Prof Knight's Trial Testimony Re Marks to NB's back.

[APRIL]

Bamber can always turn the aga on.

Would that not indicate that he planned to 'brand' Nevill?

[Alice]

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.

[APRIL]

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.

[adam]

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 !

[Holly Goodhead]

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. 

[Myster]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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? 

[Myster]

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.

[adam]

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. 

[adam]

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.

[Myster]

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.

[APRIL]

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

[adam]

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.

[Myster]

Mmmmm

I can't hear your adulation, but this'll make up for it... https://clyp.it/5nz1zol2#

[Angelo222]

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.