End of the road ?

[Cambridgecutie]

I have a copy of Suthurst's report. He never used photoshop or any photo editing software.

He doesn't say what he uses.  He does know the existence of photogrammetry, but he doesn't employ it.  Or at least he doesn't employ it properly.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, because otherwise he's just physically lining up images, and drawing a conclusion from that.  But doing that would be hopeless, because there would be no accuracy.

But he must have known about the lack of accuracy in his work.

The CCRC's response to his report (or whoever it was who commissioned the analysis of his work) was that the measurements of the same objects but in the different  photographs don't match.  That meant that there was no value whatsoever in the 'evidence'.

The other stuff he covered with the colour matching of a tiny object in the kitchen with Sheila's nail varnish (taken from another image, from a different location), was hopeless and embarrassing.  As a hobbyist photographer, even I know that it's impossible to get accurate colour values from different photos taken in different locations.  Peter Sutherst must have known that when he made his report.

Which makes me wonder what Bambers approach to Peter Sutherst was.  Was he employed to create a propaganda piece that could be used for things like the Guardian newspaper video.

Because this evidence was never going to pass muster when scrutinised more scientifically.

And the overall point that I'm making is that whenever Jeremy Bamber provides 'proof',  as he says he has with Peter Sutherst's report, the 'proof' always crumbles when studied more scientifically.

And that will be the case with the silencer evidence, which the CPS has already effectively debunked, long before being submitted to the CCRC.

[Cambridgecutie]

Please elaborate on why photogrammetry software, or even stitching would be needed? a scratch is a scratch just two photos of the same area one taken at the crime scene and one after would be sufficient.

Your post sounds very clever and technical but to create a 3d model needs many high quality images with a minimum of 50% overlap and each point appearing in at least two photos. Just not possible with the very poor quality and very few images in this case, and in my view totally unnecessary anyway.

I personally have no experience with photogrammetry. 

But here is the CCRC's response to Peter Sutherst's report

Paragraph 2 from The CCRC response to Peter Sutherst's report.

In Broad terms, Mr Sutherst's work is flawed.

He has made attempts at photogrammetry that take no account of perspective and, in my view, are generally inappropriate and unsafe.

He has also made inappropriate comparisons of shape, size and colour. 


Paragraph 46  from The CCRC response to Peter Sutherst's report.

The photogrammetry conducted by Mr Sutherst is at best of questionable accuracy; the composite image he has provided in Appendix G to his 2nd Supplement report is unsafe and has no interpretative value.


Full report can be read here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rw88d1ygw8gc2wz/2011%20Report%20-%20CCRC-%20Undermining%20Peter%20Suthurst.pdf?dl=0

Paragraphs 41, 42 and 43 provide the most comprehensive assessment of Sutherst's attempt at photogrammetry.

[Adam]

I have a copy of Suthurst's report. He never used photoshop or any photo editing software.

David's got a copy of everything.

They must have given it to him when he cycled to a meeting with Jeremy's legal team.

[lookout]

Jealousy will get you nowhere. As has been proven by most of your posts.

[ILB]

You need proof.

Not sure what any dispute between the Boutflours & Nevill has to do with the massacre.

Potentially it could have lot. It's not a wide conspiracy theory either.

You forget this a family. It's not a TV show

You need proof nevill never called bamber. You can't. You can make assumptions

[Adam]

Potentially it could have lot. It's not a wide conspiracy theory either.

You forget this a family. It's not a TV show

You need proof nevill never called bamber. You can't. You can make assumptions

I do not need that as there is the 75 pieces of forensic evidence. In the COA.

Nice try.

[lookout]

Only 75 ? It was 200 the other day. Get real and follow the case properly instead of plucking figures from the air.
 I'm sure there's great relief that you're not attached to the law.

[Cambridgecutie]

You need proof nevill never called bamber. You can't. You can make assumptions

There is proof that Nevill didn't call Bamber.  At least it reaches the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test.

As long as it's proven scientifically that Sheila was murdered, then Bambers claim that Nevill called him must be false.

You can't get around that. Legally you can't get around that. It's fixed until somebody can disprove paragraph 518.

None of Bamber's lawyers have ever been able to disprove that evidence.  The Judges at the 2002 CoA actually state that Jeremy Bamber's  Defence team must have also found the evidence so compelling that they made no effort to disprove it.

And Jeremy Bamber's defence counsel in the 2002 CoA was Michael Turner QC, a superstar barrister, famous for representing murderers and other criminals.  He even freely admits to getting murderers set free, who then go on to murder again.

If paragraph 518 was somehow disproved because of an incorrect interpretation of the evidence, then it still stands that Sheila was murdered, because collectively all the circumstantial evidence makes it so unlikely that she committed the crime. You end up quite quickly reaching a conclusion of Sheila was murdered 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

We also have 37 years of Bamber telling lies, manipulating the evidence, creating fiction.  All of it very easy to disprove. An innocent person wouldn't behave like that.

All the smaller pieces of evidence that swirl around and tell a story all supports Sheila not killing her family.   Nothing supports a Sheila suicide. Nothing. Not even her illness.

The nearest you get in evidential terms to Sheila committing suicide is the gun on the body, and the ballistics expert and pathologist both agree that the gun positioned on the body is 100 percent inconclusive.

the gun on the body could be suicide or it could be murder, therefore it's 50/50 either way, therefore its 100 percent inconclusive.

So, there you have it.  Nevill didn't call Bamber.


Link here to 2002 CoA (paragraph 518)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html

[David1819]

There is proof that Nevill didn't call Bamber.  At least it reaches the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test.

As long as it's proven scientifically that Sheila was murdered, then Bambers claim that Nevill called him must be false.

You can't get around that. Legally you can't get around that. It's fixed until somebody can disprove paragraph 518.

None of Bamber's lawyers have ever been able to disprove that evidence.  The Judges at the 2002 CoA actually state that Jeremy Bamber's  Defence team must have also found the evidence so compelling that they made no effort to disprove it.

And Jeremy Bamber's defence counsel in the 2002 CoA was Michael Turner QC, a superstar barrister, famous for representing murderers and other criminals.  He even freely admits to getting murderers set free, who then go on to murder again.

If paragraph 518 was somehow disproved because of an incorrect interpretation of the evidence, then it still stands that Sheila was murdered, because collectively all the circumstantial evidence makes it so unlikely that she committed the crime. You end up quite quickly reaching a conclusion of Sheila was murdered 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

We also have 37 years of Bamber telling lies, manipulating the evidence, creating fiction.  All of it very easy to disprove. An innocent person wouldn't behave like that.

All the smaller pieces of evidence that swirl around and tell a story all supports Sheila not killing her family.   Nothing supports a Sheila suicide. Nothing. Not even her illness.

The nearest you get in evidential terms to Sheila committing suicide is the gun on the body, and the ballistics expert and pathologist both agree that the gun positioned on the body is 100 percent inconclusive.

the gun on the body could be suicide or it could be murder, therefore it's 50/50 either way, therefore its 100 percent inconclusive.

So, there you have it.  Nevill didn't call Bamber.


Link here to 2002 CoA (paragraph 518)
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html

I am still waiting for you to produce a convincing rebuttal to the evidence I presented on this particular issue. At present your reply of "nice try no cigar" is far from convincing.

[ILB]

I do not need that as there is the 75 pieces of forensic evidence. In the COA.

Nice try.

You can't prove shit. Reference the phonecall

Nice try

[Cambridgecutie]

I am still waiting for you to produce a convincing rebuttal to the evidence I presented on this particular issue. At present your reply of "nice try no cigar" is far from convincing.

You will have to repost.  My original reply was in response to your own one sentence dismissals, that are worthless.  Narrative answers are the only way to explain the evidence.

Pieces of paper taken out of context, mean nothing.  You only get a true picture when you look at the evidence in its totality.  And that only happens (for us) when the relevant evidence is publicly available.

Jeremy Bamber takes a sheet of paper with some writing on it, removes all context, and presents it to the public along with some fiction, a made up story.

But evidence has to be looked at alongside all the other evidence.  In other words, in its totality.   If that cannot be done, then on its own, a single piece of paper has no value.

[snow66!]

I dont think anyone gives much credence to paragraph 518 ,not even Adam.

[Rob_]

He doesn't say what he uses.  He does know the existence of photogrammetry, but he doesn't employ it.  Or at least he doesn't employ it properly.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, because otherwise he's just physically lining up images, and drawing a conclusion from that.  But doing that would be hopeless, because there would be no accuracy.

But he must have known about the lack of accuracy in his work.

The CCRC's response to his report (or whoever it was who commissioned the analysis of his work) was that the measurements of the same objects but in the different  photographs don't match.  That meant that there was no value whatsoever in the 'evidence'.

The other stuff he covered with the colour matching of a tiny object in the kitchen with Sheila's nail varnish (taken from another image, from a different location), was hopeless and embarrassing.  As a hobbyist photographer, even I know that it's impossible to get accurate colour values from different photos taken in different locations.  Peter Sutherst must have known that when he made his report.

Which makes me wonder what Bambers approach to Peter Sutherst was.  Was he employed to create a propaganda piece that could be used for things like the Guardian newspaper video.

Because this evidence was never going to pass muster when scrutinised more scientifically.

And the overall point that I'm making is that whenever Jeremy Bamber provides 'proof',  as he says he has with Peter Sutherst's report, the 'proof' always crumbles when studied more scientifically.

And that will be the case with the silencer evidence, which the CPS has already effectively debunked, long before being submitted to the CCRC.

Using photogrammetry with the few very poor quality photos Sutherst had would be next to impossible in my opinion anyway, no matter how expert the person was.

I have not read Sutherst's report but there are two main ways of stitching photos: one is where there is no foreground or nothing close to the camera, and the second where there is. Where there are close foreground objects in several images then it's vital the camera is rotated about the optical centre or perspective point, this will need the camera to be mounted on a panoramic head.

All Sutherst was trying to show was that there was overlap of the crime scene photos onto areas where scratches should have been, he was not trying to create a perfect 3d model for the Crown to pick over. Of course objects in different photos will appear to be different sizes as it depends what control points were used it's just physics.

The question we should really be asking is how the scratches occurred behind the clothing hanging in front of the Aga? would they not all have landed in a heap on the floor?

[Rob_]

The other stuff he covered with the colour matching of a tiny object in the kitchen with Sheila's nail varnish (taken from another image, from a different location), was hopeless and embarrassing.  As a hobbyist photographer, even I know that it's impossible to get accurate colour values from different photos taken in different locations.  Peter Sutherst must have known that when he made his report.

I don't know what he done as I have not read his report, but especially if flash was used in both photographs and the images were carefully colour balanced maybe not?

Again these questions could be answered if the images of Sheila's feet were available not just the clean one 

[Roch]

And that will be the case with the silencer evidence, which the CPS has already effectively debunked, long before being submitted to the CCRC.

You mean like when they debunked the evidence of Ljubisa Dragovic, David Fowler, and Daniel Caruso...

by simply not debunking it. 

I think you are getting 'debunked' and 'not contested' mixed up.  Not contesting expert evidence does not equate to debunking expert evidence. 

The way they got around this awkward evidence was

[1] Completely refuse to consider deliberate contamination (i.e. the elephant in the room)

[2] Use the statement of John Manlove as a mechanism to place the defence in an unwinnable position.  They demanded more tests take place, within a certain time limit, within which the defence were unable fund further tests that were being asked for.

Hardly a model for discerning the truth of the matter.   

Also, further up, you have claimed that the topic I was posting about (i.e. documentary evidence that there were two sound moderators) is akin to the Suthurst rebuttal.  I don't think it necessarily is.  It's probably a more complex topic on several levels.  But with regard to Sutherst (who passed away in 2019).  He was indeed a photographic expert who provided the defence with certain helpful information on a number of matters.  However, he seemed to have got out of his depth on the scratch marks issue.  Fair enough, you have to hold your hands up.  The expert provided by the CCRC was able to contest and was effective in doing so.