The Bamber blogs states that
"On 09.10.2002, Mr John MacLeod examined 58 rolls of photographic film. He viewed 429 negative images and reached the conclusion that a total of 249 frames of film had been cut from the 58 rolls of film disclosed to him.
On 01.10.08, Mr Peter Suthurst examined 58 rolls of photographic film. He viewed 416 negative images and he reached the conclusion that 262 frames had been cut from the 58 rolls of film that had been disclosed to him.
In 2011, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) disclosed photographic negatives to photography experts who examined 58 rolls of photographic film. They viewed 406 negative images and reached the conclusion that 272 frames had been cut from the 58 rolls of film disclosed to them."
So Mr John MacLeod saw 13 more images than Suthurst and 23 more than photography experts but he reported nothing untoward. Nothing that was remarkable and certainly none of the things that Bamber claims they 'may' reveal;
"It is probable that they showed all of the guns in the house including those belonging to Anthony Pargeter, the telephone I supposedly hid in magazines actually being on a shelf in the office and they will no doubt reveal further proof that Sheila was moved by the police and that her hands and feet were not spotlessly clean as they informed the jury they were."
Mr Peter Suthurst saw 10 more images than the photography experts and hasn't claimed (other than the scratches) any of the above either.
We meant to believe that EP just kept chopping away at the negatives, even though they kept allowing people to look through them, realising (presumably afterwards) that they needed to chop more? Wouldn't that lead to MacLeod and Suthurst wondering what they had seen, that they shouldn't have?