Marks found on bedside cabinet, no paint and varnish found on end of silencer...

[mike tesko]

Marks found on bedside cabinet, no paint and varnish found on end of silencer

Paint from scratch found on the bedside cabinet was not found to be present on the silencer, when silencer was examined...

[mike tesko]

Similar scratch marks later photographed on underside of kitchen mantelpiece...

[mike tesko]

No paint and varnish was found to be present on the end of the silencer when it was examined at the Lab', on the occasion when matching paint from the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece was found to be present on the silencer - October 2nd 1985...

Why was paint from bedside cabinet missing from silencer, if Silencer was fitted to the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot and killed in bedroom?

[Kaldin]

Any scratches on the bedside cabinet could have been there for ages.

[mike tesko]

Any scratches on the bedside cabinet could have been there for ages.

----------------------------------

Any scratches on the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece could have been made there, up to a month later - since the picture which shows the marks there was not taken until some 30 + days after the date of the incident...

They were certainly not found there ion the morning of the shootings....

[Kaldin]

Any scratches on the bedside cabinet could have been there for ages.

----------------------------------

Any scratches on the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece could have been made there, up to a month later - since the picture which shows the marks there was not taken until some 30 + days after the date of the incident...

They were certainly not found there ion the morning of the shootings....

They could also have been made earlier. There were no specific pictures of the underside of the mantleshelf taken on the morning of the crime, so I don't think you can tell when they were made.

[mike tesko]

Any scratches on the bedside cabinet could have been there for ages.

----------------------------------

Any scratches on the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece could have been made there, up to a month later - since the picture which shows the marks there was not taken until some 30 + days after the date of the incident...

They were certainly not found there ion the morning of the shootings....

They could also have been made earlier. There were no specific pictures of the underside of the mantleshelf taken on the morning of the crime, so I don't think you can tell when they were made.

------------------------------

Wrong - pictures were taken on the morning of the incident in the kitchen, which is what Peter Sutherst examined...

[Kaldin]

Any scratches on the bedside cabinet could have been there for ages.

----------------------------------

Any scratches on the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece could have been made there, up to a month later - since the picture which shows the marks there was not taken until some 30 + days after the date of the incident...

They were certainly not found there ion the morning of the shootings....

They could also have been made earlier. There were no specific pictures of the underside of the mantleshelf taken on the morning of the crime, so I don't think you can tell when they were made.

------------------------------

Wrong - pictures were taken on the morning of the incident in the kitchen, which is what Peter Sutherst examined...

I haven't seen any close ups of the underneath of the mantlepiece taken the day of the murders. I don't think the scratches would show up in enhanced pictures taken at the scene.

[mike tesko]

Any scratches on the bedside cabinet could have been there for ages.

----------------------------------

Any scratches on the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece could have been made there, up to a month later - since the picture which shows the marks there was not taken until some 30 + days after the date of the incident...

They were certainly not found there ion the morning of the shootings....

They could also have been made earlier. There were no specific pictures of the underside of the mantleshelf taken on the morning of the crime, so I don't think you can tell when they were made.

------------------------------

Wrong - pictures were taken on the morning of the incident in the kitchen, which is what Peter Sutherst examined...

I haven't seen any close ups of the underneath of the mantlepiece taken the day of the murders. I don't think the scratches would show up in enhanced pictures taken at the scene.

----------------------------------

Oh yeah, and why is that then - could it be because they might not have been there at all?

[Kaldin]

Any scratches on the bedside cabinet could have been there for ages.

----------------------------------

Any scratches on the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece could have been made there, up to a month later - since the picture which shows the marks there was not taken until some 30 + days after the date of the incident...

They were certainly not found there ion the morning of the shootings....

They could also have been made earlier. There were no specific pictures of the underside of the mantleshelf taken on the morning of the crime, so I don't think you can tell when they were made.

------------------------------

Wrong - pictures were taken on the morning of the incident in the kitchen, which is what Peter Sutherst examined...

I haven't seen any close ups of the underneath of the mantlepiece taken the day of the murders. I don't think the scratches would show up in enhanced pictures taken at the scene.

----------------------------------

Oh yeah, and why is that then - could it be because they might not have been there at all?

Because the photos are not close ups and they're not clear enough to show scratches.

[mike tesko]

Any scratches on the bedside cabinet could have been there for ages.

----------------------------------

Any scratches on the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece could have been made there, up to a month later - since the picture which shows the marks there was not taken until some 30 + days after the date of the incident...

They were certainly not found there ion the morning of the shootings....

They could also have been made earlier. There were no specific pictures of the underside of the mantleshelf taken on the morning of the crime, so I don't think you can tell when they were made.

------------------------------

Wrong - pictures were taken on the morning of the incident in the kitchen, which is what Peter Sutherst examined...

I haven't seen any close ups of the underneath of the mantlepiece taken the day of the murders. I don't think the scratches would show up in enhanced pictures taken at the scene.

----------------------------------

Oh yeah, and why is that then - could it be because they might not have been there at all?

Because the photos are not close ups and they're not clear enough to show scratches.

------------------------------

Not the ones posted here, but Peter Sutherst had access to the original negatives, which produced images much clearer...

So, I guess you could be mistaken by taking that view, unless you are suggesting that Sutherst is not much of an expert....

[Kaldin]

Not the ones posted here, but Peter Sutherst had access to the original negatives, which produced images much clearer...

So, I guess you could be mistaken by taking that view, unless you are suggesting that Sutherst is not much of an expert....

Well the CCRC didn't seem to think much of his opinion did they?

The issue is the angle at which photos were taken of the scene.

[mike tesko]

Not the ones posted here, but Peter Sutherst had access to the original negatives, which produced images much clearer...

So, I guess you could be mistaken by taking that view, unless you are suggesting that Sutherst is not much of an expert....

Well the CCRC didn't seem to think much of his opinion did they?

The issue is the angle at which photos were taken of the scene.

------------------------------------

Sutherst did a pixel by pixel examination of the relevant area, and found no evidence existed of any scratch or gouge marks - in any event how do you suggest that Ralph and his killer managed to struggle in that small area between where the kitchen table is photographed and the edge of the kitchen aga, to enable the silencer to come into contact with the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece, so that the silencer missed the jacket that was hanging down altogether?

Do you really expect me to believe that Ralph and his killer somehow got themselves into a position between that table and the aga, just so we can make some sense out of all this business involving paint allegedly found on the end cap of the silencer, and that this in some way proves or establishes that the silencer must have been fitted to the guns barrel at the time of a purported struggle in the kitchen between Ralph  and his killer?

I think not, surely?

[Kaldin]

Not the ones posted here, but Peter Sutherst had access to the original negatives, which produced images much clearer...

So, I guess you could be mistaken by taking that view, unless you are suggesting that Sutherst is not much of an expert....

Well the CCRC didn't seem to think much of his opinion did they?

The issue is the angle at which photos were taken of the scene.

------------------------------------

Sutherst did a pixel by pixel examination of the relevant area, and found no evidence existed of any scratch or gouge marks - in any event how do you suggest that Ralph and his killer managed to struggle in that small area between where the kitchen table is photographed and the edge of the kitchen aga, to enable the silencer to come into contact with the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece, so that the silencer missed the jacket that was hanging down altogether?

Do you really expect me to believe that Ralph and his killer somehow got themselves into a position between that table and the aga, just so we can make some sense out of all this business involving paint allegedly found on the end cap of the silencer, and that this in some way proves or establishes that the silencer must have been fitted to the guns barrel at the time of a purported struggle in the kitchen between Ralph  and his killer?

I think not, surely?

It's difficult to see how much room there is between the table and the aga.

Perhaps the table wasn't in that position when the scratches happened. Perhaps it got knocked about after that.

The silencer didn't necessarily miss the jacket so I don't understand your point about that.

The whole kitchen scene puzzles me anyway. It looks like the table normally stood on a mat, but that mat doesn't appear to be disturbed at all.

[mike tesko]

Not the ones posted here, but Peter Sutherst had access to the original negatives, which produced images much clearer...

So, I guess you could be mistaken by taking that view, unless you are suggesting that Sutherst is not much of an expert....

Well the CCRC didn't seem to think much of his opinion did they?

The issue is the angle at which photos were taken of the scene.

------------------------------------

Sutherst did a pixel by pixel examination of the relevant area, and found no evidence existed of any scratch or gouge marks - in any event how do you suggest that Ralph and his killer managed to struggle in that small area between where the kitchen table is photographed and the edge of the kitchen aga, to enable the silencer to come into contact with the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece, so that the silencer missed the jacket that was hanging down altogether?

Do you really expect me to believe that Ralph and his killer somehow got themselves into a position between that table and the aga, just so we can make some sense out of all this business involving paint allegedly found on the end cap of the silencer, and that this in some way proves or establishes that the silencer must have been fitted to the guns barrel at the time of a purported struggle in the kitchen between Ralph  and his killer?

I think not, surely?

It's difficult to see how much room there is between the table and the aga.

Perhaps the table wasn't in that position when the scratches happened. Perhaps it got knocked about after that.

The silencer didn't necessarily miss the jacket so I don't understand your point about that.

The whole kitchen scene puzzles me anyway. It looks like the table normally stood on a mat, but that mat doesn't appear to be disturbed at all.

------------------------------------------

Good points...

I too think mat would have been displaced somewhat by friction if the table got moved about during alleged struggle...

But according to PS Woodcock, kitchen table was overturned when he got into the Kitchen and considering he was second or first officer to enter kitchen, how could he have been mistaken about something as big as the kitchen table being overturned or not?