Two different paint Samples taken at scene RC/1 (white), RWC/1 (red)

[mike tesko]

I want to start this particular thread by posting the contents of a letter written by Jeremy to me consisting of 2 pages, dated, 23rd July 2007...

[David1819]

There was a layer of white paint under the red paint of the mantle shelf.

[guest29835]

Who else was taking crime scene snaps then, apart from D.C. Bird?  D.I. Cook himself?  Miller?  D.S. Jones?  All of them? 

In regard to the paint on the silencer, was there an incident simulation done to ascertain how that could have happened, with somebody pivoting a similar-sized stick around?  I ask because the scratch markings just seem a bit out-of-place to me. 

If we're assuming Jeremy is holding the rifle with the silencer on and he is in a struggle with Nevill, first why doesn't he just shoot Nevill?  Why mess around with the rifle at all?

More fundamentally: Let's say Nevill is shot four times upstairs, then how did the struggle happen in the kitchen at all?  And even if we assume Nevill could engage in a struggle, why didn't it happen before they reached the kitchen?  Why didn't Jeremy catch Nevill up?

If we say Nevill makes it to the kitchen, why does he hesitate there and not go for the phone or reach the kitchen door?  He must have an advantage on Jeremy if he's made it that far, and it's mere feet.

Isn't a struggle more congruent with Sheila as the killer?

Let's say Jeremy is the killer and he ran out of ammunition upstairs and that's why he's fighting Nevill.  Well, Nevill is shot four times, so we still have that fundamental problem.  We also have to ask, why is Jeremy holding the silenced rifle with its open end towards Nevill in a struggle?  He arrives in the kitchen knowing he is out of ammunition. Why doesn't he just hit Nevill with the rifle butt or put the rifle down and just subdue Nevill, taking advantage of his injuries, and he then re-loads? 

How would entering into a struggle with Nevill in such circumstances involve tilting the rifle towards the proscenium of the aga oven?

Maybe Jeremy wasn't out of ammunition and Nevill grabbed the end of the rifle barrel somehow, but why didn't Jeremy just shoot him on the threshold from the main foyer? 

Maybe Jeremy couldn't because Nevill was struggling round the kitchen door, but why isn't there blood on the kitchen door and why doesn't Nevill reach the back hallway and leave blood there?

Taking all that into account, my tentative verdict about the scratch marks is, at least so far, similar to my verdict about the silencer itself on the other thread. I would say that the scratch marks on the aga look like 'isolated evidence' in that it is evidence that is not situated with the other forensic evidence of the crime scene.  It's almost as if somebody has gone and put those scratch marks there, which is not to say they have, just that it seems like it.

[gringo]

I want to start this particular thread by posting the contents of a letter written by Jeremy to me consisting of 2 pages, dated, 23rd July 2007...

    It certainly helps to explain the ever reducing negatives. EP are obviously fully aware of the fabrications in this prosecution demonstrated by their ongoing interference with the photographic record. It appears that each time the defence come up with some angle that could be illuminated by inspection of the negatives then EP feel the need to delegate the duty of removing "unexposed" images.  Images have been removed prior to three inspections by defence experts and EP's excuses for this don't survive contact with air, never mind scrutiny.
    Unexposed is an obvious euphemism for "exposes too much".
    This level of malfeasance should be called out by all, including those who believe him guilty.
    EP have no reason, other than nefarious, to curate the images prior to inspection and the reasons given by them are self evidently untrue.
    It does seem that Jeremy was correct in 2007 to assume that EP would not release the images. Was he also correct that the reason for this was that EP would be, "bang in trouble if they handed them over" ?
    It certainly bears more scrutiny than the risible nonsense put out by EP.

[guest29835]

Could somebody here clarify something for me?

On the examination diagram, it rather looks like the paint was found at the muzzle end, which makes no sense.  Surely it would be at the open end?

Also, I don't quite understand how paint would 'stick' to whichever end of the silencer it is.  It's steel.  There's no friction.  And the end edges that would make the scratches would have, at best, only microscopic traces of such paint (probably invisible to the naked eye), whereas the examination report suggests that the paint was found on the knurled 'ribbon', which again raises the question of how narrow but definite scratch marks of that type could occur as a result.

Ironically the scratch marks are of nil or limited value to the Crown's case, but could end up undermining the prosecution.  The double irony of it is that this particular piece of evidence, whether it was planted or not, points to Sheila as the killer.

Has the scratching actually been re-enacted and tested to establish what force would be needed to make the scratches in the first place? 

The result could then be mapped into suppositions about the physical struggle (which I explore in the earlier post above).

It's one thing for somebody to take a steel silencer and deliberatively run it across a paint surface with sufficient force to make noticeable scratch marks. 

It's quite another thing for that to happen inadvertently.  Doing so might require considerable deliberation and effort and that might have implications for the plausibility of it.  You would need to consider force and also the angle that the object is pivoted at. 

[mike tesko]

Who else was taking crime scene snaps then, apart from D.C. Bird?  D.I. Cook himself?  Miller?  D.S. Jones?  All of them? 

On the first morning of the police investigation two different 'Scenes of crime officers'  (SOCO) and 'Detective Seargent Jones'  took photographs at the crime scene at different times, and for different reasons, or purposes.

Headquarters SOCO [ DS Oakey and DS Eastwood] took photographs at the scene and a crime scene video, between 9.00am - 10.00am, of the three adult victims, some of which do not match up with photographs taken later on by the second team of SOCO's based at Witham police station [DI Cook, DS Davidson, DC Hammersley,  and PC Bird] from 10.00 am - 1.15pm, that same date..

Another case Detective based at Witham police station DS Jones re-attended the crime scene around 11.15am and took possession of a parker hale silencer (exhibit reference, 'SBJ/1') along with two further pieces of evidential value in the Essex police investigation, bearing exhibit references,  'SBJ/2' and 'SBJ/3' which ordinarily he should not have been able to do so, because at 10.00am, the crime scene had been handed over to Witham police SOCO, of which DS Jones was not. He took the evidence away, and later that same day he took the silencer, as he had been instructed to do so by DCI Jones, and left it on top of his bosses office desk where it remained untouched until 9th August 1985...

[guest29835]

On the first morning of the police investigation two different 'Scenes of crime officers'  (SOCO) and 'Detective Seargent Jones'  took photographs at the crime scene at different times, and for different reasons, or purposes.

Headquarters SOCO [ DS Oakey and DS Eastwood] took photographs at the scene and a crime scene video, between 9.00am - 10.00am, of the three adult victims, some of which do not match up with photographs taken later on by the second team of SOCO's based at Witham police station [DI Cook, DS Davidson, DC Hammersley,  and PC Bird] from 10.00 am - 1.15pm, that same date..

At about 11.30am, another case Detective based at Witham police station DS Jones re-attended the crime scene around 11.15am and took possession of a parker hale silencerand (exhibit reference, 'SBJ/1' along with two further pieces of evidential and value in the Essex police investigation, bearing exhibit references, and 'SBJ/2' and 'SBJ/3' which ordinarily he should not have been able to do because at 10.00am, the crime scene had been handed over to Witham police SOCO, and of which DS Jones was not. He 5ook the evidence away, and later that same day he took the silencer as he had been instructed to do so by DCI Jones, and left it on top of his bosses and office desk where it remained untouched to until 9th August 1985...

Thanks - the video particularly interests me and as you'll have seen, I've pulled out one of your old threads to highlight it.  Are you sure it wasn't just a montage of crime scene photographs?

By the way, have you received my PM?

[mike tesko]

Thanks - the video particularly interests me and as you'll have seen, I've pulled out one of your old threads to highlight it.  Are you sure it wasn't just a montage of crime scene photographs?

There were a total of 581 photographs and negatives contained on 59 negative strips, and in 'The senior investigating officers Album'  - (10 negatives per strip)  One strip only had 1 photograph on it, the other 9, were blanks. This album was kept in the Chief Constables office safe, and the defense did not know of its existence until after Bambers 2002 appeal..

Instead, the police created a separate album, containing 223 case related photographs referred to as 'The Master Copy Album'.  This was the album which the defense were given access too, and which were relied upon during the October 1986, Chelmsford Crown Court is trial

[mike tesko]

Instead, the police created a separate album, containing 223 case related photographs referred to as 'The Master Copy Album'.  This was the album which the defense were given access too, and which were relied upon during the October 1986, Chelmsford Crown Court is trial

There was a total of 358 photographs difference between the size of 'The Senior Investigating Officers Album'  and 'The Master Copy Album'..