One of the reasons why the CCRC may have rejected the latest expert ballistic / medico evidence could be that they felt they might be drawn in to the argument that the silencer, blood and paint evidence which was used and relied on to great effect, was and had been manufactured by police, family and prosecution expert witnesses. This could help to explain why the CCRC refused to exercise thier power to get an independant expert report to nullify the conclusions of the Arizona tests?
The odd thing that strikes me about the scratch makes is that on the 13th August a paint sample was taken from underneath the Aga. These scratch marks could have been done in the attempt to get the sample by whoever it was that took the sample. Innocently done.
AE says in her statement that up to then she had not noticed the scratch marks.
Peter Sutherst confirms this in his analysis of the photographs taken at the crime scene and after the sample was taken.
In MHO the scratch marks and paint on the silencer evidence, would be now be very weak coming from the CPS if it was examined in court today.
It could be argued that paint could have got onto the silencer at time and not on the night of the murders. Blood however, is not so easy to argue upon. Although, it is now claimed that no DNA found on the silencer, belonged to Sheila. In order to eliminate silencer was never used, there should be no trace of blood in or on the silencer.
Again, this has weakened the CPS's argument considerably and now could be argued that the silencer had been contaminated, from the moment it was taken out of the cupboard.
