Scratches on the Aga mantle surround

[killingeve]

Am I right in saying that one scratch on the Aga was present before the murders evidenced by scene of crime images?

Fresh scratches caused by the silencer/fight in the kitchen were all to the underside of the mantle which was not photographed?

[killingeve]

Any takers?

[lookout]

There was a striped jacket hanging up at the time over the Aga surround----which suddenly disappeared.
It would have acted as a buffer at the time against damaged caused.

[killingeve]

There was a striped jacket hanging up at the time over the Aga surround----which suddenly disappeared.
It would have acted as a buffer at the time against damaged caused.

Yes I believe the crime images show a garment hanging over the Aga but I am interested in learning whether or not the images show 1 scratch and the contentious scratches are all to the underside of the mantle shelf.

[killingeve]

Yes I believe the crime images show a garment hanging over the Aga but I am interested in learning whether or not the images show 1 scratch and the contentious scratches are all to the underside of the mantle shelf.

David1819 uploaded the draft 2002 appeal document which makes for an interesting read.

Bamber's defence counsel obviously thought the silencer was used at the time of the appeal. 

Reference is made to crime images of the underside of the mantle?  Also a reference is made to the butt causing the scratches? 

[killingeve]

Here's the page re the butt causing the scratches?  First I've heard of that.  Maybe I've miunderstood?

[killingeve]

The pathologist stopped short of stating the rifle caused Mr Bamber's injuries referring to a blunt instrument but its generally accepted it was the rifle. 

If you wanted to whack someone about with a rifle you would instinctively hold the barrel much the same way you hold a racquet, bat or club with the heaviest/largest part used to hit the ball.  Imagine if you wanted to hit someone with say a garden spade.  You wouldn't hold the spade and do the hitting with the handle.  You would hold the handle and hit with the spade 

Maybe the broken butt did scratch the mantle?  I don't think it was ever given an exhibit number or analysed?

[mike tesko]

The 'pathologist rrrrddstopped short of stating' that the rifle which was used [`from the portugues interpretation of marks caused Mr Bamber'] 'the `injuries' referring to [a blunt instrument but its generally accepted it was the rifle, which was responsible for the idea that' these murders, as spoken by '

If you wanted to whack someone about with a rifle you would instinctively hold the barrel much the same way you hold a racquet, bat or club with the heaviest/largest part used to hit the ball.  Imagine if you wanted to hit someone with say a garden spade.  You wouldn't hold the spade and do the hitting with the handle.  You would hold the handle and hit with the spade 

Maybe the broken butt did scratch the mantle?  I don't think it was ever given an exhibit number or analysed?

Correct, 'no exhibit reference', of 'the broken piece of the wooden rifle butt' on the floor of the kitchen crime scene, as 'an integral part of the prosecutions case' ..

The cops tampered' with the position of the bodies', 'items of evidential value, and once 'julie Mugford' came forward 'a month or so', 'after the events','Essex Police re-wrote the exhibit logs, and got rid of some exhibits which supported the original investigation [four murders and a suicide], but which contradicted the change of focus, when from the 7th September 1985, it had become a case of' five murders'..

[mike tesko]

'Conclusive', evidence has 'very recently come to the fore' to the effect 'which' / 'that', suggests, very strongly 'that,' 'the relatives' had 'a direct involvement' in suppressing the 'actual truth', regarding that which had taken place - this was because a'Metropolitan police officer' ['PC Robert Carr'] was spoon feeding them with confidential information regarding what Essex police were claiming that its firearm team were met with, 'prior to' , and 'during entry into the farmhouse'. It was 'PC Robert Carr' who 'infact' attended the 'whf' crime scene, on the 8th August 1985, and 'he took possession of two items of evidential value [`RC/1' and 'RC/2'] understood to have been 'a paint sample' ['RC/1'] that was 'taken from a bedside cabinet' in 'the main bedroom' along with 'a. 22 rifle' [beleived to be  'a'. 22 BSA air rifle]. THIS PAINT SAMPLE ['RC/1'] was not the same paint sample taken by 'DI Cook' ['RWC/1'] at 'the scene' in the company of 'PI Miller', 'DS Jones' and 'Ann Eaton' on '13th August 1985'] when 'DI Cook' allegedly took 'another paint sample' from 'underneath the red painted kitchen aga mantlepiece shelf'. The reason for this occurring 'was' / 'is' because paint that was embedded on the end of the '. 22 BSA air rifle' included 'a mixture of two sources" [bedside cabinet' and 'the kitchen aga'] - supported by  'a crime scene photograph' taken in 'the main bedroom' showing 'the body' of 'Sheila Caffell' insitu 'on the bedroom floor' next to 'the bedsiside cabinet' revealing 'a very distinctive scratch mark', which 'is repeated on the underside of the mantlepiece shelf', downstairs 'in the kitchen' [`bedside cabinet photograph' showing 'distinctive scratchmark' was taken at the scene on '7th August 1985', whilst distinctive scratchmark' on 'the underside of kitchen shelf' `wasn't taken at the scene` until `14'th September 1985']...

[mike tesko]

..

[killingeve]

Correct, 'no exhibit reference', of 'the broken piece of the wooden rifle butt' on the floor of the kitchen crime scene, as 'an integral part of the prosecutions case..

The cops tampered' with the position of the bodies', 'items of evidential value, once' julie Mugford came forward 'a month or so', 'after the events'..

Mike, do you mean integral part of the prosecution case in respect of the kitchen fight/broken butt? [ I mean, that the piece of broken butt  was not relied upon by Essex police, and the prosecution to support the contention that 'Neville Bamber' was 'brow beaten with any part of the rifle', in particular, with the part of the broken piece of its wooden butt, [it having no scientific evidence to 'establish' that 'the piece of the rifles broken butt', (or 'any other wooden part of the rifle' had ever come into 'direct contact' with 'Neville Bambers', 'head' or 'torso'.. Do you think it is possible the rifle/broken butt piece caused the scratches on the mantle? I have not yet, given this matter, the attention it deserves]

How did the cops interferere with bodies and items of evidential value a month or so later? Essex police' simply, recreated the documentary evidence, by removing, or restricting and in some instances, 'destroying' any 'record' pertaining to 'those items of evidence' which/that, would prove troublesome toward the newly revised investigation, for example, when the investigation 'altered course' and 'became one' of 'five murders' any item of evidential value, in 'support of the investigation' being 'four murders' and 'a suicide'  had to be 'withheld', 'concealed', or 'destroyed'. The bodies and all evidence seized were given exhibit numbers and photographed on 7th at a time when all thought it was murder/suicide?

[mike tesko]

'DC Hammersley' confirmed to the COLP investigators 1991, that paint sample 'RC/1' was 'taken at the scene' on the '8th August 1985' as 'a result of paint embedded' in 'the end of a guns barrel'. 'COLP' asked 'him' if 'he was referring to paint' that was 'embedded into the end of a silencer'? 'DC Hammersley' responded by saying, 'no', not 'the end of a silencer', the 'end of a guns barrel'.

Well, according to 'the Essex police' and 'the prosecutions script' [as relied upon 'at the time of the trial' , and 'ever since'] The 'silencer produced at trial' , and 'since' , was 'not found at the scene' by 'David Boutflour' until 'Saturday', the '10th August 1985', and 'not handed over to Essex Police' until the '12th August 1985'. So, the paint sample, 'RC/1' could hardly have caused paint sampe 'RC/1' to have been taken because 'it was known' to 'Essex police' from 'as early' as '. the 8th August 1985'