To avoid taking Mike's thread (
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10305.0.html) off course, I will post my thoughts on the scratch marks here:
(i). If Jeremy is the killer, the crime scene sequencing/time-and-motion isn't consistent with a deduction that the scratch marks were made during the incident. My thoughts on this, taken from the other thread, are quoted below:
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.
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?
What is needed is an incident simulation with somebody pivoting a similar artefact around to establish the positions from which a killer, perhaps under stress from the victim, was able to inflict the scratch marks and whether these can be mapped coherently and consistently into the Crown's supposition that Jeremy was in a struggle with Nevill as opposed to Sheila.
My suspicion already is that any struggle in the kitchen has to point to Sheila as the killer, but further analysis and contemplation may point the other way.
(ii). The top of the aga mantle would be at roughly just above head height for Sheila and just under head height for Jeremy. If Jeremy is the killer and he is pivoting the barrel side of the rifle, then how come there is no damage to the items on and around the mantle top? The pepper rack, for instance, remains intact. Isn't the position of the scratches more consistent with Sheila as Nevill's attacker?
(iii). The relevant General Examination Record ('GER') appears to be undated, which I find suspicious. However, there may be a better copy with the date on it or there may be an accompanying memo, or even a statement of truth that confirms the date it was made.
(iv). The GER states that the paint was only found in one place on the silencer, yet we have at least two separate scratch marks, maybe three at that location by the looks of it, and one of the markings is quite elaborate. Let's be conservative and say two marks. It doesn't seem very likely to me that two marks would be made at the exact same point of the silencer. No doubt some of the paint ended up on the floor, but we have no record of this and it does seem rather odd that the paint is transferred during one impact but not the other. It turns odder still if we say there were three scratch marks rather than just two.
(v). Continuing an observation made in (iv), there is no record of any paint traces found on the floor. Shouldn't there be, even if only microscopic? The relevant part of the kitchen floor was carpeted, so why wasn't this tested and how can the scratches be accepted as admissible evidence in a criminal trial without the necessary accessory evidence of trace residues beneath on the floor?
(vi). The GER indicates that the paint was found on the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end of the silencer, yet the two scratch marks are not consistent with infliction by the knurled part of the artefact.
(vii). In order for the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end of the silencer to have had sustained contact with the proscenium of the aga, it would need to have been held virtually flat to the painted surface. This seems rather unlikely during a struggle. As stated in (i) above, probably what is needed is an incident simulation using an equivalent object under different forces/pressures.
(viii). The Crown say that the scratch marks got there inadvertently during a struggle, but inflicting these scratches would surely require some considerable pressure/force. The matter would have to be tested, with comparisons made of the marks inflicted under different levels of force, including:
- deliberative pressure: where somebody is purposefully making the scratch marks;
- inadvertent pressure: where the scratches are the result of a struggle;
- accidental pressure - where the scratches are the result of normal activity that results in friction between the silencer and the painted surface.
The silencer would have to be held at or near a 180-degree angle to ensure contact with the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end.
An additional control would be to test what happens when you apply the unmoderated barrel end of the rifle to the painted surface under the same varying pressures.
Just to speculate further, I'm guessing that to inflict that sort of force it would have to be a scenario where Nevill is perhaps leaning or pushing on the rifle in a struggle with Jeremy and the pressure/force on the silencer as it impacts the painted surface causes the scratches. But is that consistent with suppositions about the struggle with Jeremy, or does it point to Sheila?
(ix). I am also sceptical about the paint getting stuck to the knurling for so long. More research is needed on this, but the photographs I have seen of this particular model of silencer show a shallow right-hand knurling pattern. Hair can stick to such knurling because it gets entwined in the ridges or around the body of the silencer itself. Blood can perhaps stain knurling as it passively drips/runs, just as it can any solid surface, and you might just about have some blood trapped in the ridges that dries; but, it's hard to believe that flecks of paint could remain on such an object when it is being moved around, twisted and used. I accept it is possible, though.
Conclusion:
The scratch marks are 'out of place'. They are what I call 'isolated evidence', meaning they do not seem 'situated' within the rest of the forensic scene.
Provisionally, my view is that the scratch marks had nothing to do with this tragic incident, or they have been put there intentionally
post eventum with a view to incriminating Jeremy Bamber. Based on what I have seen so far, I think it has to be one or the other.
