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: Holly Goodhead on July 11, 2018, 03:14:31 PM
-
I have never been able to reconcile either JB or SC burning NB's back. Why single out NB? Also we know the rifle does not get hot enough from firing alone to cause burn marks and no other obvious implement was found in the vicinity.
Prof Knight did not think the marks were burn marks as per attached trial testimony.
Is there any evidence they were even caused on the night of the murders?
-
Just reread Dr V's TT:
Arlidge: Can you tell how recent they were?
Dr V: They appeared to be pretty recent. By this I mean they appeared to be associated with the same time as the other injuries we saw to the body and did not appear to be old wounds.
-
There are several reasons why Bamber would burn Nevill's back. He would be composed enough to do this & may have even considered this as an option beforehand if unsure if someone was dead.
This may have been another reason why the silencer was taken off.
Bamber lifted a lifeless Nevill onto the coal scuttle, to make it easy to lift Nevill's pyjama top up.
-
The COA mention the burn marks as part of the list of his scene of crime injuries. They believe his burn marks occurred on the massacre night.
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.
-
There are several reasons why Bamber would burn Nevill's back. He would be composed enough to do this & may have even considered this as an option beforehand if unsure if someone was dead.
This may have been another reason why the silencer was taken off.
Bamber lifted a lifeless Nevill onto the coal scuttle, to make it easy to lift Nevill's pyjama top up.
But why single out NB? How could he be sure other victims were dead?
If I recall correctly Dr Vanezis told CAL the marks, which he identified as burns, could have been inflicted through the pyjama top without damaging the fabric since the top contained no burn marks. But why go down the back vertically and not across horizontally?
I maintain the marks were old injuries from NB's back injury/surgery when he sustained a plane crash WW2. Post death the marks then took on an altered appearance.
-
But why single out NB? How could he be sure other victims were dead?
If I recall correctly Dr Vanezis told CAL the marks, which he identified as burns, could have been inflicted through the pyjama top without damaging the fabric since the top contained no burn marks. But why go down the back vertically and not across horizontally?
I maintain the marks were old injuries from NB's back injury/surgery when he sustained a plane crash WW2. Post death the marks then took on an altered appearance.
Off the top of my head, it's just possible that those prod marks? HAD they occurred that night, were inflicted because it had taken much more effort to dispatch Nevill than the others. I once suggested the marks MAY have been the result of minor procedures. I still believe that to be a possibility, as is your own suggestion of injuries going back to WW2.
-
But why single out NB? How could he be sure other victims were dead?
If I recall correctly Dr Vanezis told CAL the marks, which he identified as burns, could have been inflicted through the pyjama top without damaging the fabric since the top contained no burn marks. But why go down the back vertically and not across horizontally?
I maintain the marks were old injuries from NB's back injury/surgery when he sustained a plane crash WW2. Post death the marks then took on an altered appearance.
Nevill would be singled out because he put up a big fight after getting shot 4 times. Bamber wanted to make sure he was dead. Nevill was also near the aga.
Bamber couldn't burn everyone's back. Espescially Sheila's ! He was more convinced everyone else was dead. He also had time limits.
No need to check on two 6 year olds after they had been shot 8 times while they slept. They couldn't incriminate Bamber even if they survived. Bamber was satisfied his final two shots into June had killed her.
-
But why single out NB? How could he be sure other victims were dead?
If I recall correctly Dr Vanezis told CAL the marks, which he identified as burns, could have been inflicted through the pyjama top without damaging the fabric since the top contained no burn marks. But why go down the back vertically and not across horizontally?
I maintain the marks were old injuries from NB's back injury/surgery when he sustained a plane crash WW2. Post death the marks then took on an altered appearance.
I don't know where the marks came from but can't see Bamber (or Sheila for that matter) buring Nevil's back. I
-
If these were really old wounds from the war I think it is more than likely some other family member would have been aware and it would be known about. I mean is there any one of us who hasn't seen our Dad without his shirt when swimming or getting changed? Old scars go white with the healing process and these are definitely dark, I'm really not buying that!
-
But why single out NB? How could he be sure other victims were dead?
If I recall correctly Dr Vanezis told CAL the marks, which he identified as burns, could have been inflicted through the pyjama top without damaging the fabric since the top contained no burn marks. But why go down the back vertically and not across horizontally?
I maintain the marks were old injuries from NB's back injury/surgery when he sustained a plane crash WW2. Post death the marks then took on an altered appearance.
Could be Holly, a lot of old miners used to have blue scarring from wounds inflicted underground, I had a slight blue scar above one of my eyes (faded now) the wounds never got the thorough washout, normally like Alice said they eventually heal white, but if dirt has got in they tend to heal blueish.
No longer do we see blue scars on bodies and faces where broken skin healed over the coal dust. Dilapidated buildings and slag heaps are the reminders.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9528.msg441998.html#msg441998
Even David is saying they are burn marks. His thread posts highlights experts, who also say they are burn marks. The COA say they 'appear to be burn marks'.
---------------
There are several reasons why Bamber burned Nevill's back -
Bamber had put Nevill onto a coal scuttle where his bare back was easily available.
Nevill was immobilised. He would not fight back from the burns.
The aga was next to Nevill.
There were rifles available to heat & use.
Bamber wanted to make sure Nevill was dead for reasons mentioned.
Bamber was composed & calculated enough to calm down after the kitchen fight to do burn Nevill's back.
Bamber had time to burn Nevill's back.
Bamber had to ensure Nevill was dead as Nevill would incriminate him if he survived.
Bamber may have considered this option beforehand if he felt he had to check for life.
If this was considered beforehand by Bamber, he could have brought his own burning item.
If a rifle nozzle would take several minutes to heat sufficiently, Bamber could attend to other framing business.
The evidence is Bamber took off the silencer after shooting Sheila. So had the rifle nozzle available to burn Nevill's back. Although as said other rifles were available.
There are no other credible alternative explanations why Nevill would have what experts say there are three recent burn marks on his back which are the same size as rifle nozzles.
Burning Nevill's back is an effective way to check for life. A partially concious Nevill would certainly react.
Nevill was only shot 4 times upstairs. Bamber may have burnt Nevill's back prior to or while shooting him again downstairs. Bamber would not have known how many more shots were needed at Nevill after the kitchen fight. Burning his back after 1-4 shots is a way to check for life.
-
If these were really old wounds from the war I think it is more than likely some other family member would have been aware and it would be known about. I mean is there any one of us who hasn't seen our Dad without his shirt when swimming or getting changed? Old scars go white with the healing process and these are definitely dark, I'm really not buying that!
My dad would never remove his shirt in public... because he was soooo hairy and afraid people would think he was a neanderthal throwback! 8(8-))
-
Here we go again, and again, and again... ad infinitum...
Maybe they were caused by a red-hot brass casing (the missing one) which bounced off the AGA wall / wooden surround and onto his back, becoming lodged temporarily between skin and pyjama top.
One for the gals...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxQXBueF4Bc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxQXBueF4Bc)
... and one for the guys...
https://youtu.be/1Q116cKnsTQ?t=44s (https://youtu.be/1Q116cKnsTQ?t=44s)
-
Here we go again, and again, and again... ad infinitum...
Maybe they were caused by a red-hot brass casing (the missing one) which bounced off the AGA wall / wooden surround and onto his back, becoming lodged temporarily between skin and pyjama top.
One for the gals...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxQXBueF4Bc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxQXBueF4Bc)
... and one for the guys...
https://youtu.be/1Q116cKnsTQ?t=44s (https://youtu.be/1Q116cKnsTQ?t=44s)
You jest of course.
The three marks were all of the same size, shape & shade. They were caused at the same time.
They were all dark burns suggesting they were recent. Surely burn marks would fade
I burnt my forearm with an iron once. A small burn. The burn stayed for several months before totally disappearing.
-
Not sure why Sheila would go from a violent & murderous killer, to calmly burning Nevill's back. Although it was impossible for her to lift Nevill onto the coal scuttle anyway.
Why wouldn't Sheila burn everyone else's back ? I have already answered this for Bamber.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9528.msg441998.html#msg441998
Even David is saying they are burn marks. His thread posts highlights experts, who also say they are burn marks. The COA say they 'appear to be burn marks'.
---------------
There are several reasons why Bamber burned Nevill's back -
Bamber had put Nevill onto a coal scuttle where his bare back was easily available.
Nevill was immobilised. He would not fight back from the burns.
The aga was next to Nevill.
There were rifles available to heat & use.
Bamber wanted to make sure Nevill was dead for reasons mentioned.
Bamber was composed & calculated enough to calm down after the kitchen fight to do burn Nevill's back.
Bamber had time to burn Nevill's back.
Bamber had to ensure Nevill was dead as Nevill would incriminate him if he survived.
Bamber may have considered this option beforehand if he felt he had to check for life.
If this was considered beforehand by Bamber, he could have brought his own burning item.
If a rifle nozzle would take several minutes to heat sufficiently, Bamber could attend to other framing business.
The evidence is Bamber took off the silencer after shooting Sheila. So had the rifle nozzle available to burn Nevill's back. Although as said other rifles were available.
There are no other credible alternative explanations why Nevill would have what experts say there are three recent burn marks on his back which are the same size as rifle nozzles.
Burning Nevill's back is an effective way to check for life. A partially concious Nevill would certainly react.
Nevill was only shot 4 times upstairs. Bamber may have burnt Nevill's back prior to or while shooting him again downstairs. Bamber would not have known how many more shots were needed at Nevill after the kitchen fight. Burning his back after 1-4 shots is a way to check for life.
David's opinion is no more or less relevant than any other lay person's. I find David has a dearth of critical thinking skills to the point he becomes intensely irritating! Eg:
David: "When you consider the fact that NB's burns ...."
Holly: It's not a fact the marks were burns. Prof Knight didn't think so and Dr Vanezis was unsure as per trial testimony in post #1 of OP.
David the fact you see and/or hear something and interpret it a certain way doesn't make it a fact.
Philip Boyce and the expert from Arizona were no doubt misled into thinking the pathologist had determined the marks were definitely burns which is not the case. Philip Boyce is a ballistics expert and the expert (burns/pathology?) from Arizona said more tests were required.
NGB said he thought the perp inflicted the burns to check for life but it makes no sense to me why the perp would single out NB having inflicted 8 gsw's with 4 to the head and then check for life. June sustained 7/8 gsw's with 2 to the head so why did June escape any 'tests for life'?
Adam the kettle was on the Aga. If the perp wanted to check for life then why not just boil the kettle and use boiling water?
Has anyone ever obtained NB's medi records?
We know NB sustained a plane crash WW2 and had his back in plaster. If he had some sort of metal plates, screws inserted how would these appear PM and what appearance would the surrounding skin take on? Would any blood congeal internally around these objects? We know blood drains away post death to the lowest points and given NB's found position this might account for it?
Adam I'm glad I'm not the only one who writes long posts!
-
Off the top of my head, it's just possible that those prod marks? HAD they occurred that night, were inflicted because it had taken much more effort to dispatch Nevill than the others. I once suggested the marks MAY have been the result of minor procedures. I still believe that to be a possibility, as is your own suggestion of injuries going back to WW2.
Yes another possibility. If you're working outside most of the time, which NB did, it would put him at higher risk of developing skin cancer. Sun protection wasn't at the forefront of people's minds pre 80's like it is today for many.
-
Nope. I have seen very many scars left after sun damaged skin has been removed and all are white and with a characteristic rippling or wrinkling. None are black and look like the end of a rifle.
-
Could be Holly, a lot of old miners used to have blue scarring from wounds inflicted underground, I had a slight blue scar above one of my eyes (faded now) the wounds never got the thorough washout, normally like Alice said they eventually heal white, but if dirt has got in they tend to heal blueish.
No longer do we see blue scars on bodies and faces where broken skin healed over the coal dust. Dilapidated buildings and slag heaps are the reminders.
Yep another possibility. Farming is considered a high risk occupation along with industries like mining and construction. Perhaps more so pre 80's when farming was more labour intensive and elf n safety hadn't kicked in.
-
Nope. I have seen very many scars left after sun damaged skin has been removed and all are white and with a characteristic rippling or wrinkling. None are black and look like the end of a rifle.
But have you seen the scars on persons deceased? As I understand it the skin and existing scars etc take on a different appearance post death?
I don't think the marks look anything like a muzzle imprint.
-
Dr Vanezis suggested NB's non-gsw's eg bruises, lacerations etc were caused by butt of rifle and barrel but I haven't seen anything from him attributing the marks to his back being caused by the muzzle of the rifle? This seems to have originated from lay people and taken on a life of its own.
-
There is no biological reason why a white scar should go black after death. The whiteness is the uniqueness of scar tissue and livor mortis would not alter that. To be honest I'm not convinced the burns were caused by the end of the rifle, that is just one possibility. It may be that a more likely implement is a fire poker - I assume the Aga was lit that night and still burning.
-
Yes another possibility. If you're working outside most of the time, which NB did, it would put him at higher risk of developing skin cancer. Sun protection wasn't at the forefront of people's minds pre 80's like it is today for many.
Would skin cancer be three very similar marks on the back ?
Everyone has to agree they are burn marks. As the experts have said. David and NGB do agree, saying Sheila suddenly stopped her rage & waited patiently while her chosen instrument heated up.
Other explanations about plane crashes or farming are too outlandish.
Bamber had an aga, the instruments, the time, the motives & the opportunity to burn Nevill's back. It is the only credible explanation after the killer was strong enough to lift Nevill onto the coal scuttle.
-
Bamber would only lift Nevill onto the coal scuttle, to get access to his bare back.
-
There is no biological reason why a white scar should go black after death. The whiteness is the uniqueness of scar tissue and livor mortis would not alter that. To be honest I'm not convinced the burns were caused by the end of the rifle, that is just one possibility. It may be that a more likely implement is a fire poker - I assume the Aga was lit that night and still burning.
Were the marks black? I know they look black in the images but I'm not sure the images are an accurate reflection based on the trial testimony.
Yes I believe the Aga was on.
-
Would skin cancer be three very similar marks on the back ?
Everyone has to agree they are burn marks. As the experts have said. David and NGB do agree, saying Sheila suddenly stopped her rage & waited patiently while her chosen instrument heated up.
Other explanations about plane crashes or farming are too outlandish.
Bamber had an aga, the instruments, the time, the motives & the opportunity to burn Nevill's back. It is the only credible explanation after the killer was strong enough to lift Nevill onto the coal scuttle.
Skin cancer or precancerous moles. The marks are different in shape, size and colour.
The experts haven't all said they were burns. Dr V thought so but wasn't sure. Prof Knight was disinclined to
think so.
Theories about post surgery from a plane crash and farming accidents are no more outlandish than the idea JB or SC heated up the rifle in the Aga and then applied to NB to check for life.
-
Were the marks black? I know they look black in the images but I'm not sure the images are an accurate reflection based on the trial testimony.
Yes I believe the Aga was on.
The images are now maybe not accurrate ? That is a shame. It is what everyone has been going by for 33 years.
-
Skin cancer or precancerous moles. The marks are different in shape, size and colour.
The experts haven't all said they were burns. Dr V thought so but wasn't sure. Prof Knight was disinclined to
think so.
Theories about post surgery from a plane crash and farming accidents are no more outlandish than the idea JB or SC heated up the rifle in the Aga and then applied to NB to check for life.
Who burns someone to check for life? I find the notion of that a bit mad.
-
It has to be assumed the burn marks were made on the night. Unless evidence is provided that Nevill had them beforehand. Nothing has ever been provided.
Bamber & the CT have never disputed this as far as I know.
The COA included the back marks in it's list of injuries Nevill sustained in the bedroom & kitchen.
-
Who burns someone to check for life? I find the notion of that a bit mad.
I have given 14 reasons why Bamber would.
It would only take a few seconds. While the aga was heating the rifle, Bamber could continue framing the scene.
In Bamber's situation how would you have checked for life ?
-
I have given 14 reasons why Bamber would.
It would only take a few seconds. While the aga was heating the rifle, Bamber could continue framing the scene.
In Bamber's situation how would you have checked for life ?
If you wanted to check if someone was dead, would you burn them? Or just given them a kick or pinch them?
-
If you wanted to check if someone was dead, would you burn them? Or just given them a kick or pinch them?
'Spose you could risk using another bullet. If you're going to inherit a small fortune, In guess you could afford it?
-
'Spose you could risk using another bullet. If you're going to inherit a small fortune, In guess you could afford it?
Given that part of his brain was exposed, it was pretty certain he was dead.
-
If you wanted to check if someone was dead, would you burn them? Or just given them a kick or pinch them?
Pinch him ? A 5 year old Bamber may have pinched Sheila to try to make her cry. However he's not going to pinch a 6.4, 16 stone male who had just given Bamber the fight of his life after being shot 4 times.
How would kicking someone be checking for signs of life ?
Why do you believe Bamber lifted Nevill onto the coal scuttle, so his pyjama top could easily be pulled up to expose his back ?
-
Given that part of his brain was exposed, it was pretty certain he was dead.
Bamber would not have seen any brain underneath Nevill's hair. Blood may spurt a foot into the air in movies, but not in real life.
Bamber was not sure whether his 4 upstairs shots & brutal kitchen beating had killed Nevill. Which is why he shot Nevill downstairs another 4 times. It's logical he used the aga next to Nevill to simultaneously burn his back.
A semi concious/aiive Nevill would move when receiving the extreme burning pain.
What else do you believe the three rifle nozzle shape burn marks on Nevill's back were ?
-
The three rifle nozzle shape burn marks being an old war wound can be ruled out. Bamber would have seen his fathers bare back several times in the 24 years he was Nevill's son & would have noticed the distinctive marks.
Not sure how a farming accident would cause three separate burn marks in the same location. Something may cause one injury, but then making the same mistake twice more & getting the same injuries in the same locations would not happen.
-
Most supporters, experts & guilters agree that the burn marks were caused by Nevill's killer.
Bamber even used the burn marks in his 2012 appeal to claim the they were caused without the silencer attached.
Supporters claim Sheila suddenly stopped her uncontrollable rage, to be totally composed & calculated & stand by the aga. Although have not said who helped her lift Nevill onto the coal scuttle.
----------
It would have taken Sheila well over 5 minutes to heat the rifle using the aga. A big chunk of her 22 or 38 minute time window before the police arrived, considering the mountain of other things she was supposed to have done -
'How long does it take to heat metal?
With a high BTU plumbers torch and starting with a totally cold forge it may take 4 to 5 minutes. You'll know it is ready when the brick starts to glow bright orange inside. Play with it a bit and you'll learn when it's hot and when it's not'.
----------
Metal also does not melt so any rifle used would not look any different -
'No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F)'.
-
Bamber has confirmed they were burn marks, in his 2012 CCRC application..
He wouldn't base his appeal around the burn marks unless he was 100% sure they were burn marks. He was 100% sure, as he made them !
The CCRC's 2012 rejection was nothing to do with them not being burn marks. More to do with the fact that the marks were inconclusive about whether they were caused with or without the silencer attached. Common sense also says if 'without', then Bamber had simply burned Nevill after shooting Sheila & taking the silencer off.
-
Most supporters, experts & guilters agree that the burn marks were caused by Nevill's killer.
Bamber even used the burn marks in his 2012 appeal to claim the they were caused without the silencer attached.
Supporters claim Sheila suddenly stopped her uncontrollable rage, to be totally composed & calculated & stand by the aga. Although have not said who helped her lift Nevill onto the coal scuttle.
----------
It would have taken Sheila well over 5 minutes to heat the rifle using the aga. A big chunk of her 22 or 38 minute time window before the police arrived, considering the mountain of other things she was supposed to have done -
'How long does it take to heat metal?
With a high BTU plumbers torch and starting with a totally cold forge it may take 4 to 5 minutes. You'll know it is ready when the brick starts to glow bright orange inside. Play with it a bit and you'll learn when it's hot and when it's not'.
----------
Metal also does not melt so any rifle used would not look any different -
'No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F)'.
I make rings from coins and when metal is heated, it changes colour. Granted I use white metal but I would think any metal put inside the aga would end up scorched on the surface. I will look for something similar and heat it to see what happens.
-
I make rings from coins and when metal is heated, it changes colour. Granted I use white metal but I would think any metal put inside the aga would end up scorched on the surface. I will look for something similar and heat it to see what happens.
Bamber could have used any rifle at WHF to burn Nevill. Which again shows why he was confident enough in 2012 to say the burn marks were without the silencer.
Any rifle nozzle in the gun cupboard that looked a bit burnt, the police would not have noticed as it did not relate to the massacre at all. The burn marks only really became an issue 27 years later in 2012.
But as said, heating a rifle nozzle to a scalding hot level may have not changed it's appearance anyway.
-
Without knowing how the Aga was fired, it's difficult to be conclusive, but it WAS high summer, so quite reasonably it wouldn't have been going full blast at that time of year, OR at that time of the night/morning. How much of a difference might this have made to the time it would have taken to heat up the rifle?
-
Without knowing how the Aga was fired, it's difficult to be conclusive, but it WAS high summer, so quite reasonably it wouldn't have been going full blast at that time of year, OR at that time of the night/morning. How much of a difference might this have made to the time it would have taken to heat up the rifle?
It was a sold fuel Aga so as it was the middle of summer it was probably unlit imo.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=345.msg7236#msg7236
-
It was a sold fuel Aga so as it was the middle of summer it was probably unlit imo.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=345.msg7236#msg7236
It makes perfect sense, Angelo. I've yet to know anyone who'd waste fuel by heating a house in high summer.Besides which, the heat they throw out in an already warm environment can make it uncomfortable to be in. My Aga'd up friends all have alternative methods of cooking/heating water.
-
Bamber can always turn the aga on.
-
Bamber can always turn the aga on.
It has to be lit and fired up and that takes time.
-
Bamber can always turn the aga on.
Would that not indicate that he planned to 'brand' Nevill?
-
Not branding I fear but someone desperate to be sure that the strongest fighter is gone. Bamber is no scientist and no biologist and I imagine he did not think too deeply about Neill's ability to respond or his possible state of unconsciousness and the pain reflex. If three burns evoked no response that was evidence enough for him, he was looking for the reflex whether it was possible to evoke it or not.
-
Not branding I fear but someone desperate to be sure that the strongest fighter is gone. Bamber is no scientist and no biologist and I imagine he did not think too deeply about Neill's ability to respond or his possible state of unconsciousness and the pain reflex. If three burns evoked no response that was evidence enough for him, he was looking for the reflex whether it was possible to evoke it or not.
That indicates a disturbed state of mind, Alice. Do you think he was in some sort of turmoil at that point? It's logical that another bullet would have solved the problem faster than waiting for a possibly, almost cold Aga, to heat up the rifle enough for it to burn.
-
It is surprising that some people don't believe Bamber burnt Nevill's back. Thought there was universal agreement, espescially as Bamber lifted Nevill onto the coal scuttle.
Bamber himself confirmed the marks were rifle burns. Not war wounds or Nevill having a mysterious farming accident. How ? Well Bamber's whole 2012 CCRC application was based on this fact !
-
I make rings from coins and when metal is heated, it changes colour. Granted I use white metal but I would think any metal put inside the aga would end up scorched on the surface. I will look for something similar and heat it to see what happens.
The rifle and silencer are coated in 'bluing' I don't know what effect if any this has.
-
That indicates a disturbed state of mind, Alice. Do you think he was in some sort of turmoil at that point? It's logical that another bullet would have solved the problem faster than waiting for a possibly, almost cold Aga, to heat up the rifle enough for it to burn.
I don't think the solid fuel-fired AGA was cold or almost cold, APRIL. By all accounts it was lit, albeit on the lowest setting and without being fully stoked up (which could well have made the kitchen sweltering, if summer '85 was anything like the heatwave we're experiencing at present). In the past I noted from the few crime scene photos we have that WHF appeared not to have any large wrought-iron central heating pipes or cast-iron radiators in the bedrooms. AGAs of that vintage only heated domestic hot water for washing, etc. and there was just a flow and a return pipe, seen in the back left-hand corner recess just above the AGA, to a HW cylinder or its equivalent upstairs.
-
It is surprising that some people don't believe Bamber burnt Nevill's back. Thought there was universal agreement, espescially as Bamber lifted Nevill onto the coal scuttle.
Bamber himself confirmed the marks were rifle burns. Not war wounds or Nevill having a mysterious farming accident. How ? Well Bamber's whole 2012 CCRC application was based on this fact !
As soon as I heard it I thought this doesn't sound right whether JB or SC. There's simply no reason NB would be singled out and not other victims. And such a test for life couldn't rule out NB in a period of unconsciousness from which he could emerge as a witness.
Prof Knight thought the marks were deep abrasions but unlike Dr Vanezis he doesn't appear to have said when he thought NB sustained them.
Dr Vanezis said there were no marks to NB's head/face from the coal skuttle and there's certainly no evidence JB placed his head there. If he toppled forward with his head landing on the rim I guess you would expect a mark. Given there's strong evidence SC was moved in the bedroom it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the police moved NB too.
I thought the main points for 2012 appeal were the abrasion rings and powder tattooing connected to SC's gsw's?
-
It is surprising that some people don't believe Bamber burnt Nevill's back. Thought there was universal agreement, espescially as Bamber lifted Nevill onto the coal scuttle.
Bamber himself confirmed the marks were rifle burns. Not war wounds or Nevill having a mysterious farming accident. How ? Well Bamber's whole 2012 CCRC application was based on this fact !
No-one knows who or what, farm machinery or something else, caused those marks, adam. You should take Bamber's words with a ginormous bucketful of salt. The American "experts" had no idea either (unless more spondulicks was forthcoming, of course), and Simon McKay gave up trying to prove the impossible.
-
As soon as I heard it I thought this doesn't sound right whether JB or SC. There's simply no reason NB would be singled out and not other victims. And such a test for life couldn't rule out NB in a period of unconsciousness from which he could emerge as a witness.
Prof Knight thought the marks were deep abrasions but unlike Dr Vanezis he doesn't appear to have said when he thought NB sustained them.
Dr Vanezis said there were no marks to NB's head/face from the coal skuttle and there's certainly no evidence JB placed his head there. If he toppled forward with his head landing on the rim I guess you would expect a mark. Given there's strong evidence SC was moved in the bedroom it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the police moved NB too.
I thought the main points for 2012 appeal were the abrasion rings and powder tattooing connected to SC's gsw's?
I have already given you several reasons why Bamber singled out Nevill for burning. And I would have done the same.
Burning was also the most effective way to check for life. Rather than pinching or kicking as suggested earlier.
There is no other reason why Bamber lifted Nevill onto the coal scuttle.
You made the right choice is denying they are burn marks. As there is no possibility Sheila would do this.
David made the wrong choice. Saying they are burn marks which Sheila inflicted.
You are both partially right -
Yes David, I agree they are burn marks on Nevill .
Yes Holly, I agree Sheila would not inflict them.
-
No-one knows who or what, farm machinery or something else, caused those marks, adam. You should take Bamber's words with a ginormous bucketful of salt. The American "experts" had no idea either (unless more spondulicks was forthcoming, of course), and Simon McKay gave up trying to prove the impossible.
Someone needs to provide -
A piece of farm equipment that would cause three identical burn marks in the same location of the body. Which look just like rifle burn marks.
Evidence that this piece of equipment was at WHF just before the massacre.
--------------
That would be a start. Rather than saying 'no one knows'.
As said the experts, COA & Bamber's own CCRC application all say they are burn marks. They look like burn marks, Nevill was next to the aga & Bamber lifted Nevill onto a coal scuttle so his pyjama top could be pulled up easily.
But appreciate just as people will never stop supporting Bamber, people will never say Bamber burned Nevill while simultaneously shooting him another 4 times.
-
As soon as I heard it I thought this doesn't sound right whether JB or SC. There's simply no reason NB would be singled out and not other victims. And such a test for life couldn't rule out NB in a period of unconsciousness from which he could emerge as a witness.
Prof Knight thought the marks were deep abrasions but unlike Dr Vanezis he doesn't appear to have said when he thought NB sustained them.
Dr Vanezis said there were no marks to NB's head/face from the coal skuttle and there's certainly no evidence JB placed his head there. If he toppled forward with his head landing on the rim I guess you would expect a mark. Given there's strong evidence SC was moved in the bedroom it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the police moved NB too.
I thought the main points for 2012 appeal were the abrasion rings and powder tattooing connected to SC's gsw's?
Have you ever tried to balance yourself on the flimsy edge of a spindle back chair with your head in a coal scuttle or its equivalent?
Rigor was consistent with the position NB was found in, so I doubt repositioning had anything to do with the police. If he was moved at all, could be that JB was responsible, so that he could get to the downstairs office and gun cupboard to hide the moderator, if NB's body was blocking the door.
-
I don't think the solid fuel-fired AGA was cold or almost cold, APRIL. By all accounts it was lit, albeit on the lowest setting and without being fully stoked up (which could well have made the kitchen sweltering, if summer '85 was anything like the heatwave we're experiencing at present). In the past I noted from the few crime scene photos we have that WHF appeared not to have any large wrought-iron central heating pipes or cast-iron radiators in the bedrooms. AGAs of that vintage only heated domestic hot water for washing, etc. and there was just a flow and a return pipe, seen in the back left-hand corner recess just above the AGA, to a HW cylinder or its equivalent upstairs.
Mmmmm *%87 $6(& *&(+(+ 8@??)(
-
What else causes permanent marks on the skin ?
Felt tip pen & blood is easily removable with soap. Ditto dirt, food & minor cuts.
The three circular marks had to have been burned into the skin, in order to stay there.
Any suggestions ? Please nothing about pinching, kicking, war wounds, farm equipment & skin cancer.
-
Mmmmm *%87 $6(& *&(+(+ 8@??)(
I can't hear your adulation, but this'll make up for it... https://clyp.it/5nz1zol2# (https://clyp.it/5nz1zol2#)
-
An experiment was conducted not that long ago and it concluded that the rifle barrel couldn't heat up sufficiently in an Aga to cause burning to that extent.
-
It is surprising that some people don't believe Bamber burnt Nevill's back. Thought there was universal agreement, espescially as Bamber lifted Nevill onto the coal scuttle.
Bamber himself confirmed the marks were rifle burns. Not war wounds or Nevill having a mysterious farming accident. How ? Well Bamber's whole 2012 CCRC application was based on this fact !
I'm not so much disputing that they were burns, as disputing that Jeremy was necessarily responsible for putting them there. I also think it's possible that Nevill toppled forwards, as he lost consciousness/died, ending up close to the coal scuttle, possibly being wedged there by Jeremy, with a chair. Unless you are totally convinced that Jeremy was telling the truth about the marks being rifle burns -and I have my doubts- why, when the gun is gthat close to the skin, did he simply not fire it again? Are you perhaps suggesting that Jeremy was hoping he was still alive because he wanted to inflict further pain?
-
It was a sold fuel Aga so as it was the middle of summer it was probably unlit imo.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=345.msg7236#msg7236
Except.....June was due to cook breakfasts for the farmworkers, and Agas of that era were absolute sods to relight, so I would guess that it was on. BUT certainly not related to the lesions on Nevill's back.
-
Except.....June was due to cook breakfasts for the farmworkers, and Agas of that era were absolute sods to relight, so I would guess that it was on. BUT certainly not related to the lesions on Nevill's back.
Ooh er. I see Tesko's gone doolally tap. Again.
*&^^&
-
Except.....June was due to cook breakfasts for the farmworkers, and Agas of that era were absolute sods to relight, so I would guess that it was on. BUT certainly not related to the lesions on Nevill's back.
According to CAL: "In the heart of the home the Aga was on a low light, and the table had been set for breakfast".
If wrong and it was unlit, I guess June could have used the "Belling"? mini oven and double hob next to the kitchen sink.
-
According to CAL: "In the heart of the home the Aga was on a low light, and the table had been set for breakfast".
If wrong and it was unlit, I guess June could have used the "Belling"? mini oven and double hob next to the kitchen sink.
Could be! We'll never know, and it doesn't change anything. Bamber's sprouts will never be cooked on an Aga again, that's for sure. They'll be mushed to old bollox by Bill McScrote (trustee) this year. And for many years to come.
8((()*/
-
Could be! We'll never know, and it doesn't change anything. Bamber's sprouts will never be cooked on an Aga again, that's for sure. They'll be mushed to old bollox by Bill McScrote (trustee) this year. And for many years to come.
8((()*/
Unless it's on Trudi's spiffing new AGA at the welcome home party, in the... errrm, very near future. *%87
-
Ooh er. I see Tesko's gone doolally tap. Again.
*&^^&
That's what happens when you become a born-again heathen - Unhallelujah!
-
That's what happens when you become a born-again heathen - Unhallelujah!
Ugh. God-awful little man. I thought that he was a flat-earther? Does that involve God or not? I've forgotten.
Blimey, I feel sorry for Misty, Myster.
8(8-))
-
Ugh. God-awful little man. I thought that he was a flat-earther? Does that involve God or not? I've forgotten.
Blimey, I feel sorry for Misty, Myster.
8(8-))
If I could I'd schlep over to Barnsley, nick Misty, give him a lovely chicken dinner, let him have a gallop about, then cuddle him down on a fluffy fleece with some ancient, kindly (bit smelly) pugs and he'd never have to be embarrassed or sniff an imaginary tumour again. 8((()*/
#sweetcollielife
-
Unless it's on Trudi's spiffing new AGA at the welcome home party, in the... errrm, very near future. *%87
Ho ho!!
I believe that Troods is a big fan of the BBQ, if pictures of her squoze into her hubby's apron and waving some tongs about are anything to go by.
As long as funds are being sensibly spent, that's all I care about. 8((()*/
#niceneworangery.
-
Have you ever tried to balance yourself on the flimsy edge of a spindle back chair with your head in a coal scuttle or its equivalent?
Rigor was consistent with the position NB was found in, so I doubt repositioning had anything to do with the police. If he was moved at all, could be that JB was responsible, so that he could get to the downstairs office and gun cupboard to hide the moderator, if NB's body was blocking the door.
Rigor mortis takes more than a few minutes to reach an advanced stage. It would take several hours for Nevill's body to become stiff enough to remain in the position the police say they found it in. That consideration basically rules out the possibility that he actually died with his head in the coal bucket, or that Bamber put it in that position.
Bamber is supposed to have left only a few minutes after committing the murders. He would have been outside the farm with the police by the time Nevill's body reached an advanced state of rigor.
There can be no doubt, therefore, that Nevill's body was put in that position by the police. What I think probably happened to Nevill is that as he lost consciousness he ended up sitting on a chair backwards with his his head and arms hanging over the back. The photograph showing an outline is misleading. Nevill's arms are hanging down straight in the original photo which is consistent with the position I have described.
When the police broke in they must have accidentally knocked over the chair on which his body was slumped and this caused pooled blood to start to spill from his wounds as his body toppled over. So the cops just thought they would put his head in the coal bucket to catch the blood.
When a stiff body is repositioned by someone several hours after death, it would be pretty obvious to an expert whose job it is to figure out that kind of thing.
You are right that it is only rigor mortis which prevents the body from falling down. But that also means it must have already been in that condition when it was first put there.
-
Accidentally pressed quote instead of modify. I can't see a delete button
-
Rigor mortis takes more than a few minutes to reach an advanced stage. It would take several hours for Nevill's body to become stiff enough to remain in the position the police say they found it in. That consideration basically rules out the possibility that he actually died with his head in the coal bucket, or that Bamber put it in that position.
Bamber is supposed to have left only a few minutes after committing the murders. He would have been outside the farm with the police by the time Nevill's body reached an advanced state of rigor.
There can be no doubt, therefore, that Nevill's body was put in that position by the police. What I think probably happened to Nevill is that as he lost consciousness he ended up sitting on a chair backwards with his his head and arms hanging over the back. The photograph showing an outline is misleading. Nevill's arms are hanging down straight in the original photo which is consistent with the position I have described.
When the police broke in they must have accidentally knocked over the chair on which his body was slumped and this caused pooled blood to start to spill from his wounds as his body toppled over. So the cops just thought they would put his head in the coal bucket to catch the blood.
When a stiff body is repositioned by someone several hours after death, it would be pretty obvious to an expert whose job it is to figure out that kind of thing.
You are right that it is only rigor mortis which prevents the body from falling down. But that also means it must have already been in that condition when it was first put there.
There can be no doubt that the police were responsible for Nevil's body left in that position? Really? No one said that Nevil was in a state of rigor when Bamber left WHF, I'm not sure why you think he could only have been placed in that position if he were in a state of rigor mortis. I have seen a pretty good picture of Nevil's body and his left side is supported by the wall. The police could not have pushed him into that position when they broke down the door because the door is set back from the aga and there was a chair behind Nevil. He wasn't directly in front of the door as some believe!
-
Ooh er. I see Tesko's gone doolally tap. Again.
*&^^&
At least Mike hasn't gone on one of his abusive rants.
The abuse on the Blue forum has taken different forms since I joined. It is a pity that abuse is allowed on that forum.
Someone like JackieD will go on the attack & be abusive with her first post. While Nugs & Roch will only get abusive if posters don't agree with their crazy theories.
As mentioned by other posters, Lookout is very abusive, which is why the moderator is constantly saying 'I am locking this thread while I remove some posts'. Lookout is fiercely protected & will never have to change.
Former posters Grahame & Luminous Wanderer were very abusive. Grahame calling posters names. No one responded to Luminous Wanderer's long posts, except Steve, who was then abused. He then got abusive with me when I did actually respond to his 'Sheila scenario' and instantly retreated to the safe haven of 'Injustice Anywhere'.
Sammy wasn't abusive but did threaten posters.
The most innovative abuser is David who monitors the Blue Forum 24/7 waiting for a guilter to post sourced evidence. He will then use images, diagrams, banners, 'Gish gash', 5 year old posts & straight forward typing to abuse.
Of course there is sourced evidence on a man who has been in prison for 33 years. David should take it like a man, not a boy.
David does not post on Red as he is not allowed to do any of this. I did suggest to the moderators on Blue that abusive images, banners & diagrams should not be allowed, but eventually got a negative response.
Amazingly none of the above posters have been banned as far as I know. Mike can't ban himself but did ban Scipio who used to disagree with him in Scipio's trademark 'no nonsense' way.
My posts were never abusive or threatening. I did try to out debate posters, which is normal & may have used sarcasim with others crazy theories. There is nothing in the Blue forum rules that says this is not allowed. However one moderator is fiercely protective of the supporters, women, Nugs, elderly posters & former moderators (virtually everyone) & got really upset with my posts. Other posters saying I was being unfairly treated. I did complain but was always told a fellow moderator will always be supported. So prefer to post on this forum.
-
If I could I'd schlep over to Barnsley, nick Misty, give him a lovely chicken dinner, let him have a gallop about, then cuddle him down on a fluffy fleece with some ancient, kindly (bit smelly) pugs and he'd never have to be embarrassed or sniff an imaginary tumour again. 8((()*/
#sweetcollielife
I like chicken dinner, galloping about and cuddling down on fluffy fleeces minus pugs. Do you do B&B?
I was out walking yesterday and a woman approached from behind with 2 small pugs on leads making the most God awful sound. I think they were thirsty. I was petrified and said I'll let you pass I'm a bit frightened of dogs. Then I hung back until they were gone. I'm usually a bit braver but I was wearing shorts and flip flops and imagined them unleashed and taking out my ankles!
-
At least Mike hasn't gone on one of his abusive rants.
The abuse on the Blue forum has taken different forms since I joined. It is a pity that abuse is allowed on that forum.
Someone like JackieD will go on the attack & be abusive with her first post. While Nugs & Roch will only get abusive if posters don't agree with their crazy theories.
As mentioned by other posters, Lookout is very abusive, which is why the moderator is constantly saying 'I am locking this thread while I remove some posts'. Lookout is fiercely protected & will never have to change.
Former posters Grahame & Luminous Wanderer were very abusive. Grahame calling posters names. No one responded to Luminous Wanderer's long posts, except Steve, who was then abused. He then got abusive with me when I did actually respond to his 'Sheila scenario' and instantly retreated to the safe haven of 'Injustice Anywhere'.
Sammy wasn't abusive but did threaten posters.
The most innovative abuser is David who monitors the Blue Forum 24/7 waiting for a guilter to post sourced evidence. He will then use images, diagrams, banners, 'Gish gash', 5 year old posts & straight forward typing to abuse.
Of course there is sourced evidence on a man who has been in prison for 33 years. David should take it like a man, not a boy.
David does not post on Red as he is not allowed to do any of this. I did suggest to the moderators on Blue that abusive images, banners & diagrams should not be allowed, but eventually got a negative response.
Amazingly none of the above posters have been banned as far as I know. Mike can't ban himself but did ban Scipio who used to disagree with him in Scipio's trademark 'no nonsense' way.
My posts were never abusive or threatening. I did try to out debate posters, which is normal & may have used sarcasim with others crazy theories. There is nothing in the Blue forum rules that says this is not allowed. However one moderator is fiercely protective of the supporters, women, Nugs, elderly posters & former moderators (virtually everyone) & got really upset with my posts. Other posters saying I was being unfairly treated. I did complain but was always told a fellow moderator will always be supported. So prefer to post on this forum.
Initially I found Scipio's style of posting overly aggressive and then I came to appreciate as you say his no nonsense style of posting. I learned a lot from Scipio. 8((()*/
The IA people are big on broad brush strokes and small on detail.
-
There can be no doubt that the police were responsible for Nevil's body left in that position? Really? No one said that Nevil was in a state of rigor when Bamber left WHF, I'm not sure why you think he could only have been placed in that position if he were in a state of rigor mortis. I have seen a pretty good picture of Nevil's body and his left side is supported by the wall. The police could not have pushed him into that position when they broke down the door because the door is set back from the aga and there was a chair behind Nevil. He wasn't directly in front of the door as some believe!
Nevill's body was in rigor mortis when the photograph was taken. I have tested the position and can confirm that what Myster says is correct. You just can't maintain that position, even with a great deal of effort, so how could a dead body stay like that unless it was in rigor?
(http://i.imgur.com/DjkLVLZ.jpg?1)
One telling detail is that there is no apparent support for the knees. They are bent just as they would be if the person had been sitting before the body was moved and tipped forward. But they just stay up there above the floor. The reason is that the body is in rigor and must have been in that condition before it was put there.
-
Nevill's body was in rigor mortis when the photograph was taken. I have tested the position and can confirm that what Myster says is correct. You just can't maintain that position, even with a great deal of effort, so how could a dead body stay like that unless it was in rigor?
(http://i.imgur.com/DjkLVLZ.jpg?1)
One telling detail is that there is no apparent support for the knees. They are bent just as they would be if the person had been sitting before the body was moved and tipped forward. But they just stay up there above the floor. The reason is that the body is in rigor and must have been in that condition before it was put there.
Nevil bled out in that position, by the time rigor developed, there would be no blood flow. Also livor mortis would have comfirmed if the body had been moved - it would have been obvious. Wether or not you could sustain a 'similar' position is neither here nor there. All you can see from the picture you posted is an outline, it doestn't show that Nevil's body was also supported by the wall.
-
Nevil bled out in that position, by the time rigor developed, there would be no blood flow. Also livor mortis would have comfirmed if the body had been moved - it would have been obvious. Wether or not you could sustain a 'similar' position is neither here nor there. All you can see from the picture you posted is an outline, it doestn't show that Nevil's body was also supported by the wall.
I think the problem is, that Nevil couldn't have fallen like that himself, someone placed him in that position!
-
Nevill's body was in rigor mortis when the photograph was taken. I have tested the position and can confirm that what Myster says is correct. You just can't maintain that position, even with a great deal of effort, so how could a dead body stay like that unless it was in rigor?
One telling detail is that there is no apparent support for the knees. They are bent just as they would be if the person had been sitting before the body was moved and tipped forward. But they just stay up there above the floor. The reason is that the body is in rigor and must have been in that condition before it was put there.
The support for his knees, comes from the angle of his body, it is leaning towards the wall and the left knee is in a position that can take the weight. The chair is also supporting the position but I see no way in which he could have landed in that position on his own. The blood on the coal scuttle shows he bled out from that position so you can only conclude that he was placed there shortly after death.
-
Obviously Bamber lifted Nevill into a suitable position for him to be able to pull his pyjama top to the top of his back. Prior to inflicting the three burns. This may have been done during the 5 minutes + while the aga was heating the rifle nozzle.
Sheila did not have the strenght or composure to do this.
The police already knew a person was in that location in the kitchen as it was reported on the police radio. So did not touch Nevill when entering WHF.
-
The position Bamber put Nevill would have also resulted in the the pyjama top staying up, when he pulled it up. Due to the way there is a steep decline at the top of Nevill's back.
This would have given Bamber two hands free in order to hold & place his burning instrument.
-
It was my understanding that Neville was probably slumped in the easy chair and fell forward when shot again.
-
It was my understanding that Neville was probably slumped in the easy chair and fell forward when shot again.
That is also impossible because the chair is turned over sideways not forward and Nevil is perched on the right side of the chair back.
-
With Sheila & the police ruled out, it leaves only Bamber as the person who could have created this piece of forensic evidence - Nevill's body position.Unless people believe the third person theories.
The third person theories is something Bamber currently does not agree with, changing his mind from 1985 when he suggested Nevill may have said 'she' rather than 'Sheila' on the phone. This was when the police told him Sheila could not have shot herself a second time.
If Nevill did say 'She' rather than 'Sheila', it would have to have been more than one woman, in order to lift Nevill. Mike suggested it was a hit man team. Maybe it was a hit 'woman' team. Surprised Nevill had the time to phone anyone.
-
Nevill's body was in rigor mortis when the photograph was taken. I have tested the position and can confirm that what Myster says is correct. You just can't maintain that position, even with a great deal of effort, so how could a dead body stay like that unless it was in rigor?
(http://i.imgur.com/DjkLVLZ.jpg?1)
One telling detail is that there is no apparent support for the knees. They are bent just as they would be if the person had been sitting before the body was moved and tipped forward. But they just stay up there above the floor. The reason is that the body is in rigor and must have been in that condition before it was put there.
In answer to the above posts I would like to emphasize something which I might not have made clear.
I don't mean to suggest that the scene in the photograph came about entirely by accident. I believe that Nevill was dead sitting on a chair backwards and that when the chair was knocked over, the police deliberately moved his body to put his head in the coal bucket to catch blood leaking from his wounds. But I don't claim to know where the chair he was sitting on was originally located.
The overturned chairs as they appear in the photograph are no real indication of how things were prior to the mishap. Only the cops at the scene know what they found and what changes they made to the crime scene.
These are indications that Nevill died sitting on a chair backwards:
1 His knees are wide apart.
2 His arms are straight.
3 His shoulders are hunched and his head hanging forward, as they would be if his arms and head were hanging over the back.
What happened is that the stiff body remained in the same seated attitude after being tipped forward. It appears to defy gravity, but not if we take into account the presence of rigor mortis.
-
Everyone agrees that either the police or Bamber moved Nevill. Similar to everyone agreeing that either the police or Bamber pulled Sheila's legs after the second shot. It was impossible for Sheila to do either.
Would be very surprising if the raid team did not see and knocked over a unit as big as Nevill sitting on a chair. Espescially as they were aware of a body in the kitchen before entering.
It would be even more of a surprise that the police would move Nevill into the position the photographs show. Not sure why they would be trying to catch blood leaking from his wounds.
-
I would speculate that it would be to prevent them stepping in it as they walked through the scene which would have created a hazard and hampered accurate recording of blood staining and spatter?
-
In answer to the above posts I would like to emphasize something which I might not have made clear.
I don't mean to suggest that the scene in the photograph came about entirely by accident. I believe that Nevill was dead sitting on a chair backwards and that when the chair was knocked over, the police deliberately moved his body to put his head in the coal bucket to catch blood leaking from his wounds. But I don't claim to know where the chair he was sitting on was originally located.
The overturned chairs as they appear in the photograph are no real indication of how things were prior to the mishap. Only the cops at the scene know what they found and what changes they made to the crime scene.
These are indications that Nevill died sitting on a chair backwards:
1 His knees are wide apart.
2 His arms are straight.
3 His shoulders are hunched and his head hanging forward, as they would be if his arms and head were hanging over the back.
What happened is that the stiff body remained in the same seated attitude after being tipped forward. It appears to defy gravity, but not if we take into account the presence of rigor mortis.
Nevil was not in a seated postion nor does the position defy gravity when you see a decent res pcture.
-
The support for his knees, comes from the angle of his body, it is leaning towards the wall and the left knee is in a position that can take the weight. The chair is also supporting the position but I see no way in which he could have landed in that position on his own. The blood on the coal scuttle shows he bled out from that position so you can only conclude that he was placed there shortly after death.
Was blood found on the coal scuttle? I don't recall reading anything to this effect?
-
Was blood found on the coal scuttle? I don't recall reading anything to this effect?
Can you not spotify it in the photo? If we can see it now, so did they then.
-
Can you not spotify it in the photo? If we can see it now, so did they then.
Possibly, but then I would feel a bit bare around the bottom!
Is there an image of the coal scuttle with blood stains?
-
Was blood found on the coal scuttle? I don't recall reading anything to this effect?
Yes, a lot.
-
Possibly, but then I would feel a bit bare around the bottom!
Is there an image of the coal scuttle with blood stains?
Not any that I've seen. Caro might have, as she's seen more than most, poor gal!
I think Cook removed it along with other evidence days after the murders.
-
I can't post the picture that I have because I promised I never would. However attached is a picture of the coal scuttle, all of the dark trails are blood.
-
I remember reading that under certain circumstances, such as in high temperatures (hot kitchen) and stressful encounters (the violent assault which Nevill was subject to), a phenomenon called instantaneous rigor or cadaveric spasm might have occurred which resulted in that precariously balanced position he was found in, despite being partially supported by the back wall as Caroline stated.
Usually affects (not effects!) smaller muscle groups, e.g. hands, but in this case could possibly have involved upper and lower leg muscles as well?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaveric_spasm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaveric_spasm)
-
Not any that I've seen. Caro might have, as she's seen more than most, poor gal!
I think Cook removed it along with other evidence days after the murders.
I can't recall it being mentioned in any docs eg DC Hammersley's trial testimony where he goes through most of the exhibits seized from soc or any of the docs from FSS eg John Hayward's blood sampling tests. I guess it was assumed the blood stains originated from NB and I can't think of any reason to doubt this.
Dr Vanezis is asked about marks to NB's head from the scuttle which he refers to as "artifacts" but confirms there were no injuries as such, perhaps suggestive that his head arrived in that position on the scuttle without force.
-
I can't post the picture that I have because I promised I never would. However attached is a picture of the coal scuttle, all of the dark trails are blood.
Thanks. I'm assuming those dark trails are definitely blood stains and not coal dust stains caused maybe by the scuttle forming condensation on the outside from the Aga/heat/cooking and then forming dark liquid trails?
-
Thanks. I'm assuming those dark trails are definitely blood stains and not coal dust stains caused maybe by the scuttle forming condensation on the outside from the Aga/heat/cooking and then forming dark liquid trails?
It id DEFINEITELY blood.
-
It id DEFINEITELY blood.
Oh so what's your thinking? How did NB's head end up there? How does it implicate JB?
I can't really make any sense out of the silhouetted image.
This is from Dr V's TT:
Q: On the left hand side---I should make it clear that as part of the post mortem you shaved the victim's head.
A: That is right.
Q: On the left hand side of 6 there are two lines going along, what are they?
A: These are artefacts produced by pressure from the coal scuttle where the deceased was found but nothing to do with any injuries.
So it seems from above NB's head was placed there or somehow landed gently otherwise I guess bruising/grazing might be expected if his landed with a thump on the rim of the scuttle?
-
Oh so what's your thinking? How did NB's head end up there? How does it implicate JB?
I can't really make any sense out of the silhouetted image.
This is from Dr V's TT:
Q: On the left hand side---I should make it clear that as part of the post mortem you shaved the victim's head.
A: That is right.
Q: On the left hand side of 6 there are two lines going along, what are they?
A: These are artefacts produced by pressure from the coal scuttle where the deceased was found but nothing to do with any injuries.
So it seems from above NB's head was placed there or somehow landed gently otherwise I guess bruising/grazing might be expected if his landed with a thump on the rim of the scuttle?
I think it was placed there and his body wasn't moved because hypostasis was consistent with the position at the scene.
-
Oh so what's your thinking? How did NB's head end up there? How does it implicate JB?
I can't really make any sense out of the silhouetted image.
This is from Dr V's TT:
Q: On the left hand side---I should make it clear that as part of the post mortem you shaved the victim's head.
A: That is right.
Q: On the left hand side of 6 there are two lines going along, what are they?
A: These are artefacts produced by pressure from the coal scuttle where the deceased was found but nothing to do with any injuries.
So it seems from above NB's head was placed there or somehow landed gently otherwise I guess bruising/grazing might be expected if his landed with a thump on the rim of the scuttle?
That is correct.
Nevill falling forward or backwards due to Bamber's rifle blows would land on the floor. Either falling backwards or forwards to land face first or on his back on the floor.
There is a small chance he would land on the table. But not on a chair or kneeling into a lightwwight coal scuttle. He was too heavy to do either.
Bamber lifted Nevill onto the coal scuttle to have full shooting & burning access to Nevill's head & bare back.
-
I wonder who placed the seat cushion from the overturned chair on the floor beside the Aga? Could this have been done to stem the spread of blood across the floor by a killer who intended to live in that house afterwards?
(http://i.imgur.com/DjkLVLZ.jpg?1)
-
I wonder who placed the seat cushion from the overturned chair on the floor beside the Aga? Could this have been done to stem the spread of blood across the floor by a killer who intended to live in that house afterwards?
Actually John, that cushion isn't from the overturned chair. The cushion from that chair was on the floor near the blue plastic swing bin.
-
Actually John, that cushion isn't from the overturned chair. The cushion from that chair was on the floor near the blue plastic swing bin.
Are we to assume that the way the cushions were set out post incident was the same as they were prior to the killing, ie blue cushions at one end of the table and red ones at the other end?
(http://i.imgur.com/yYF6d.jpg)
-
I wonder who placed the seat cushion from the overturned chair on the floor beside the Aga? Could this have been done to stem the spread of blood across the floor by a killer who intended to live in that house afterwards?
Such a strange thing for a killer to do though, stacking cushions and laying trousers so neatly around the body, when he really needed to be away from the scene asap. Is it not more likely that one of the TFU, or the police detectives who entered just after they left were responsible, to prevent further contamination of the crime scene?
-
Perhaps, the red cushions seem to go with the bigger chairs.
-
Such a strange thing for a killer to do though, stacking cushions and laying trousers so neatly around the body, when he really needed to be away from the scene asap. Is it not more likely that one of the TFU, or the police detectives who entered just after they left were responsible, to prevent further contamination of the crime scene?
I think that's more liley.
-
Such a strange thing for a killer to do though, stacking cushions and laying trousers so neatly around the body, when he really needed to be away from the scene asap. Is it not more likely that one of the TFU, or the police detectives who entered just after they left were responsible, to prevent further contamination of the crime scene?
Never noticed the cushion before. It is another item that fell onto the floor during the fight.
There is no reason why Bamber would fold trousers up and put them on the floor. They must have been left there before the massacre & fell on the floor during the fight.
-
Such a strange thing for a killer to do though, stacking cushions and laying trousers so neatly around the body, when he really needed to be away from the scene asap. Is it not more likely that one of the TFU, or the police detectives who entered just after they left were responsible, to prevent further contamination of the crime scene?
Or Dr Craig if he needed close proximity to certify death.
What was PC Wright's role? He was the officer from the coroner's office.
-
Or Dr Craig if he needed close proximity to certify death.
What was PC Wright's role? He was the officer from the coroner's office.
Dunno... better ask Caroline to post his September '85, and 1991 COLP statements.
-
Thinking about the kitchen soc from a JB innocent perspective I've always thought the disarray was caused when NB and perp (SC imo) arrived in the kitchen after the shootings upstairs but I guess some of the disarray could have been caused beforehand.
Anyway re NB's found position I don't see anything suspicious in him straddling the back of the chair. He was a tall man 6' 4" with long legs and could easily have fallen on the back of the chair in effect straddling it as found. He obviously could not have remained in an upright position and ended up falling forwards as opposed to backwards?
What I do find a little odd is how NB's head ended up in the coal scuttle without any sort of minor injury/tell tale sign. Although Dr Vanezis didn't make any comment to this effect. Is it possible NB's head was hanging with blood pooling internally and officers, Dr Craig or PC Wright from the coroners office moved NB's head to the coal scuttle for whatever reason(s) thus releasing pooled blood? It seems to me that NB and SC bled out from their gsw's but this doesn't appear to be the case with June based on an albeit poor quality soc image. June sustained a gsw between the eyes but I can't see any blood on the surrounding carpet? Could this be accounted for by the fact June wasn't moved?
The idea JB or SC went about re-positioning NB to burn his back, inflict gsw's on his head, build a blood dam etc is not plausible imo. If JB was responsible he wanted everyone dead and out. If he was concerned about NB living to tell the tale he would be just as concerned about June.
-
Save me looking it up does anyone know what the exact process is when victims are removed from soc to path lab? Could it be that these people started moving victims before they had been photographed?
I hope I'm not going to gross anyone out on a Sunday morning but just looked up a couple of things re what happens to the body upon death, which I don't recall from biology lessons, and all muscles relax including the sphincter and bladder which should give a further indication of found positions?
-
Thinking about the kitchen soc from a JB innocent perspective I've always thought the disarray was caused when NB and perp (SC imo) arrived in the kitchen after the shootings upstairs but I guess some of the disarray could have been caused beforehand.
Anyway re NB's found position I don't see anything suspicious in him straddling the back of the chair. He was a tall man 6' 4" with long legs and could easily have fallen on the back of the chair in effect straddling it as found. He obviously could not have remained in an upright position and ended up falling forwards as opposed to backwards?
What I do find a little odd is how NB's head ended up in the coal scuttle without any sort of minor injury/tell tale sign. Although Dr Vanezis didn't make any comment to this effect. Is it possible NB's head was hanging with blood pooling internally and officers, Dr Craig or PC Wright from the coroners office moved NB's head to the coal scuttle for whatever reason(s) thus releasing pooled blood? It seems to me that NB and SC bled out from their gsw's but this doesn't appear to be the case with June based on an albeit poor quality soc image. June sustained a gsw between the eyes but I can't see any blood on the surrounding carpet? Could this be accounted for by the fact June wasn't moved?
The idea JB or SC went about re-positioning NB to burn his back, inflict gsw's on his head, build a blood dam etc is not plausible imo. If JB was responsible he wanted everyone dead and out. If he was concerned about NB living to tell the tale he would be just as concerned about June.
Well, I don't buy the burn suggestion BUT, I think there was an argument that eveing but it was between Nevil and Jeremy. I think he was furious which is why there is over-kill with Nevil and the way he was displayed was just to degrade him that little bit more. I think Nevil probably did fall in a similar position but Jeremy propped him up with the chair and the coal scuttle.
-
Save me looking it up does anyone know what the exact process is when victims are removed from soc to path lab? Could it be that these people started moving victims before they had been photographed?
I hope I'm not going to gross anyone out on a Sunday morning but just looked up a couple of things re what happens to the body upon death, which I don't recall from biology lessons, and all muscles relax including the sphincter and bladder which should give a further indication of found positions?
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/appref/ENFSI-BPM-v1_0.pdf
-
Save me looking it up does anyone know what the exact process is when victims are removed from soc to path lab? Could it be that these people started moving victims before they had been photographed?
I hope I'm not going to gross anyone out on a Sunday morning but just looked up a couple of things re what happens to the body upon death, which I don't recall from biology lessons, and all muscles relax including the sphincter and bladder which should give a further indication of found positions?
The police have denied moving anything prior to photos being taken. Except two chairs which had already toppled over.
Supporters accuse the police of pulling Sheila's legs, moving Sheila from the bed to the floor, disrupting the kitchen crime scene & shooting Sheila.
So appreciate they will accuse the police of moving Nevill, as Sheila was not strong enough to do this.
-
The police have denied moving anything prior to photos being taken. Except two chairs which had already toppled over.
Supporters accuse the police of pulling Sheila's legs, moving Sheila from the bed to the floor, disrupting the kitchen crime scene & shooting Sheila.
So appreciate they will accuse the police of moving Nevill, as Sheila was not strong enough to do this.
There would be no reason for police to move bodies and I am sure it is a fundemental aspect of their training to lean NOT to move anything prior to documenting the scene.
-
There would be no reason for police to move bodies and I am sure it is a fundemental aspect of their training to lean NOT to move anything prior to documenting the scene.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9831.msg473533#msg473533
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9831.msg473533#msg473533
I don't think John was referring to the bodies.