Like the silencer the scratches weren't noticed/seen by EP on the 7th while investigating.Simples.
Peter Sutherst evidence was rejected by the CCRC. But no definite reasons for the rejection have been given. It has been said that Peter Sutherst's evidence was "inconclusive."
I have heard this before from people hearing appeals. They might even say that the evidence in question is "relevant" and "credible" but not conclusive.
This article supports the main substance what I am claiming on this thread.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-new-analysis-of-unseen-174504"Forensic expert Peter Sutherst, a veteran of examining crime scene photographs, can find no evidence of the mantlepiece scratch marks in pictures until 34 days AFTER the murders.
Sutherst examined dozens of negatives never shown to the jury.
He, says: My conclusion, drawn from examination of photographs taken from the time of the case, was that the marks had occurred something like a month later.”
The “chain of evidence” surrounding DRB/1 has also been called into question.
At trial it was labelled with the case number SC/786/85 but until September 7ththe case number was SC/688/85.
Bamber claims this proves the silencer DRB/1 was found much later than previously believed and has been “backdated”.
He argues that there were actually two silencers which were made to appear to be one and the evidence should have been ruled inadmissible."
