Author Topic: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back  (Read 82951 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #90 on: March 04, 2014, 01:10:52 PM »
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-)(--)



« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 01:15:30 PM by Holly Goodhead »
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #91 on: March 04, 2014, 01:52:01 PM »
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. 


Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Myster

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #92 on: March 04, 2014, 05:26:23 PM »
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 ?
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #93 on: March 04, 2014, 06:01:51 PM »
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)><( 
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Myster

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #94 on: March 04, 2014, 06:27:20 PM »
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.
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #95 on: March 05, 2014, 10:29:10 AM »
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(>((

Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Myster

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #96 on: March 05, 2014, 05:56:00 PM »
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.  ?{)(**
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline Myster

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #97 on: March 05, 2014, 06:01:29 PM »
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


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/i/blood-vessels-of-heart-and-kidney,c1405569
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #98 on: March 06, 2014, 05:27:33 AM »
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. 

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

Offline John

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #99 on: March 06, 2014, 08:44:40 AM »
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
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #100 on: March 06, 2014, 11:38:08 AM »
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/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
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #101 on: March 06, 2014, 12:20:30 PM »
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.

Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #102 on: March 06, 2014, 06:37:17 PM »
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.   


 

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:



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

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #103 on: March 06, 2014, 07:14:06 PM »
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.   


 

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:



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.
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Myster

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The three burn marks on Nevill's back
« Reply #104 on: March 06, 2014, 07:34:37 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 07:36:38 PM by Myster »
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.