Problems With The Scratch Marks

[Erik Narramore]

I would like to ask anyone in the guilt camp:

Could you explain to us in detail how the silencer physically can scratch the paintwork on the underside of the aga mantel? 

I am not convinced that this is even possible.  It's another one of those things that everybody - even the pro-innocent camp - just assume is true without examining.

[Erik Narramore]

More points for those who think the silencer made the scratch marks while the silencer was attached to the rifle.   

I think that this would have been virtually impossible, for at least three reasons:

(i). The relevant part of the silencer could not have made those marks.
(ii). The silencer would have had to be flat to the surface of the aga surround.
(iii). No traces of paint were found on the floor beneath the aga surround, yet there are at least two scratch marks, if not three.

[Erik Narramore]

(i). If Jeremy is the killer, the crime scene sequencing/time-and-motion isn't consistent with a deduction that the scratch marks were made during the incident. 

In summary:

If we're assuming Jeremy is holding the rifle with the silencer on and he is in a struggle with Nevill, first why doesn't he just shoot Nevill?  Why mess around with the rifle at all?

More fundamentally: Let's say Nevill is shot four times upstairs, then how did the struggle happen in the kitchen at all?  And even if we assume Nevill could engage in a struggle, why didn't it happen before they reached the kitchen?  Why didn't Jeremy catch Nevill up?

If we say Nevill makes it to the kitchen, why does he hesitate there and not go for the phone or reach the kitchen door?  He must have an advantage on Jeremy if he's made it that far, and it's mere feet.

Let's say Jeremy is the killer and he ran out of ammunition upstairs and that's why he's fighting Nevill.  Well, Nevill is shot four times, so we still have that fundamental problem.  We also have to ask, why is Jeremy holding the silenced rifle with its open end towards Nevill in a struggle?  He arrives in the kitchen knowing he is out of ammunition. Why doesn't he just hit Nevill with the rifle butt or put the rifle down and just subdue Nevill, taking advantage of his injuries, and he then re-loads?

How would entering into a struggle with Nevill in such circumstances involve tilting the rifle towards the proscenium of the aga oven?

Maybe Jeremy wasn't out of ammunition and Nevill grabbed the end of the rifle barrel somehow, but why didn't Jeremy just shoot him on the threshold from the main foyer?

Maybe Jeremy couldn't because Nevill was struggling round the kitchen door, but why isn't there blood on the kitchen door and why doesn't Nevill reach the back hallway and leave blood there?

What is needed is an incident simulation with somebody pivoting a similar artefact around to establish the positions from which a killer, perhaps under stress from the victim, was able to inflict the scratch marks and whether these can be mapped coherently and consistently into the Crown's supposition that Jeremy was in a struggle with Nevill as opposed to Sheila.

My suspicion already is that any struggle in the kitchen has to point to Sheila as the killer, but further analysis and contemplation may point the other way.

(ii). The top of the aga mantel would be at roughly just above head height for Sheila and just under head height for Jeremy.  If Jeremy is the killer and he is pivoting the barrel side of the rifle, then how come there is no damage to the items on and around the mantel top?  The pepper rack, for instance, remains intact.  Isn't the position of the scratches more consistent with Sheila as Nevill's attacker?

(iii). The relevant General Examination Record ('GER') appears to be undated, which I find suspicious.  However, there may be a better copy with the date on it or there may be an accompanying memo, or even a statement of truth that confirms the date it was made.

(iv). The GER states that the paint was only found in one place on the silencer, yet we have at least two separate scratch marks, maybe three at that location by the looks of it, and one of the markings is quite elaborate.  Let's be conservative and say two marks.  It doesn't seem very likely to me that two marks would be made at the exact same point of the silencer.  No doubt some of the paint ended up on the floor, but we have no record of this and it does seem rather odd that the paint is transferred during one impact but not the other.  It turns odder still if we say there were three scratch marks rather than just two.

(v). Continuing an observation made in (iv), there is no record of any paint traces found on the floor.  Shouldn't there be, even if only microscopic?  The relevant part of the kitchen floor was carpeted, so why wasn't this tested and how can the scratches be accepted as admissible evidence in a criminal trial without the necessary accessory evidence of trace residues beneath on the floor?

(vi). The GER indicates that the paint was found on the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end of the silencer, yet the two scratch marks are not consistent with infliction by the knurled part of the artefact.

(vii). In order for the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end of the silencer to have had sustained contact with the proscenium of the aga, it would need to have been held virtually flat to the painted surface.  This seems rather unlikely during a struggle.  As stated in (i) above, probably what is needed is an incident simulation using an equivalent object under different forces/pressures.

(viii). The Crown say that the scratch marks got there inadvertently during a struggle, but inflicting these scratches would surely require some considerable pressure/force.  The matter would have to be tested, with comparisons made of the marks inflicted under different levels of force, including:

- deliberative pressure: where somebody is purposefully making the scratch marks;
- inadvertent pressure: where the scratches are the result of a struggle;
- accidental pressure - where the scratches are the result of normal activity that results in friction between the silencer and the painted surface.

The silencer would have to be held at or near a 180-degree angle to ensure contact with the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end.

An additional control would be to test what happens when you apply the unmoderated barrel end of the rifle to the painted surface under the same varying pressures.

Just to speculate further, I'm guessing that to inflict that sort of force it would have to be a scenario where Nevill is perhaps leaning or pushing on the rifle in a struggle with Jeremy and the pressure/force on the silencer as it impacts the painted surface causes the scratches.  But is that consistent with suppositions about the struggle with Jeremy, or does it point to Sheila?

(ix). I am also sceptical about the paint getting stuck to the knurling for so long.  More research is needed on this, but the photographs I have seen of this particular model of silencer show a shallow right-hand knurling pattern.  Hair can stick to such knurling because it gets entwined in the ridges or around the body of the silencer itself.  Blood can perhaps stain knurling as it passively drips/runs, just as it can any solid surface, and you might just about have some blood trapped in the ridges that dries; but, it's hard to believe that flecks of paint could remain on such an object when it is being moved around, twisted and used.  I accept it is possible, though.

Conclusion:

The scratch marks are 'out of place'.  They are what I call 'isolated evidence', meaning they do not seem 'situated' within the rest of the forensic scene.

Provisionally, my view is that the scratch marks had nothing to do with this tragic incident, or they have been put there intentionally post eventum with a view to incriminating Jeremy Bamber.  Based on what I have seen so far, I think it has to be one or the other.

[Erik Narramore]

I've just been giving the scratch marks some more thought and I think I've realised something.

Above I provisionally conclude that the possibilities are either that the marks were inflicted before the incident or the marks were put there to implicate Jeremy.

But thinking about it more, it dawns on me that this misses the point.  The point is that, according to the prosecution, the silencer was used during the killings and there is paint on the silencer that matches the proscenium of the aga.  That is what needs to be explained.

This means that even if, let's say, the scratches got there on account of some other implement - for example, due to friction with the barrel of a rifle - that wouldn't resolve the problem because we're still left with the paint found on the silencer.  How did it get there?

Actually, the only solution is that the scratches were put there.  It's just a question of when.  The possibilities are:

1. Somebody vandalised the aga surround before the incident.
2. The killer vandalised the aga surround during the incident.
3. Somebody put the scratches there after the incident.

If the answer is 1, then this suggests the silencer was regularly detached from the rifle.

If the answer is 2, then this suggests the silencer was used but was detached from the rifle by the killer.

If the answer is 3, then this suggests that the relatives attempted to implicate Jeremy.

Not that I am suggesting 3 is the answer, but in support of 3, we should reflect that the silencer was in the hands of the relatives before it came into the possession of the police, and the relatives had free access to the house and the crime scene.

[Erik Narramore]

Who else was taking crime scene snaps then, apart from D.C. Bird?  D.I. Cook himself?  Miller?  D.S. Jones?  All of them?

In regard to the paint on the silencer, was there an incident simulation done to ascertain how that could have happened, with somebody pivoting a similar-sized stick around?  I ask because the scratch markings just seem a bit out-of-place to me.

If we're assuming Jeremy is holding the rifle with the silencer on and he is in a struggle with Nevill, first why doesn't he just shoot Nevill?  Why mess around with the rifle at all?

More fundamentally: Let's say Nevill is shot four times upstairs, then how did the struggle happen in the kitchen at all?  And even if we assume Nevill could engage in a struggle, why didn't it happen before they reached the kitchen?  Why didn't Jeremy catch Nevill up?

If we say Nevill makes it to the kitchen, why does he hesitate there and not go for the phone or reach the kitchen door?  He must have an advantage on Jeremy if he's made it that far, and it's mere feet.

Isn't a struggle more congruent with Sheila as the killer?

Let's say Jeremy is the killer and he ran out of ammunition upstairs and that's why he's fighting Nevill.  Well, Nevill is shot four times, so we still have that fundamental problem.  We also have to ask, why is Jeremy holding the silenced rifle with its open end towards Nevill in a struggle?  He arrives in the kitchen knowing he is out of ammunition. Why doesn't he just hit Nevill with the rifle butt or put the rifle down and just subdue Nevill, taking advantage of his injuries, and he then re-loads?

How would entering into a struggle with Nevill in such circumstances involve tilting the rifle towards the proscenium of the aga oven?

Maybe Jeremy wasn't out of ammunition and Nevill grabbed the end of the rifle barrel somehow, but why didn't Jeremy just shoot him on the threshold from the main foyer?

Maybe Jeremy couldn't because Nevill was struggling round the kitchen door, but why isn't there blood on the kitchen door and why doesn't Nevill reach the back hallway and leave blood there?

Taking all that into account, my tentative verdict about the scratch marks is, at least so far, similar to my verdict about the silencer itself on the other thread. I would say that the scratch marks on the aga look like 'isolated evidence' in that it is evidence that is not situated with the other forensic evidence of the crime scene.  It's almost as if somebody has gone and put those scratch marks there, which is not to say they have, just that it seems like it.

[Erik Narramore]

Could somebody here clarify something for me?

On the examination diagram, it rather looks like the paint was found at the muzzle end, which makes no sense.  Surely it would be at the open end?

Also, I don't quite understand how paint would 'stick' to whichever end of the silencer it is.  It's steel.  There's no friction.  And the end edges that would make the scratches would have, at best, only microscopic traces of such paint (probably invisible to the naked eye), whereas the examination report suggests that the paint was found on the knurled 'ribbon', which again raises the question of how narrow but definite scratch marks of that type could occur as a result.

Ironically the scratch marks are of nil or limited value to the Crown's case, but could end up undermining the prosecution.  The double irony of it is that this particular piece of evidence, whether it was planted or not, points to Sheila as the killer.

Has the scratching actually been re-enacted and tested to establish what force would be needed to make the scratches in the first place?

The result could then be mapped into suppositions about the physical struggle (which I explore in the earlier post above).

It's one thing for somebody to take a steel silencer and deliberatively run it across a paint surface with sufficient force to make noticeable scratch marks.

It's quite another thing for that to happen inadvertently.  Doing so might require considerable deliberation and effort and that might have implications for the plausibility of it.  You would need to consider force and also the angle that the object is pivoted at.

[Erik Narramore]

The issue is that the paint was found on the knurled ribbon of the silencer at the muzzle end, and the scratch marks could not have been made by that part of the silencer, and since it's at the muzzle end, the silencer would have needed to be held flat to the aga surround despite being on the rifle, which is virtually impossible.  Or at least, it seems that way to me.  Do you have an explanation?

[Erik Narramore]

A further question for the guilt camp:

Could you tell me which part of the silencer came into contact with the aga surround to make these scratches and how the paint traces got in the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end of the silencer?

[Erik Narramore]

Are you satisfied that this would result in paint traces in the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end?

Have you seen the General Examination Record and taken it into account?

[Erik Narramore]

The paint is not on the edge.  The knurled ribbon is some way from the edge.

[Erik Narramore]

Ask yourself: At which end of the silencer is the paint?  Where on the silencer is the paint?

[Erik Narramore]

Actually, to answer my own question, having looked at the General Examination Record again and compared it again to stock photographs of a Parker Hale silencer, it does look like the knurled ribbon ('gridded pattern') is at the open end rather than the muzzle end, so I could be mistaken on that fact.  That means in principle it could be possible to make those scratches and leave that paint on the silencer without having to hold it flat to the surface, but I would still maintain it would be very difficult, at the very least, to leave the paint traces where they were found while making those marks.  I'm still sceptical about it.

One problem we have here is that we don't have forensic photographs of the actual silencer, other than very poor photography during (I think) Cook's examination, and those photographs don't show any of the forensic findings.  I'm also not aware of any FSS or SOCO video in existence showing the examinations in progress.

Anyway, all I'm doing is asking questions.  My view is that this needs to be tested, with the correct silencer, to see if and how the scratch marks could have been made and how the paint is 'captured' by the silencer housing.

[Erik Narramore]

I am confused because the knurled ribbon is at the muzzle end, and the 'end cap' end is the open end.  Yet looking at the General Examination Record ('GER') again, it says that the knurling is at the "extreme end" with the end cap, which I am now reinterpreting to mean the open end.

Cook or the FSS or whoever has filled out that GER has not used what I understand to be the correct terminology.  If I understand correctly, he should have said muzzle end or open end.

Plus, we don't have a photographic or video forensic record.

I remain sceptical and I think we should not be accepting any of the prosecution's assumptions on this point.  It needs more investigation and the actual process of putting the scratch marks on such a surface and 'collecting' the paint traces in the knurling using friction from the brim needs to be tested/re-enacted.

[Erik Narramore]

For a moment, I thought I was going loony, but I may still be wrong and somebody who knows more may come along and correct me.

So far, it does look to me like there's a serious problem.  I wonder if the GER diagram is just wrong?  That's one possible explanation.  The other explanation really doesn't bear thinking about, but I will summarise it below.

The difficulty we seem to have is: How do you collect paint in the knurling at the muzzle end while scratching at the muzzle end with the brim?  The muzzle end is on the rifle barrel side, and that being the case, it's actually a really difficult thing to do, if not impossible.  You would have to hold the silenced rifle flat to the aga surround and then somehow the friction with the brim causes the paint to collect in the knurling.

I suppose the paint could curl off the brim and be 'squashed' between the silencer housing and the aga surround surface, thus ending up embedded in the knurling, but even then, you still have the issue of how the silenced rifle can be pivoted to produce the effect.  I really don't see it happening.

The more disturbing alternative scenario is as follows:

(i). The scratch marks are made on purpose with something else (maybe the Pargeter gun, hence why it was removed).

(ii). The paint traces are collected up (with a false nail?) and then implanted in the silencer knurling, in the mistaken belief that the knurled ribbon is at the open end.  If - a big 'if' - Ann Eaton did this, maybe she didn't realise which way round the paint should go, or maybe the knurled ribbon was the only place the paint would 'stick', or maybe she just didn't think about what she was doing.

This is all speculation, let me stress.  I'm not alleging anything.

[Erik Narramore]

I think the 'how' and 'when' can be proved.  The 'who' is more a matter of probability.  The question of who discovered these scratch marks and/or what initiated the closer examination of the aga surround is a whole topic in its own right as there are inconsistencies in the accounts between Ann Eaton, Stan Jones and Ron Cook.

I would rule out Cook as a suspect.