exhibit "DB/1". But because there was a Detective Constable David Bird, it was renamed again to "DRB/1". The name changes led to confusion in later documents, giving the impression that more than one silencer had been found. In 2011, Lee writes, Jeremy's blog announced: "We can now prove 100% that there were two sound moderators obtained by police at different times." The CCRC responded that year that the claims were "not supported by the material that exists ...". Again in 2013 Jeremy's blog said: "I can now prove with 100% certainty that Essex police seized one Parker Hale (MM1 type) suppressor from the house on 7 August 1985" (the day of the murder, rather than the day the cousin found it). According to The Times in 2013, he aimed to show that the police had taken four silencers from his family members, including the one in the gun cupboard, and that evidence and paperwork from them—and from an additional laboratory silencer—had been mixed up. In or around 2012, Jeremy's lawyers commissioned gun experts from the US and UK to examine photographs of the bodies and the silencer evidence. They argued that injuries on the bodies were consistent with the silencer not having been used, and that its absence would explain burn marks on Nevill's body. The court had heard that "three circular burn type marks" had been found on Nevill's back. In November 1985 a police report submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions had argued that the burn marks were made with the hot end of the gun or with a poker from the AGA cooker. Arguments about scratch marks The defence commissioned a report from Peter Sutherst, a British forensic photographic expert, who was asked in 2008 to examine negatives of the kitchen taken on the day of the murders and later. In his report, dated 17 January 2010, Sutherst argued that the scratch marks in the red paintwork on the kitchen mantelpiece had been created after the crime-scene photographs had been taken. The prosecution alleged that the marks had been made during the struggle in the kitchen between Bamber and his father, as the silencer, attached to the rifle, had scratched against the mantelpiece. The prosecution said that paint chips identical to the paint on the mantelpiece had been found on or inside the silencer. Sutherst said the scratch marks appeared in photographs taken on 10 September