and deflecting attention?
As far as I am concerned the only "total waste of time" is reading your lengthy, wordy, samey and boring posts! You sound like a person possessed. This forum is for debate. Lighten up. Nothing you or I say will make the slightest difference to JB's conviction in the 'real' world. We could just as easily be playing online poker and it would have the same effect on JB's conviction ie ZERO!
-
Scipio if I want to ponder the burn marks I will do so. I do not need you telling me what I can and can't do. HOW VERY DARE YOU! It's not a mandatory requirement that you have to respond to each and every one of my posts. If you don't see the relevance in what I am posting then ignore it. I look at the case from many, many different perspectives. Furthermore I did not start the thread and other posters have contributed to it too so why single me out and accuse me of all sorts eg resorting to red herrings and deflecting attention?
As far as I am concerned the only "total waste of time" is reading your lengthy, wordy, samey and boring posts! You sound like a person possessed. This forum is for debate. Lighten up. Nothing you or I say will make the slightest difference to JB's conviction in the 'real' world. We could just as easily be playing online poker and it would have the same effect on JB's conviction ie ZERO!
I think there is only one obsessive around here.
But yes you are right, nothing will make any difference to JBs rightful confession. He is guilty as charged and proved and hopefully will die soon in jail either by his own cowardly hands or maybe some old lag will do him favour and finish him off. They do not like child murderers in jail and execute them at the first reasonable opportunity.
-
I think there is only one obsessive around here.
But yes you are right, nothing will make any difference to JBs rightful confession. He is guilty as charged and proved and hopefully will die soon in jail either by his own cowardly hands or maybe some old lag will do him favour and finish him off. They do not like child murderers in jail and execute them at the first reasonable opportunity.
8(0(*
I've had a look at the pathologist's report again and I was wrong he does in fact go into detail re size etc but I think if they were fresh wounds he would refer to them simply as 'burns' and not 'burn marks'?
-
Supporters can ponder this and that until the Cows come home, theyre wasting their time
The picture of Sheila is the strongest evidence. Holly, do you really think she caused all that and not have a single mark on her? Not to mention anyone elses blood. I mean really?
-
Supporters can ponder this and that until the Cows come home, theyre wasting their time
The picture of Sheila is the strongest evidence. Holly, do you really think she caused all that and not have a single mark on her? Not to mention anyone elses blood. I mean really?
I don't think Holly believes the things she asserts and will give an example to establish why I think she doesn't actually believe it.
Holly insists it is unlikely Sheila would have damaged her nails because nails are storng and she keeps trying to keep the nail issue about only the loading of the magazine. But there is far more that is important. The killer had a major scuffle with Nevill. She tries to dismiss this and pretend the scuffle never occurred by ignoring the evidence and saying he was passed out and Sheila simply beat his lifeless body. It makes no sense to severely beat a lifeless body but if she had done so she still would have likely broken a nail while pummeling him and in fact receives abrasions to her hands not just nail damage. It took alot of force to break the stock of the rifle and it broke in a location where the killer's hand sat. Holly says she doesn't believe the killer had to exert much effort because he was passed out and that since he was limp there didn't have to be any damage recived by her. Also that she cleaned up afterwards so that is how all the blood and gunshot residue and lead were removed from her body.
Holly makes excuse after excuse which demonstrates her trying to make up things not demonstrating sincere belief. She can't make up things which make the entire episode explainable. For instance we are told that in a crazy rage it owuld be possible for her to beat Nevill in that manner but we are not allowed to bring up the crazy episode when it comes to her suggestion that Sheila washed up and changed her clothes and put the supporessor away. We ar enot allowed to join any issues. Holly can't deal with issues that relate together. Holly wants us to deal with 1 issue all alone in isolation because she could make up something to potentially deal with a single issue in isolation but not the entire fact pattern.
What I see is someone trying to convince others of Jeremy's innocence while believing he is actually guilty. What her motivation is though I can't venture a guess. I see the same of many people on the JB website. I think more of them are interested in hurting the government and police credibility than with helping Bamber. Some are fools actually falling for the deceptive claims made by JB proponents. Holly doesn't appear to be a dumb sheep though she appears to be actively thinking up excuses and fishing for more.
She says it is possible
-
Ponder all you want but it is a waste of time.
As for your animosity towards me it seems that I interfere with your agenda. Very true you have no ability to help free Bamber but you do have the ability to misinform people about the case and try to get them to believe he is innocent. The fact I am able to expose all your claims as bunk disturbs you tremendously. You have no way to refute my evidence so cry foul that I am posting.
I have no problem with you trying to prove me wrong in fact I welcome it because a full debate provides a great way to test all the various claims of both sides. So I welcome a rebuttal to my points about the crucial issues in the case. You took your ball and went home though rather than continue. That's your prerogative. Ponder the marks all you want it will lead no where and there will never be any way to establish a thing from them including what they were made by and whether these were scabs that predated the murders or not.
I don't believe the marks were caused on the night of the tragedies. The pathologist doesn't make ref to them in his report where he is asked specifically what other injuries NB sustained other than gunshot wounds. It is also clear from his reports that he makes ref to all sorts of things that clearly have no relevance to the murders eg with regard to SC nicotine stains on her fingers, the fact she was menstruating and had an iud fitted, scars from breast implants. If I am correct this begs the question why JB's current defence team are investigating this? See ITV docu from 2012. Also if the wounds are old then might JB have known about them and in which case why is he allowing the defence to pursue this? It also shows how information produced by professionals can be very easily misinterpreted by lay people. Comb Over has suggested that the rifle was heated up and applied to NB to establish whether or not he was dead. Others on Blue have suggested a religious connotation and witchcraft.
I think in an indirect way much can be learned about the case from the burn marks 8(0(*
-
I don't understand your logic Holly. You say you don't believe the burn marks were caused on the night of the tragedy but then you state that much can be learned from them. I don't follow?
-
Supporters can ponder this and that until the Cows come home, theyre wasting their time
The picture of Sheila is the strongest evidence. Holly, do you really think she caused all that and not have a single mark on her? Not to mention anyone elses blood. I mean really?
Hi Andrea 8((()*/
Yes I do. I think 1 adult with a loaded firearm v 2 adults unarmed will have the upper hand despite the physique and gender of those involved.
June and Nevill were both so badly injured in the bedroom that they were incapable of putting up any sort of defence imo. Many of NB's injuries eg bruising were as a result of gunshot wounds. As I understand it a gunshot wound doesn't just leave a neat wound it causes damage and bruising to the surrounding area. The pathologist states that other than gunshot wounds he sustained injuries to his head and arm. These wounds could easily be applied once poor NB was dead or nearly dead and slumped in the chair.
It seems likely that the rifle rained down on NB and it could be that the stock detached then when it either hit NB or just about anything that was in its path if it was waved about.
JB didn't have any marks on him either. As we know JM continued to sleep with JB for a month or so after the murders so surely as part of her testimony she would have said if he had any marks on his body? He had no visible marks to his face or hands either. Of course if JB he might have worn protection eg balaclava, glasses and gloves. As I said I think anyone could have carried out the murders and walked away physically unscathed: 1 adult with a loaded firearm v 2 adults unarmed.
If SC I believe she showered, possibly washing her hair, and changing her clothes. Prof Knight at trial spoke about going about mundane task eg cleaning up afterwards. Sad case here where a father murdered his wife and two sons. He then took his own life but between the murders and suicide he spent the next 24 hours in the family home even washing the car.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072921/Pudsey-family-murder-suicide-Was-killer-father-Richard-Smith-having-affair.html
-
Hi Andrea 8((()*/
Yes I do. I think 1 adult with a loaded firearm v 2 adults unarmed will have the upper hand despite the physique and gender of those involved.
June and Nevill were both so badly injured in the bedroom that they were incapable of putting up any sort of defence imo. Many of NB's injuries eg bruising were as a result of gunshot wounds. As I understand it a gunshot wound doesn't just leave a neat wound it causes damage and bruising to the surrounding area. The pathologist states that other than gunshot wounds he sustained injuries to his head and arm. These wounds could easily be applied once poor NB was dead or nearly dead and slumped in the chair.
It seems likely that the rifle rained down on NB and it could be that the stock detached then when it either hit NB or just about anything that was in its path if it was waved about.
JB didn't have any marks on him either. As we know JM continued to sleep with JB for a month or so after the murders so surely as part of her testimony she would have said if he had any marks on his body? He had no visible marks to his face or hands either. Of course if JB he might have worn protection eg balaclava, glasses and gloves. As I said I think anyone could have carried out the murders and walked away physically unscathed: 1 adult with a loaded firearm v 2 adults unarmed.
If SC I believe she showered, possibly washing her hair, and changing her clothes. Prof Knight at trial spoke about going about mundane task eg cleaning up afterwards. Sad case here where a father murdered his wife and two sons. He then took his own life but between the murders and suicide he spent the next 24 hours in the family home even washing the car.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072921/Pudsey-family-murder-suicide-Was-killer-father-Richard-Smith-having-affair.html
Sheila must have worn gloves then, Holl, because there were no fingerprints.
-
I don't understand your logic Holly. You say you don't believe the burn marks were caused on the night of the tragedy but then you state that much can be learned from them. I don't follow?
You keep overlooking the fact that I'm female!
As I said indirectly not directly ie inability of laypeople to read/interpret documents produced by professionals. When I say laypeople I don't just mean the likes of us but anyone who isn't qualified in the profession of the person producing the information eg imo Simon Mckay and Comb Over have misunderstood the pathologist's report re the burn marks hence their endeavours re the testing (see ITV docu below). I don't believe that they are deliberately trying to pull a fast one.
I also believe that the trial judge misunderstood the blood evidence and as a result misled the jury.
Just about everyone on Blue and Red believes that the burn marks were caused on the night of the tragedies. I think Colley had her doubts.
You're probably thinking I sound arrogant?...No not really it is a well known fact that adoptees develop high levels of observation from growing up in an environment alien to their genes...seriously...its true...
About 17.0 min in the prog discusses the burns!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
One thing that concerns me though is assuming I'm correct and the burn marks were not inflicted on the night of the tragedies but perhaps from NB's back injury he sustained in a plane crash or removal of skin cancer would JB have known about this? If yes why did he allow the testing to go ahead? 8)-)))
-
Hi Andrea 8((()*/
Yes I do. I think 1 adult with a loaded firearm v 2 adults unarmed will have the upper hand despite the physique and gender of those involved.
June and Nevill were both so badly injured in the bedroom that they were incapable of putting up any sort of defence imo. Many of NB's injuries eg bruising were as a result of gunshot wounds. As I understand it a gunshot wound doesn't just leave a neat wound it causes damage and bruising to the surrounding area. The pathologist states that other than gunshot wounds he sustained injuries to his head and arm. These wounds could easily be applied once poor NB was dead or nearly dead and slumped in the chair.
It seems likely that the rifle rained down on NB and it could be that the stock detached then when it either hit NB or just about anything that was in its path if it was waved about.
JB didn't have any marks on him either. As we know JM continued to sleep with JB for a month or so after the murders so surely as part of her testimony she would have said if he had any marks on his body? He had no visible marks to his face or hands either. Of course if JB he might have worn protection eg balaclava, glasses and gloves. As I said I think anyone could have carried out the murders and walked away physically unscathed: 1 adult with a loaded firearm v 2 adults unarmed.
If SC I believe she showered, possibly washing her hair, and changing her clothes. Prof Knight at trial spoke about going about mundane task eg cleaning up afterwards. Sad case here where a father murdered his wife and two sons. He then took his own life but between the murders and suicide he spent the next 24 hours in the family home even washing the car.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072921/Pudsey-family-murder-suicide-Was-killer-father-Richard-Smith-having-affair.html
Your agenda is to assert JB is innocent even though the evidence says otherwise and you intentionally distort in order to advance your agenda.
JB wasn't tested by police for gunshot residue. Nor was he thoroughly examined on the day of the murders or ever. One witness claimed he saw abrasions on Jeremy but it was not followed up throughly and they had time to heal anyway. Jeremy also could have used gloves. Under these conditions you have no basis at all to claim Jeremy definitely was evidence free. Moreover, if anyone would wash up it would be Jeremy since he survived and left the scene. You are intentionally distorting in claiming he was definitely wound free and evidence free on the night of the murders. The fact he wasn't tested means it can't be proved either way whether he was or wasn't.
Sheila didn't have the opportunity for her wounds to heal before her body was examined. Nor would a person in a crazy rage determined to killself after killing her family have any reason to wear gloves to protect her hands from wounds and evidence nor would she have an opportunity to dispose of the gloves so they would not be discovered. Nor would she have a motive to take a bath to wash away evidence and to change her clothes so she would have no evidence on her or to put the suppressor away. Only a killer in full control of his/her faculties who had no intention of killing himself/herself and didn't want anyone to find out he/she was involved in the murders would wear gloves, wash up afterwards and change their clothing.
Bullets can't have caused the injuries on Nevill's arm they were defensive wounds. A bullet to the jaw that goes down to the throat not up to the brain doesn't break a nose. The killer delivered these wounds and the wounds to Nevill's head by punching and bludgeoning him. Your claim that Holly would beat a lifeless body makes no sense. At any rate his arm was clearly blocking the blows he was not passed out. Severely beating a lifeless body woudl still result in broken nails and abrasions to the hands anyway. Someone grasping a rifle tightly to bash a body with it is going to break long nails as it strikes. Moreover you are ignoring the evidence of the scuffle- things broken, knocked over and the scratches from the silencer which were not linear scratches but zigzaged as they fought over the rifle.
If Nevill were so weak he never would have made it to the kitchen at all. In the meantime the 4 wounds delivered to Nevill were NOT severe enough to make him pass out unless he bled for a very long time. A couple of minutes would not be long enough to make him simply pass out. Only the final shots in the kitchen were severe enough. If Nevill had been injured so severely he quickly passed out he could not have dialed the phone as Jeremy asserted. In fact he can't have spoken due to his wound.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either Nevill was strong enough to dial the phone upon entering the kitchen and to defend himself or not strong enough to do either. The defensive wounds that you want to pretend were caused by bullets were in fact caused by blows and indicate he did defend himself.
The best way to embarrass you is to present the version you keep putting forth which makes no sense, is contradicted by the evidence, if patently absurd on its face and is made up by you PURELY to come up with a way to suggest Sheila could be the killer. Instead of following the evidence you made up nonsense.
Holly's narrative of the murders:
Jeremy visited the house and left the murder weapon, sans suppressor, on the kitchen table with a loaded magazine next to it. June and Nevill left the gun on the table despite the kids being around and set the table for breakfast around the rifle. Sheila was calm at around 9PM but by 3AM had became agitated and had a psychotic episode while everyone was sleeping. She had not taken any narcotics that would bring this on her medication simply stopped working suddenly. Sheila went downstairs and found the rifle on the table. She loaded it and then went in the closet and got the suppressor and attached it. Sheila then went upstairs and woke up her parents screaming at them. Instead of trying to disarm Sheila before she could shoot anyone, Nevill calls Jeremy to ask him to come help disarm her. Despite the fact Nevill was 6'4" versus Sheila at 5'7", had almost 100 pounds on her and was in good health he called to ask Jeremy to come disarm her, risking the chance of her shooting him and the others before Jeremy could arrive instead of disarming her himself.
Either the phone had been in the bedroom when he made this call and after the murders Sheila relocated it to the kitchen and took the receiver off the hook so the dead victims could not answer the phone if someone called or in the alternative Sheila had moved the phone to the kitchen earlier that day so that it could not be used by the victims because Sheila knew she would have a murderous psychotic episode that night and after Sheila threatened them Nevill went downstairs and made the call but she knocked the phone out of his hands and ordered him back upstairs to his bedroom and he complied without trying to disarm her.
Once they were back in the master bedroom Sheila then proceeded to shoot June and Nevill. Nevill ran back downstairs to the kitchen again and she followed. He collapsed in the kitchen even though the medical examiner said it would take a long time before he would pass out. She shot him in the head killing him then flung the rifle around a his lifeless body. Instead of holding it tightly and striking with it in that manner which would break her nails, she flung it repeatedly at him then went and picked it up and flung it some more and this is how the stock broke.
Then she went back upstairs and finished off June and killed her kids. Next she took the suppressor off and went downstairs and put it back in the closet so no one woudl know she used it in the commission of the crime. Then she took a shower to wash off all the evidence she had fired a weapon and committed the murders. Then changed into a fresh nightgown because the one she wore during the murders had gunshot residue on it and possibly blood. Somehow she disposed of it without anyone ever finding it only her panties that she had soaking because she menstruated in them. Instead of putting on new panties she goes without because she was still on her period and didn't want to ruin another pair even though she was going to then kill herself. Even though she heard Nevill call Jeremy she somehow knew Jeremy would not come over right away or call police right away so she had plenty of time to shower up and change. After making herself fully clean and presentable she killed herself.
I think I explained the folly in this narrative sufficiently that I don't need to take it apart again point by point. Instead I will let Peter Sellers respond to you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3pr2cUC2Aw
-
I believe she showered, possibly washing her hair, and changing her clothes. Prof Knight at trial spoke about going about mundane task eg cleaning up afterwards. Sad case here where a father murdered his wife and two sons. He then took his own life but between the murders and suicide he spent the next 24 hours in the family home even washing the car.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072921/Pudsey-family-murder-suicide-Was-killer-father-Richard-Smith-having-affair.html
As usual you post preliminary information instead of the real story.
He didn't wash the car after killing the family he did so before. He didn't kill himself 24 hours after killing them, the family was dead 24 hours before they were found. He was depressed by the loss of a baby and decided to kill himself and his family. He stabbed everyone including himself, set the house on fire and then got into bed with them and hugged them. One of the kids did not die from the stab wound he died from smoke inhalation like his father.
Those who clean up after murders do so with the intention of getting away with the murders. If cleaning up is still not enough and they have no way to frame the murders on someone else and are about the get caught that is when you see a suicide subsequent to murders that was not originally intended.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/08/man-murders-family-kills-himself
-
Holly's narrative of the murders:
Jeremy visited the house and left the murder weapon, sans suppressor, on the kitchen table with a loaded magazine next to it. June and Nevill left the gun on the table despite the kids being around and set the table for breakfast around the rifle. Sheila was calm at around 9PM but by 3AM had became agitated and had a psychotic episode while everyone was sleeping. She had not taken any narcotics that would bring this on her medication simply stopped working suddenly. Sheila went downstairs and found the rifle on the table. She loaded it and then went in the closet and got the suppressor and attached it.
I got this far and had to stop as it is such a ridiculous scenario. No wonder no-one bought it (apart from 2 of the jury - did they spend the trial half-asleep?) and he is where he belongs - in jail for life. Can't wait to read about his death in prison, confirming that life really meant life in this case.
I just don't understand what drives his apologists. Someone who shoots his mother through her eyes in cold blood and shoots his 2 nephews just for money deserves nothing but contempt and derision. That some sad women worship him to the extent that they write to him in prison and go from forum to forum defending his honour is frankly mind boggling.
-
I got this far and had to stop as it is such a ridiculous scenario. No wonder no-one bought it (apart from 2 of the jury - did they spend the trial half-asleep?) and he is where he belongs - in jail for life. Can't wait to read about his death in prison, confirming that life really meant life in this case.
I just don't understand what drives his apologists. Someone who shoots his mother through her eyes in cold blood and shoots his 2 nephews just for money deserves nothing but contempt and derision. That some sad women worship him to the extent that they write to him in prison and go from forum to forum defending his honour is frankly mind boggling.
Good grief that could be me 8-)(--) Oh I see you have used the words "sad" and "worship" phew...
Why do you have difficulty accepting the fact that I have simply arrived at a different conclusion from yours and others based on my interpretation/perception of all the available information? I am not an apologist for JB at all as I believe he is the victim of a MoJ. And I have already stated that IF JB is guilty as charged then as far as I am concerned in his case life should mean life. My mind is always open.
MoJ's do occur. How many thought Stefan Kiszko was innocent? Not the appeal court judges first time around that's for sure. And YET in the end it was proved 100% he was innocent and the perpetrator, Ronald Castree, was eventually caught and charged using DNA evidence.
-
Personal comments of a less than flattering nature are prohibited. Please debate the topic and not the poster.
-
Good grief that could be me 8-)(--) Oh I see you have used the words "sad" and "worship" phew...
Why do you have difficulty accepting the fact that I have simply arrived at a different conclusion from yours and others based on my interpretation/perception of all the available information? I am not an apologist for JB at all as I believe he is the victim of a MoJ. And I have already stated that IF JB is guilty as charged then as far as I am concerned in his case life should mean life. My mind is always open.
MoJ's do occur. How many thought Stefan Kiszko was innocent? Not the appeal court judges first time around that's for sure. And YET in the end it was proved 100% he was innocent and the perpetrator, Ronald Castree, was eventually caught and charged using DNA evidence.
You didn't interpret anything differently, you chose to intentionally change facts to suit your agenda. The medical examiner said that the wounds to Nevill's left (elbow and shoulder) were minor. The most severe shot he suffered upstairs was the one that shattered his jaw. These wounds would take a long time before he would pass out. That is why Nevill had no problem running downstairs to the kitchen with these wounds. Both sides conceded there was a major struggle in the kitchen. Since you recognize that 5'7" skinny Sheila would have difficulty overpowering a fit 6'4" man who outweighed her by nearly 100 pounds at all let alone to do so without receiving a scratch in the process you consciously decide to ignore the evidence that this struggle occurred and say it didn't. How are you following the evidence when you simply are intentionally ignoring it?
The following narrative is not supported by the evidence but rather was entirely made up by you as a way to claim that Sheila did it, "Nevill was so weak from all his wounds he passed out upon entering the kitchen" [your supposed evidentiary basis is that if his 4 wounds were left untreated and no one did anything to stop the bleeding from these wounds then EVENTUALLY he would have passed out from blood loss and bled to death. The relevant issue is whether he would have been weak and passed out 1-2 minutes after being shot not an hour later. The medical examiner said these woulds were not severe enough to incapacitate him right away. So he wasn't dragged to the kitchen he had every ability to walk there under his own power and to engage in the struggle that the evidence says occurred.] "Then Sheila beat his lifeless body striking his arms, chest, face and head. Because he was lifeless she was able to beat his body without damaging herself in any way and she flung the rifle around as opposed to wielding it and that is how the stock broke" [your evidentiary basis for this is what? Well she suffered no wounds and you want to believe she did it so in your eyes that means making up that she repeatedly threw the gun at a lifeless body because if she actually struck him with her hands or held the gun while beating him with it then she would have received some kind of wound. So you say she threw it around and this is how it broke without harming her. You completely ignore the evidence of the thinks knocked over in th ekitchen as well as the marks that were made by the silencer as the parties wrestled over the gun. The reason why the scratches zigzag all around is because one person pulled one way while the other pulled a different way.]
Your claim she would beat a lifeless body is ridiculous. Why would she beat his arm in particular? His arm was clearly wounded as he raised it to block the blocks she was delivering. Even if he had been passed out it still would have resulted in her receiving injuries anyway hence your suggestion she threw the rifle around at him and this is how it broke as opposed to breaking in he rhands. Your claim she would repeatedly throw a rifle at a lifeless body is even more ridiculous than the claim she would beat a lifeless body.
So your explanation for her having no abrasions or scratches of any kind and no broken nails is that there was no scuffle and she simply repeatedly threw the rifle at a nonmoving body. What about your explanation as to how she could shoot the gun 25 times and get no gunshot residue on her body and clothing and no blood from the victims on her body not even her bare feet?
You suggest that after she killed everyone else she took a bath and changed her clothes. Supposedly she was aware that Nevill had called Jeremy and he could be there any minute but she decided she had plenty of time to take a bath and change her clothes even washing her hair so the gun shot residue would not be in her hair. She cleaned herself so thoroughly that she was able to fire 2 shots into herself wihtout any residue being deposted on her from these shots though she was hugging the rifle to fire. What evidence was there that she took a bath and changed her clothes? None. Why would she do so? What motivation would she have? None. Can you come up with any examples of killers decided to kill themselves and their family who killed the family, took a bath and then immediately killed themselves? No because it makes no sense. You claimed there are people who go about their ordinary life after committing murders who later end up committing suicide. You said you gave an example of this with a guy who washed his car after murdering his family. In fact the guy washed the car before. He stabbed his family and himself and then set the house on fire. 2 of the victims died before the fire was set but he and one of his sons died from smoke inhalation. He didn't wash himself or his car after murdering them he killed himself right away.
The only examples out there are people of people who committed murderedsuicide who bathed before commiting suicide ar epeople who initially planned to commitmurde rbut not suicide as well. They planned to escape liability so washed and acted as if nothing had happened. After being cornered by authorities that is when they committed suicide rather than be prosecuted and go to jail. Your fantasy acoc..t is entirely made up by you not based on any evidence.
The defense including those supporting his latest appeal argued that it was June and Nevill's blood in the suppressor. They admit the suppressor was used in the murders. They simply deny that there is evidence to prove it was used when Sheila was shot. Back in 1986 their own expert analyzed it and found blood on 7 ballfles but none beyond. That blood came back as Sheila's blood group. The expert came to the same conclusion as the prosecution expert. If complete mixing had not occurred than potentially it was June and Nevill's blood mixed together but there was only a very slight chance of this it was most likely Sheila's. The pattern was not idicative of blood being simply dripped in which would likely go from end to end but instead was consistent with spray becaus eit shot up into the baffles instead of dripping down the middle. Both sides agreed it was either Sheila's or June and Nevill's blood because the gun was not used to shoot any people prior to these murders let alone to shoot someone with the same blood groups as any of these victims.
This is very damaging because Jeremy insists he left the gun out without a suppressor. It means that Sheila would have had to go seek out the suppressor, install it prior to the murders and then to put it away after killing everyone else but before shooting herself. To go get it and install it contradicts the notion that she was in th emiddle of a psychotic episode and simply found the gun on the table and grabbed it. It shows making preparations and full understanding of what was going on. Going downstairs to put it away afterwards and then go back upstairs to shoot herself makes no sense at all. There is only one reason to do that- so no one who finds the bodies would know it had been used to commit the crimes. The only reason someone would do that is if they planned to leave the scene and escape liabiliy. Since this is so damaging how do you respond?
You ignore the defenses own expert who said the blood was back spatter that sprayed into the silencer when it was pressed against a victim and suggest that Jeremy's cousin somehow knew he shared the same blood type as Sheila, cut himself and planted his own blood in the silencer and he also scraped the silencer against the mantle shelf to frame Jeremy. You are not following the evidence you are intentionally ignoring the evidence and making up anything you can think of to try to suggest Jeremy is innocent.
You also ignore all the evidence of preplanning with respect to the phone. Prior to committing the murders the killer made sure the bedroom phone was relocated to the kitchen. The killer unplugged the kitchen phone, hid it and then plugged the bedroom phone in the kitchen. Who would do such a thing? Only a killer who intended to prevent the victims from identifying the killer to anyone would do that because the killer intended to try to escape liability. A crazy person bent on killing herself after everyone else would not be worried about her identity being revealed and would not even think up to do that in advance. Sheila spoke to her aunt at 9PM and was not in an agitated state.
You ignore this issue completely and just pretend there is nothing wrong with assuming she preplanned even though this is not consistent with the claim she had a psychotic episode in the middle of the night. There is no evidence she preplanned anything especially not preplanning to kill everyone else and then start a new life on her own. You also intentionally ignore that Nevill was shot before he could have used the phone and therefore would have been unable to speak. You suggest the following absurd scenario:
Sheila had a psychotic episode and went and woke up her parents. Rather than disarm her before she could do any harm, Nevill went downstairs to use the kitchen phone to call Jeremy and asked him to come disarm her even though Nevill had 7 inches and almost 100 pounds on Sheila. Sheila knocked the phone out of his hands and ordered him upstairs into the master bedroom. For some reason June didn't bother to move. He complied then she began shooting June and Nevill. June was immobilized but Nevill was't so he ran back downa into the kitchen and then passed out. She beat his limp body, shot him to death then went upstairs to finish off her mother and children.
Why would she not open fire in the bedroom the initial time she went in to wake them? Why wouldn't she shoot him in the kitchen as he was on the phone? She is supposedly in a crazy rage, why would she march him back upstairs into the bedroom before opening fire? This suggests a rational execution not a crazy rage. This stopry is not supported by anything, It conflicts with the very claims made of her being in a crazy rage. It was invented SOLELY to find a way to claim Nevill phoned Jeremy before SHeila opened fire because if she had shot Nevill before the call then:
1) Neville would have gotten blood on the phone
2) Neville would not have been able to speak because his jaw was shattered and voicebox damage
3) If Neville could talk by some miracle he would say Sheila shot him and his wife send medical help and in fact under these conditions would have called 999 to request medical help not to call his son who could do nothing for them and certainly couldn't keep it in the family under these conditions.
There is no evidence you are following to reach your conclusions. You decided that you will ignore all the evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Jeremy is guilty and insist he is innocent. Everything you do to try to justify your position involves you dismissing the evidence by making up nonsense that could explain how Sheila could have done it and yet there would be no physical evidence to establish she did it.
only 1 of the 2 people who could have committed the murders:
had a reason to remove the phone from the bedroom prior to the murders
had a reason to put the silencer away afterwards
had enough time to wash up and change clothes after the murders
had a motive to wash up and change clothes after the murders
was not inspected for wounds of gunshot residue after the murders
That person is Jeremy.
This doesn't even take into account how Jeremy called to wake his girlfriend before calling the police. Why would he wake her up to say something might be happening at the house instead of finding out what if anything happened before waking her? His action makes no sense and her account is that he told her his family was killed. She testified that before this he spoke about plotting to kill them and that his chance was when all were staying together under the same roof. If his nephews were not there then they would get Sheila's half of the estate he needed them all dead to get everything.
Her account is bolstered because instead of going there like a normal person would, Jeremy called her and then the police. He would not even go over after calling police he insisted they pick him up but they refused to he sat in his car, waited for them to pass him and then followed them there. Instead of being concerned enough to go investigate he was more concerned with police seeing that he arrived after them. Why was he so concerned with police seeing that he wasn't there before them? He could have safely sat outside the house spying before police arrived but chose not to do so because he didn't want them to know he was only 3 minutes away from their house. Upon arriving he lied to police telling them she fired every gun in the house and was proficient with them? Why did he lie? He conceded at trial he never saw her fire any gun as an adult. The guns in the house were all obtained while she was an adult so base don his own testomony he never saw her fire any of them. So why did he lie to police? He wanted police to believe she was capable of using the murder weapon and killed everyone. That is the only possible reason for his lie.
You intentionally choose to ignore all the evidence because for some odd reason you have decided to claim he is innocent and you well know the evidence is against you so you make up outrageous things to suggest he is innocent. That is the bottom line.
-
@ Holly.
Burn marks heal over time and don't remain dark in colour. Skin tissue is constantly shed and the layer you have today will be different to the one you have next week or next month. How many years since the plane crash ? Peter Vanezis must have regarded them as recent or they wouldn't have been noted on the report. How many burn marks do you think he would have seen in his years as a doctor and pathologist ?
Somebody on Bamber's support team seized on it, and the "Gun Forced into back ?" comment, (whoever wrote that), then thought it was a good idea to waste thousands on fruitless pigskin tests, which were rightly rejected by the CCRC, because analysis of photographs isn't a reliable substitute for actual examination of the skin of a cadaver.
It's called "scraping the barrel"... and it wasn't the barrel of the Anschutz.
(http://i.imgur.com/48SIBZv.jpg)
-
@ Holly.
Burn marks heal over time and don't remain dark in colour. Skin tissue is constantly shed and the layer you have today will be different to the one you have next week or next month. How many years since the plane crash ? Peter Vanezis must have regarded them as recent or they wouldn't have been noted on the report. How many burn marks do you think he would have seen in his years as a doctor and pathologist ?
Somebody on Bamber's support team seized on it, and the "Gun Forced into back ?" comment, (whoever wrote that), then thought it was a good idea to waste thousands on fruitless pigskin tests, which were rightly rejected by the CCRC, because analysis of photographs isn't a reliable substitute for actual examination of the skin of a cadaver.
It's called "scraping the barrel"... and it wasn't the barrel of the Anschutz.
(http://i.imgur.com/48SIBZv.jpg)
I disagree. He makes ref to Sheila's stretch marks which occurred when she gave birth to the twins in 1979.
Can you explain if they were relevant to 7th Aug why he doesn't make ref to them when asked what other injuries NB sustained other than gunshot?
I am not saying they were def caused by back injury in plane crash just a thought but to my mind it is obvious they are not relevant to 7th Aug.
-
@ Holly.
Burn marks heal over time and don't remain dark in colour. Skin tissue is constantly shed and the layer you have today will be different to the one you have next week or next month. How many years since the plane crash ? Peter Vanezis must have regarded them as recent or they wouldn't have been noted on the report. How many burn marks do you think he would have seen in his years as a doctor and pathologist ?
Somebody on Bamber's support team seized on it, and the "Gun Forced into back ?" comment, (whoever wrote that), then thought it was a good idea to waste thousands on fruitless pigskin tests, which were rightly rejected by the CCRC, because analysis of photographs isn't a reliable substitute for actual examination of the skin of a cadaver.
It's called "scraping the barrel"... and it wasn't the barrel of the Anschutz.
(http://i.imgur.com/48SIBZv.jpg)
Here is the stat which refers to Sheila's stretch marks. These were not recent (some 6 years old) and yet he noted them.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=670
-
I disagree. He makes ref to Sheila's stretch marks which occurred when she gave birth to the twins in 1979.
Can you explain if they were relevant to 7th Aug why he doesn't make ref to them when asked what other injuries NB sustained other than gunshot?
I am not saying they were def caused by back injury in plane crash just a thought but to my mind it is obvious they are not relevant to 7th Aug.
Yes, I have read through the report again, but old stretch marks aren't the same as new burns.
Peter Vanezis obviously didn't know how they were caused which is why he was non-committal, and left it to the police to figure it out, but as I said, if they had been old burns any sign of them would have disappeared years ago. Perhaps that comment was written by one of the police investigation team but never followed up, because all the other injuries sustained were of far greater relevance.
-
Holly that is not what a burn scar looks like. The wound clearly was recent. It can't be some wound from a distant point in the past it was a scab. Because of the pictures are not great we can't see if they are really burns or not. Burns you can actually see where the existing skin is outside but the inside skin missing like you can with a blister almost.
What it from a day or 2 before the murders or during the murders? That kind of thing we can never know for sure because there are so many different possibilities of how they got there and whether they really were burn marks or the examiner just said 3 marks that appear to be burn marks because their resemblance to cigarette burns.
The location of these marks is being ignored in claiming they were marks made to prod Nevill. Given Sheila's height if she were prodding him with the rifle she would do so in his lower back. The gun would have to be angled significantly to prod him by hitting him that high up. The gun barrel would not hit flush in that case so the shape would be elliptical or worse not round. In the meantime it would be more of a glancing shot she would not be able to actually push him. You need to hit flush more around the middle to be able to give a good shove.
Given Jeremy's height he would have a much better chance of prodding Nevill at the height required fo rht emarks to be circular. They still would not be burn marks though, force would cause the marks from such prodding not heat. If heat caused it then the front sight would also be evidence in the skin and short of manually heating the gun it is not going to get hot enough to burn to any significant extent.
If these marks were made during the murders then they either were made while the killer was not standing upright or when the victim fell against something. Just prodding him with the gun is an unlikely to cause 1 let alone 3 wounds that high up. He was found bent over the chair. Maybe the killer wanted to make sure he was dead and not faking and thus struck him at that point in time where he would have been in easy position to hit in that location or even could have burned him with someone thing make sure he didn't scream or move.
Since the killer removed the silencer and could have gashed his back to make sure he was dead after putting the silencer away this in no way proves he was shot sans silencer even if the marks definitely had been made by a rifle. You need to look for bullet wounds made without a silencer to prove a silencer was not used to shoot him.
-
Burn Marks or something else ?
(http://imageshack.com/a/img152/7100/combinedburnmarksinvert.jpg)
-
Yes, I have read through the report again, but old stretch marks aren't the same as new burns.
Peter Vanezis obviously didn't know how they were caused which is why he was non-committal, and left it to the police to figure it out, but as I said, if they had been old burns any sign of them would have disappeared years ago. Perhaps that comment was written by one of the police investigation team but never followed up, because all the other injuries sustained were of far greater relevance.
The words you use above "new burns" are yours. Peter Vanezis does not refer to them as "new burns". He refers to them as "burn marks".
When PV compiled two additional reports to the autopsies he was asked about other injuries sustained by NB other than gunshot wounds and he makes no ref to the burn marks.
IMO the burn marks are very old injuries and completely irrelevant to 7th August hence he refers to them as "burn marks" and not "burns".
-
Burn Marks or something else ?
(http://imageshack.com/a/img152/7100/combinedburnmarksinvert.jpg)
I think they are either as a result of NB's plane crash or subsequent treatment (Harrington Rods/Spinal Fusion) or removal of some abnormal skin growth eg cancer.
-
The words you use above "new burns" are yours. Peter Vanezis does not refer to them as "new burns". He refers to them as "burn marks".
When PV compiled two additional reports to the autopsies he was asked about other injuries sustained by NB other than gunshot wounds and he makes no ref to the burn marks.
IMO the burn marks are very old injuries and completely irrelevant to 7th August hence he refers to them as "burn marks" and not "burns".
Precisely.. which is why he thought they had little or no relevance. So therefore you agree that these have been exploited by his support team with very little result.
The plane crash was during the WWII wasn't it and the marks would not be there in 1985, forty years later.
We don't even know whereabouts on his back he was injured so that's only speculation too.
Burn marks or burns... now this is starting to become pedantic, but we'll agree to disagree.
E-mail or letter Dr. Vanezis to clarify if it concerns you so much and see if he's prepared to give an answer !
-
Precisely.. which is why he thought they had little or no relevance. So therefore you agree that these have been exploited by his support team with very little result.
The plane crash was during the WWII wasn't it and the marks would not be there in 1985, forty years later.
We don't even know whereabouts on his back he was injured so that's only speculation too.
Burn marks or burns... now this is starting to become pedantic, but we'll agree to disagree.
E-mail or letter Dr. Vanezis to clarify if it concerns you so much and see if he's prepared to give an answer !
Think perhaps other should have done that! It concerns me as follows.
I have retrieved one of my old posts from Blue (most will be aware that when I first joined I posted under the username Egap1) as follows:
egap1
Guest
Re: More tests needed
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2012, 11:24:AM »
Quote from: ngb1066 on March 30, 2012, 05:15:PM
He had clearly been subjected to violence which had caused injuries as noted by the pathologist. I am not aware of any marks of a similar nature to the three burn marks.
My response to NGB below
This is probably a dumb question...were the burn marks definitely new ie not old injuries from Nevill's military days, treatment for skin cancer etc? I assume the pathologist was able to confirm they were new?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you will see I have always had my doubts about the burn marks. (Note I had no responses to the above!?) It is only recently having studied the pathology reports very carefully that I am now convinced that the burn marks are old wounds and absolutely nothing to do with 7th Aug whatsoever. I appreciate this goes against prevailing thought on the matter from both innocent and guilty camps ie as far as I can see I am the only poster that is adamant that the burn marks occurred prior to 7th Aug. This raises serious questions for me:
1. What is going on with JB's defense? They are either deliberately misleading or incompetent.
2. Was JB aware of the burn marks ie that they occurred prior to 7th Aug and if so and assuming he was aware what his defense were up to why did he not say?
3. I accept that JB may not have known about the burn marks but if he does he is letting the defense pursue false trails (sooner or later CCRC, CoA or prosecution would switch on to it) and this raises too many questions for me at this moment in time to continue to post in support of JB.
-
Think perhaps other should have done that! It concerns me as follows.
I have retrieved one of my old posts from Blue (most will be aware that when I first joined I posted under the username Egap1) as follows:
egap1
Guest
Re: More tests needed
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2012, 11:24:AM »
Quote from: ngb1066 on March 30, 2012, 05:15:PM
He had clearly been subjected to violence which had caused injuries as noted by the pathologist. I am not aware of any marks of a similar nature to the three burn marks.
My response to NGB below
This is probably a dumb question...were the burn marks definitely new ie not old injuries from Nevill's military days, treatment for skin cancer etc? I assume the pathologist was able to confirm they were new?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you will see I have always had my doubts about the burn marks. (Note I had no responses to the above!?) It is only recently having studied the pathology reports very carefully that I am now convinced that the burn marks are old wounds and absolutely nothing to do with 7th Aug whatsoever. I appreciate this goes against prevailing thought on the matter from both innocent and guilty camps ie as far as I can see I am the only poster that is adamant that the burn marks occurred prior to 7th Aug. This raises serious questions for me:
1. What is going on with JB's defense? They are either deliberately misleading or incompetent.
2. Was JB aware of the burn marks ie that they occurred prior to 7th Aug and if so and assuming he was aware what his defense were up to why did he not say?
3. I accept that JB may not have known about the burn marks but if he does he is letting the defense pursue false trails (sooner or later CCRC, CoA or prosecution would switch on to it) and this raises too many questions for me at this moment in time to continue to post in support of JB.
It's difficult to analyse those marks from a black and white image, but they are obviously not fresh, and don't particularly look like burns, either, more like moles (sun-damage on the back of the neck?) They are also very small. Complete red herring, waste of time and money.
-
As you and I know were well puglove it isn't hard to get cuts and abrasions while working on a farm. Quite possibly that is where Nevill got his from.
-
As you and I know were well puglove it isn't hard to get cuts and abrasions while working on a farm. Quite possibly that is where Nevill got his from.
Yes, we've said this before, especially as it was harvest. But, whatever those lesions were, they look pretty old to me.
-
Yes, we've said this before, especially as it was harvest. But, whatever those lesions were, they look pretty old to me.
Had they been fresh there would have been signs of exudate with corresponding smearing around them but nothing like this was apparent from the photographs.
I know I am speculating here but he could have sustained them if pushed against some object possibly following an argument or altercation? He did confide in a friend that he feared for his safety.
-
I hope I am not boring anyone banging on about this @)(++(*
I am convinced the burn marks to NB's back are old wounds and nothing to do with 7th Aug.
1st image pathologist, Peter Vanezis (PV), refers to burn marks on NB's back.
2nd image PV refers to SC's stretch marks (pregnancy). This imo shows that he notes all marks on body regardless of when they occurred.
3rd, 4th, 5th image PV refers to other external injuries to NB with no ref to burn marks.
6th image PV refers to injuries other than gunshot to NB with again no ref to burn marks.
Am I making sense? 8-)(--)
-
When the ITV docu was produced re the 'New Evidence' I said I thought something should have been made of June and SC's mental illness. Especially with regard to June's depression '59, attachment disorders and adoption psychology. Also a word from prof Egan (last psychologist to evaluate JB). Instead we have time spent on what now appears to be fruitless testing on burns 8-)(--)
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/ (Prof Egan psychological reports)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo (ITV docu - 'New Evidence' 2012)
When 'Killing Mum And Dad: The Jeremy Bamber Story' was shown it resulted in JB making an official complaint with Ofcom re psychologist Kerry Danes as follows:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-15066493
When the recent channel 5 documentary was show 'Slaughter At The Farm Countdown To Murder'
it featured psychologist David Holmes stating JB was the likely perpetrator based on the fact he felt a sense of abandonment and rejection on the basis he was adopted and sent to boarding school. Also sibling rivalry in that SC was a successful model with a cool London lifestyle.
http://www.channel5.com/shows/countdown-to-murder/episodes/slaughter-at-the-farm
The prosecution/guilty camp are certainly winning as far as propaganda goes.
-
That complaint is a bit rich isn't it ? An invasion of his privacy when he's doing his level best on the official website to publicize himself and how his family life was all hunky-dory.
OK then, (I give in... for 10 minutes) say we agree that they are old burn marks or marks caused by something else.
Why would his support team crack on with the US tests if they didn't believe they were burn marks inflicted that night? Isn't it likely that before they took that route Peter Vanezis would have been consulted first to confirm his original view that the marks were indeed burns, possibly caused by the rifle end ?
-
That complaint is a bit rich isn't it ? An invasion of his privacy when he's doing his level best on the official website to publicize himself and how his family life was all hunky-dory.
OK then, (I give in... for 10 minutes) say we agree that they are old burn marks or marks caused by something else.
Why would his support team crack on with the US tests if they didn't believe they were burn marks inflicted that night? Isn't it likely that before they took that route Peter Vanezis would have been consulted first to confirm his original view that the marks were indeed burns, possibly caused by the rifle end ?
I have looked back on numerous old threads on Blue re the burns and there seems to be an assumption from both camps that they were caused on 7th August. Whereas it is not clear to me from the above statements that this is what PV meant 8-)(--) You would think/hope Myster that Team JB would check it out with PV beforehand but did they? I don't wish this to sound rude but working in a male dominated environment I often find men don't bother checking things. Not sure whether its down to laziness or that they don't like asking as with directions in the car. After all who invented sat nav? I bet it wasn't a woman quite happy to put the window down and ask @)(++(* I have emailed PV asking for confirmation but I doubt very much he will respond 8)><(
-
Might be a bit of a hot potato and too controversial for Dr. Vanezis to discuss publicly, as it isn't mentioned on his website, and wasn't when he appeared on Desert Island Discs. Although it's quite possible that he has lectured about it sometime in the past.
I'm always checking things... such as whether I've left my wallet in the fridge by mistake, and not scared of asking for directions if lost either (even from females, although they do give me a funny look and disappear quick), so I must be the exception that proves your rule.
-
Might be a bit of a hot potato and too controversial for Dr. Vanezis to discuss publicly, as it isn't mentioned on his website, and wasn't when he appeared on Desert Island Discs. Although it's quite possible that he has lectured about it sometime in the past.
I'm always checking things... such as whether I've left my wallet in the fridge by mistake, and not scared of asking for directions if lost either (even from females, although they do give me a funny look and disappear quick), so I must be the exception that proves your rule.
Yes I noticed he hasn't made ref to it on his website. Which is quite a contrast with all the barristers involved eg Anthony Arlidge, Victor Temple, Annabel Darlow, Jonathan Laidlaw (currently representing Rebekah Brooks) Michael Turner, Michael Duck who all make ref to WHF in their 'notable cases'. I shall listen to the Desert Island Discs episode later:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/desert-island-discs/castaway/78c525f5
Think you must have a strong ego Myster and therefore not afraid to ask 8(>((
-
Think you must have a strong big ego Myster and therefore not afraid to ask 8(>((
So it's true what they say about small men after all. ?{)(**
-
Yes I noticed he hasn't made ref to it on his website. Which is quite a contrast with all the barristers involved eg Anthony Arlidge, Victor Temple, Annabel Darlow, Jonathan Laidlaw (currently representing Rebekah Brooks) Michael Turner, Michael Duck who all make ref to WHF in their 'notable cases'. I shall listen to the Desert Island Discs episode later:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/desert-island-discs/castaway/78c525f5 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/desert-island-discs/castaway/78c525f5)
But the barristers websites are advertisements of a sort, whereas Peter Vanezis is in academic and government employment, so doesn't need the publicity as much.
Although he has moved on to bigger and better things with iGene - post-mortems minus the blood and gore, using computerised tomography to scan the body and advanced software to interpret the results in 3D...
http://news.cision.com/igene/r/world-s-first-digital-autopsy-facility-network-to-be-opened-by-the-chief-coroner--in-sheffield--toda,c9504423 (http://news.cision.com/igene/r/world-s-first-digital-autopsy-facility-network-to-be-opened-by-the-chief-coroner--in-sheffield--toda,c9504423)
http://news.cision.com/igene/i/blood-vessels-of-heart-and-kidney,c1405569 (http://news.cision.com/igene/i/blood-vessels-of-heart-and-kidney,c1405569)
-
To try to make it appear Holly is objective she takes a red herring- the marks on Nevill that the Medical examiner said "appeared to be burn marks". Jeremy's defenders misrepresents that these marks prove Nevill was attacked with the rifle without a silencer though it proves no such thing. The marks are completely valueless as far as determining who committed the crime. While there is no proof they did not predate the murders chances are they probably were inflicted during the murders. There is no way to determine what cause the wounds though or to say for sure they were inflicted during the murders.
Instead of just admitting this reality though Holly is trying too hard just like her hero Jeremy. She goes beyond this and argues the marks are old scars though clearly they are not. She is trying so hard to make it appear she is fair and balanced by rejecting one absurd tale from Jeremy's defenders and yet goes to far greater lengths than is necessary to reject it and in the process makes nonsense claims about the marks being extremely old.
They were incurred either shortly before the murders or during they are not scars that is the reality.
In the meantime Holly is defelcting from all the important issues where she got her head handed to her for making absurd suggestions- as absurd as the suggestion the marks are scars from his RAF days.
-
Can we please restrict comments to the case and resist the temptation to criticise other members for holding alternative views. We are all members here and are entitled to the same respect. TY
-
But the barristers websites are advertisements of a sort, whereas Peter Vanezis is in academic and government employment, so doesn't need the publicity as much.
Although he has moved on to bigger and better things with iGene - post-mortems minus the blood and gore, using computerised tomography to scan the body and advanced software to interpret the results in 3D...
http://news.cision.com/igene/r/world-s-first-digital-autopsy-facility-network-to-be-opened-by-the-chief-coroner--in-sheffield--toda,c9504423 (http://news.cision.com/igene/r/world-s-first-digital-autopsy-facility-network-to-be-opened-by-the-chief-coroner--in-sheffield--toda,c9504423)
http://news.cision.com/igene/i/blood-vessels-of-heart-and-kidney,c1405569 (http://news.cision.com/igene/i/blood-vessels-of-heart-and-kidney,c1405569)
Listened to PV on desert island discs. Not at all as I anticipated. Yes he has certainly moved on.
Not sure if its a good advertisement for the defense barristers eg Geoffrey Rivlin, the late Edmund Lawson, Michael Turner and Michael Duck? I guess it was in terms of securing the brief but not the outcome?
As far as legal advocacy goes I think its unique in that its difficult to quantify whether the side that loses did so as a result of a strong case from the opposition or just a poorly researched/handled case etc by the side that loses.
I wonder if GR was put off by the outcome of JB's trial and this was the reason he chose to become a judge in 1989. All other legal advocates connected with WHF remain as such. Is it a different skill set legal advocacy v judge? I cant find any history or GR's 'notable cases' to ascertain whether he had any experience in handling a case such as WHF in terms of profile, media coverage, complexity etc.
http://www.ipt-uk.com/sections.asp?sectionID=7&chapter=10&type=side
-
To try to make it appear Holly is objective she takes a red herring- the marks on Nevill that the Medical examiner said "appeared to be burn marks". Jeremy's defenders misrepresents that these marks prove Nevill was attacked with the rifle without a silencer though it proves no such thing. The marks are completely valueless as far as determining who committed the crime. While there is no proof they did not predate the murders chances are they probably were inflicted during the murders. There is no way to determine what cause the wounds though or to say for sure they were inflicted during the murders.
Instead of just admitting this reality though Holly is trying too hard just like her hero Jeremy. She goes beyond this and argues the marks are old scars though clearly they are not. She is trying so hard to make it appear she is fair and balanced by rejecting one absurd tale from Jeremy's defenders and yet goes to far greater lengths than is necessary to reject it and in the process makes nonsense claims about the marks being extremely old.
They were incurred either shortly before the murders or during they are not scars that is the reality.
In the meantime Holly is defelcting from all the important issues where she got her head handed to her for making absurd suggestions- as absurd as the suggestion the marks are scars from his RAF days.
Where does the pathologist use the word "appear"? Based on the reports compiled by the pathologist there is no evidence whatsoever that "...chances are they probably were inflicted during the murders". If they were then he would have put them in his two separate reports where he is specifically asked about other injuries Nevill sustained other than gunshot. If he was uncertain he would say as much. The burn marks are only relevant in terms of witnessing how someone/layperson (possibly the person who scribbled on the autopsy report "gun forced into back") has misinterpreted part of an autopsy report and other lay people have simply followed through. It would be interesting to give all the reports to half a dozen pathologists and see what conclusions they arrive at.
You really make me laugh with your assertions "...they were incurred either shortly before the murders or during they are not scars that is the reality". Where is the evidence for any of this? The pathologist refers to them as "distinct burn marks" not "scars". And "nonsense claims about the marks being extremely old" and "absurd as the suggestion the marks are from his RAF days". The pathologist provides a brief description of the marks along with their size. He makes no reference as to when they might have occurred or what caused them so we have no idea of knowing. I still maintain that there's every likelihood that they may have been caused as a result of NB's plane crash which in turn resulted in him being in a back cast for 6 months and it was thought at the time he would never walk again.
No reference was made of the marks at trial and the only ref at CoA is as follows. It appears the burn marks were noted by way of transfer of information simply from the autopsy report:
The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.
-
When speaking about it he said they appeared to be burns.
What is a burn type mark? It is a mark that can be caused by a burn but can also potentially be caused by something else. Injuries like marks caused by burns are extremely similar to other wounds. Moreover there are different causes of burns- thermal, chemical, radiation, electricity, friction and so forth.
How do doctors diagnose a burn? The number one method of diagnosis is they ask the victim how the wound occured. What about when the victim is unable to speak or dead? The circumstances of their death can give it away such as when there was a fire or chemical explosion.
When a doctor has none of this the only way to diagnose a burn is to actually test the wound. Test the flesh for singeing and see how far the wound extends and test for the presence of chemicals that can burn. Third degree burns are of a nature that it is easy to say is a burn because no other wounds do that extensive damage. 1st and second degree burns are topical and the mark left can be similar to other wounds so visible identification may not necessarily be enough.
But given his level of expertise we can assume they probably are burns. We can't say for sure since no in depth analysis was done. The photos are consistent with 2nd degree burns.
Here is a second degree thermal burn, notice how it looks like a bruise. The dark inside skin can look bruised from a distance you need a good inspection to tell the difference between bruising and burning. With friction burns this is even more so. The outside area is pink and starting to get infected. This is a relatively fresh wound not a scar. A scar looks totally different which is why the report doesn't call the marks scars they are not scars.
(http://s28.postimg.org/6y3xkds99/burn.jpg)
Though they are probably burns they might not be and if burns there are a host of different causes possible. They might have been suffered shortly before the murders (definitely not a long time before as you claim) but more than likely were inflicted during the murders.
It takes 17 seconds of contact at 55 degrees Celcius (131F) to cause a second degree burn like this. It takes 3 seconds of contact at 60 degrees Celcius (140F) to cause a second degree burn like this.
Would the murder weapon get that hot after 10 shots? No. Would it get that hot after 20? If the right ammo is used it might but not likely with the ammo in question.
At any rate the hot object that made this mark is not hollow in the center the heat was applied to the center and went out to the edges. A rifle barrel is hollow in the center which is why the test has a middle of the burns on the pig doesn't have singeing.
Interestingly electrical burns look very similar. They often are spherical, here is a taser burn:
(http://s28.postimg.org/9dk7b6iq5/taserburn.jpg)
Did they have a cattle prod or stun gun or something of the like? There are just too many variables to determine how these marks were made let alone for them to establish anything significant as far as the commission of the murders is concerned. It is thus a red herring at best. The location on the body is also so far up that if made by the killer it would have likely been done while Nevill was already down. Either to keep him down or to check if he was still conscious. Even Jeremy would have held the rifle or a prod lower if jabbing him to get him to move.
A taser or the like though could have been shot into him while still standing.
-
When speaking about it he said they appeared to be burns.
What is a burn type mark? It is a mark that can be caused by a burn but can also potentially be caused by something else. Injuries like marks caused by burns are extremely similar to other wounds. Moreover there are different causes of burns- thermal, chemical, radiation, electricity, friction and so forth.
How do doctors diagnose a burn? The number one method of diagnosis is they ask the victim how the wound occured. What about when the victim is unable to speak or dead? The circumstances of their death can give it away such as when there was a fire or chemical explosion.
When a doctor has none of this the only way to diagnose a burn is to actually test the wound. Test the flesh for singeing and see how far the wound extends and test for the presence of chemicals that can burn. Third degree burns are of a nature that it is easy to say is a burn because no other wounds do that extensive damage. 1st and second degree burns are topical and the mark left can be similar to other wounds so visible identification may not necessarily be enough.
But given his level of expertise we can assume they probably are burns. We can't say for sure since no in depth analysis was done. The photos are consistent with 2nd degree burns.
Here is a second degree thermal burn, notice how it looks like a bruise. The dark inside skin can look bruised from a distance you need a good inspection to tell the difference between bruising and burning. With friction burns this is even more so. The outside area is pink and starting to get infected. This is a relatively fresh wound not a scar. A scar looks totally different which is why the report doesn't call the marks scars they are not scars.
(http://s28.postimg.org/6y3xkds99/burn.jpg)
Though they are probably burns they might not be and if burns there are a host of different causes possible. They might have been suffered shortly before the murders (definitely not a long time before as you claim) but more than likely were inflicted during the murders.
It takes 17 seconds of contact at 55 degrees Celcius (131F) to cause a second degree burn like this. It takes 3 seconds of contact at 60 degrees Celcius (140F) to cause a second degree burn like this.
Would the murder weapon get that hot after 10 shots? No. Would it get that hot after 20? If the right ammo is used it might but not likely with the ammo in question.
At any rate the hot object that made this mark is not hollow in the center the heat was applied to the center and went out to the edges. A rifle barrel is hollow in the center which is why the test has a middle of the burns on the pig doesn't have singeing.
Interestingly electrical burns look very similar. They often are spherical, here is a taser burn:
(http://s28.postimg.org/9dk7b6iq5/taserburn.jpg)
Did they have a cattle prod or stun gun or something of the like? There are just too many variables to determine how these marks were made let alone for them to establish anything significant as far as the commission of the murders is concerned. It is thus a red herring at best. The location on the body is also so far up that if made by the killer it would have likely been done while Nevill was already down. Either to keep him down or to check if he was still conscious. Even Jeremy would have held the rifle or a prod lower if jabbing him to get him to move.
A taser or the like though could have been shot into him while still standing.
Unlike you I haven't had the benefit of hearing PV talk about the burn marks 8(0(*. I can only go on his written reports.
I did think that they may have been caused by something other than heat. Interesting points you raise re cattle prods etc. I think we can assume they were not caused on 7th Aug? Yes they are red herrings. It is just interesting how many seem to have blindly accepted they occurred on 7th.
-
When it was discussed on here last year I thought the burns could have been caused by something like a blunt steel poker or similar tool/rod, which had been preheated through the filler hole in the top left hand hot plate of the AGA. It was coal/coke-fired and said to have been lit that night. But it might have been easier for the killer to feel for a radial or neck pulse rather than go to the trouble of heating anything for use as a prod to test if someone was still alive.
I believe White House Farm was only arable at the time, so animals like cattle or pigs weren't raised, thus unlikely that they had a cattle prod or stun-gun. Someone may correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Tasers were only given a trial run here in April 2003, then introduced fully in 2004. Doubt if anything like that existed in Britain in 1985 or before.
-
When it was discussed on here last year I thought the burns could have been caused by something like a blunt steel poker or similar tool/rod, which had been preheated through the filler hole in the top left hand hot plate of the AGA. It was coal/coke-fired and said to have been lit that night. But it might have been easier for the killer to feel for a radial or neck pulse rather than go to the trouble of heating anything for use as a prod to test if someone was still alive.
I believe White House Farm was only arable at the time, so animals like cattle or pigs weren't raised, thus unlikely that they had a cattle prod or stun-gun. Someone may correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Tasers were only given a trial run here in April 2003, then introduced fully in 2004. Doubt if anything like that existed in Britain in 1985 or before.
A slight pulse can be missed. If you want to be sure someone is dead do something that causes pain.
My intent was to demonstrate what an electrical burn looks like. You never know if a cattle prod or stun gun of some variey had been obtained. Highlighting the different types of burns and sources just makes it all the more difficult to try to figure out what caused the marks without actually testing the wounds.
There is no way they are scars so were inflicted either at the time of the murders or not too long before. I still think it is rather likely they were inflicted during the murders but there is no way to say for sure. The variables though make it impossible to ever know what caused them and even if we knew it would not prove who the killer was.
Even if it could be proven the marks were made by the rifle sans suppresor after it was heated that still would not change a thing. It doesn't establish Nevill was shot san's suppressor. The suppressor was removed from the gun and he could have been struck with it after it was removed and put away. In the meantime if he was not shot with the silencer that means the blood was definitely Sheila's blood type not a mixute of June and Nevill's blood so instead of helping the defense it is worse.
The goal of the DNA evidence was also to try to establish the blood was June and Nevill's. To say he wasn't shot with the silencer undercuts the DNA claims.
So even if the marks could establish what the appeal lawyers wanted it would not have helped chip away at what actually convicted Jerey. At any rate the marks can't prove whether the rifle had the suppressor on when it shot anyone or who he killer was. Unless there were a way to prove they were made during the murders, Nevill was standing at the time he received these wounds and a suspect was too short to inflict them so someone taller had to do it there is simply nothing these marks hold the key to.
-
The top mark looks as though it were made by something different from the two below. It's almost lip shaped. I can see a similarity between the two lower marks and the .22 rifle wound.
-
The top mark looks as though it were made by something different from the two below. It's almost lip shaped. I can see a similarity between the two lower marks and the .22 rifle wound.
If there were holes in the center all would look like bullet wounds. They are not perfectly round always. The darkness of the middle almost looks like holes instead of scabs but obviously that is just the photo shading etc.
They look alot like electical burns. Whatever they are we will never know unless Jeremy decides to talk but there is sooner a chance of hell freezing over than that unless some rich person tells him as long as he is spending his life behind bars he might as well let the secret out and in turn he will get a nice deposit in his prisoner account.
-
To me the marks look like burns and I was fairly convinced by a YouTube video of testing ballistics on a pigskin to show they were the heated barrel of a gun without a moderator.
I wondered what you all thought of the possibility that the reason NB telephone Jeremy and not the police could be because he was doing so at gunpoint?
Having read up a little on people who commit Familicide it seems a frequent trait is for the perpetrator to even lie in wait for, lure or collect extra members of the family so they can kill them all.
http://hunteremkay.com/2012/04/f-is-for-family-annihilator-killer/ (http://hunteremkay.com/2012/04/f-is-for-family-annihilator-killer/)
Here is one from last May: the killer went to another house and collected his niece, took her back to the house where unbeknownst to her he had killed the rest of the family, and shot her as well as himself. Apparently guns are used in something like 95% of familcides because it's possible to kill so many people quickly. Certainly it was a weekly occurance in the news when I lived in Joburg - they would often kill in laws and relatives who turned up and perhaps the first cop who arrived, but the domestic staff always seemed to escape without injury.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079255/Five-people-shot-dead-Arizona-home-quadruple-murder-suicide.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079255/Five-people-shot-dead-Arizona-home-quadruple-murder-suicide.html)
this might explain the burns, the reason he called his son, the call ending abruptly and may add up with the theory that SC shot herself several hours later - perhaps she was lying in wait for him in the kitchen and when she realised JB was not alone but with police, she prepared herself for suicide by going upstairs and reading a passage from the Bible, then shot herself when she heard them battering the door with a sledgehammer - the noise of which would have covered the sound of the gun. It seems to me that the blood spatters on her night dress and what we now know about the first wound, she is most likely to have received both wounds close together so perhaps shot herself ineptly, pulled her hand up to her throat (the first wound seems to have spatter around it which suggests she was exhaling through it) then realising it hadn't worked, automatically shot herself again with success. I don't see why JB would have shot her twice: all he had to do was either wait or gently pinched her nostrils closed.
So: burns because called JB at gunpoint, anyone?
-
To me the marks look like burns and I was fairly convinced by a YouTube video of testing ballistics on a pigskin to show they were the heated barrel of a gun without a moderator.
I wondered what you all thought of the possibility that the reason NB telephone Jeremy and not the police could be because he was doing so at gunpoint?
Having read up a little on people who commit Familicide it seems a frequent trait is for the perpetrator to even lie in wait for, lure or collect extra members of the family so they can kill them all.
http://hunteremkay.com/2012/04/f-is-for-family-annihilator-killer/ (http://hunteremkay.com/2012/04/f-is-for-family-annihilator-killer/)
Here is one from last May: the killer went to another house and collected his niece, took her back to the house where unbeknownst to her he had killed the rest of the family, and shot her as well as himself. Apparently guns are used in something like 95% of familcides because it's possible to kill so many people quickly. Certainly it was a weekly occurance in the news when I lived in Joburg - they would often kill in laws and relatives who turned up and perhaps the first cop who arrived, but the domestic staff always seemed to escape without injury.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079255/Five-people-shot-dead-Arizona-home-quadruple-murder-suicide.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079255/Five-people-shot-dead-Arizona-home-quadruple-murder-suicide.html)
this might explain the burns, the reason he called his son, the call ending abruptly and may add up with the theory that SC shot herself several hours later - perhaps she was lying in wait for him in the kitchen and when she realised JB was not alone but with police, she prepared herself for suicide by going upstairs and reading a passage from the Bible, then shot herself when she heard them battering the door with a sledgehammer - the noise of which would have covered the sound of the gun. It seems to me that the blood spatters on her night dress and what we now know about the first wound, she is most likely to have received both wounds close together so perhaps shot herself ineptly, pulled her hand up to her throat (the first wound seems to have spatter around it which suggests she was exhaling through it) then realising it hadn't worked, automatically shot herself again with success. I don't see why JB would have shot her twice: all he had to do was either wait or gently pinched her nostrils closed.
So: burns because called JB at gunpoint, anyone?
Blimey Passer-by I can see Scipio and myself have some competition on our hands in terms of lengthy posts 8(0(*
The testing carried out during 2012 by Philip Boyce, ballistics expert, showed that the rifle alone did not get hot enough to burn the skin. Whether the tests were on a like for like basis and dead pig skin is capable of simulating dead/alive human skin I would not like to say. One of my frustrations about this whole case is that it requires a multi-disciplinary approach which it has never had.
The police surgeon Dr Ian Craig certified the deaths at circa 8.10am and confirmed they could have occurred at any time during the previous night. Had SC have taken her own life shortly before the raid team broke in or after they broke in then it would have been apparent to him and he would say as much.
-
The testing carried out during 2012 by Philip Boyce, ballistics expert, showed that the rifle alone did not get hot enough to burn the skin. Whether the tests were on a like for like basis and dead pig skin is capable of simulating dead/alive human skin I would not like to say. One of my frustrations about this whole case is that it requires a multi-disciplinary approach which it has never had.
Malcolm Fletcher must have carried out earlier pre-trial tests for the defence with the actual Anschutz and P-H, because he says that no matter how many times the rifle was fired, the barrel and moderator never got hot enough to cause burns. It only became warm and could be easily grabbed with no ill effect (p.193).
-
Malcolm Fletcher must have carried out earlier pre-trial tests for the defence with the actual Anschutz and P-H, because he says that no matter how many times the rifle was fired, the barrel and moderator never got hot enough to cause burns. It only became warm and could be easily grabbed with no ill effect (p.193).
Yet Dr V disagrees! Also page 193.
As you know I was of the opinion that the burns didn't occur on the night of the murders, due mainly to Dr V not mentioning them in reports where he was asked to comment on injuries NB sustained other than gunshot.
I think its really important to establish how these burns occurred. Malcolm Fletcher for the prosecution and ?Major Mead? for the defence seemed to just give up!
I can't see SC or JB inflicting the burns deliberately. Your hot casing theory seems the most logical if the burns run vertically. I cant see how the case could roll horizontally. If it landed on NB's neck tucked in his PJ top and the poor man's head and shoulders toppled forward the case might have rolled down his back but held firm against his PJ top hence the 3 burns.
-
Yet Dr V disagrees! Also page 193.
As you know I was of the opinion that the burns didn't occur on the night of the murders, due mainly to Dr V not mentioning them in reports where he was asked to comment on injuries NB sustained other than gunshot.
I think its really important to establish how these burns occurred. Malcolm Fletcher for the prosecution and ?Major Mead? for the defence seemed to just give up!
I can't see SC or JB inflicting the burns deliberately. Your hot casing theory seems the most logical if the burns run vertically. I cant see how the case could roll horizontally. If it landed on NB's neck tucked in his PJ top and the poor man's head and shoulders toppled forward the case might have rolled down his back but held firm against his PJ top hence the 3 burns.
The marks run vertically as in the photos at the start of this thread, with the largest oval-shaped one at the top nearest to the head. Vanezis states such on p.192. Not sure whether the flat circular surface of a .22 casing end would be large enough to create burns that size though - the rim flange diameter might only be 6-7mm, whereas the marks are larger. I'm surprised CAL didn't question Vanezis about this possibilty.
-
Cattle prods are easy for a farmer to obtain as are taser guns.
This poor chap bought one at a farmers fair, not realizing that Tazer guns are now illegal... Damn cruel to treat animals in such a way IMO.
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/dad-bought-stun-gun-farming-4510555
-
Is Dr V still alive?
-
Is Dr V still alive?
He was interviewed by CAL recently, has his own website and also appeared on Desert Island Discs in 2001.
http://www.petervanezis.com/ (http://www.petervanezis.com/)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009491v (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009491v)
-
I can't help wondering how many of these professionals still think about whether with hindsight they were right. JB's lawyers, particularly, strike me as diabolically bad.
-
I can't help wondering how many of these professionals still think about whether with hindsight they were right. JB's lawyers, particularly, strike me as diabolically bad.
There's little doubt in my mind that in the not too distant future this case will make the UK the laughing stock of the world. It will cause huge reputational damage.
-
There's little doubt in my mind that in the not too distant future this case will make the UK the laughing stock of the world. It will cause huge reputational damage.
This is what makes me uneasy: I can't help feeling that the onus is on the prosecution and he should have been acquitted at trial even if he did it. I'm also uneasy at anyone having a whole-life tariff having any sort of file that is not publicly scrutible: the case brings our justice system into disrepute whether he is innocent or not.
-
There's little doubt in my mind that in the not too distant future this case will make the UK the laughing stock of the world. It will cause huge reputational damage.
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((()*/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Could they not be cigarette burns
-
Could they not be cigarette burns
I have just seen this part of the thread and I agree, they do look like cigarette/cigar burns. They do not loo like 'moles'.
-
Could they not be cigarette burns
The defence pathologist, Bernard Knight OBE, did not think they were burn marks. He does however make the point that he didn't see them first hand but had to rely on soc images.
-
The defence pathologist, Bernard Knight OBE, did not think they were burn marks. He does however make the point that he didn't see them first hand but had to rely on soc images.
So his defence wasn't up to much.
-
Were there matching holes in Nevill's pyjama top?
-
So his defence wasn't up to much.
?
-
Were there matching holes in Nevill's pyjama top?
No. And there's no firm evidence they were burn marks or that they were inflicted on the night of the murders.
-
No. And there's no firm evidence they were burn marks or that they were inflicted on the night of the murders.
I am no expert but they look like old marks to me. However, we can never know what caused them.
-
MoJ's do occur. How many thought Stefan Kiszko was innocent? Not the appeal court judges first time around that's for sure. And YET in the end it was proved 100% he was innocent and the perpetrator, Ronald Castree, was eventually caught and charged using DNA evidence.
Stefan Kiszko murdered Lesley Molseed
Ronald Castree appears to have been fitted up
And it wasn’t ‘proved 100%’ Kiszko was innocent - that’s your perception