The suggestion tactical firearms officers may have disturbed part of the murder scene at a remote Essex farmhouse are "fanciful" a court has heard.
An appeal into the conviction of Jeremy Bamber for the shooting of five members of his family in August, 1985, had already heard allegations from counsel for Bamber, Michael Turner QC, that a scene of disarray in the kitchen where one of the victims, Nevill Bamber, was found could have been done by officers arriving at the scene.
He said evidence had come to light through a report carried out into the inquiry and a statement made by senior crime scene investigator Det Insp Cook in recent years that suggested the items that had been left broken or overturned could have been carried out by the tactical firearms group.
He argued this meant the point made at the original trial that Bamber's sister, Sheila Caffell who was originally thought to have carried out the killings before turning the gun on herself, could not have carried out such a violent attack on her father was thrown into question.
But Victor Temple QC, for the Crown, said yesterday the idea was "fanciful" and there was absolutely no question the officers had acted inappropriately, adding all the new evidence brought forward was based on hearsay.
He told the hearing: "We say there is no evidence to find that the tactical firearms group were responsible for the state of the kitchen."
He added: "It is obvious there was little point to rush around. It is the last act they would have set to undertake."
Mr Temple added the officers were unlikely to rush into a scene where they did not know if there was someone still inside with a gun
"The disruption was caused by a struggle between Nevill and his assailant. There were score marks on the mantelpiece and we know the injuries he had were significant with him being struck with a gun."
Lord Justice Kay, Mr Justice Wright and Mr Justice Henriques refused an application by Mr Turner to again cross examine Det Insp Cook over the matter.
The case continues.
Published Wednesday October 23, 2002
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article