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!
