Author Topic: Key information concerning two Sound Moderators, was not for public disclosure  (Read 1397 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48623
Sound Moderator (1), and Sound Moderator (2),  were presented as though there was only one Parker Hale Silencer, and that any reference to the Sound Moderator related to the only Sound. Moderator involved in the case -  yet this was / is not true. There were two Sound Moderators. One recovered by DS Jones (7th August 1985),  SBJ/1, and the other handed into the police by relatives on the 12th September 1985...

These facts, embarrassed the police / prosecutions case, since if there was only one Sound Moderator,  how come the relatives were handing in to the police a Sound Moderator on or about 12th September 1985, if it had already been handed over by Peter Eaton on the evening of 12th August 1985 and thereafter always be in the possession of the police,  or at the Lab' . Also bear in mind Inspector Cooks declaration that he retained possession of 'the'  Sound Moderator between 13th August and the 30th August 1985, at which stage this particular Sound Moderator was submitted back to the Lab' for the second time on the 20th September 1985 (DRB/1) and by which stage Sheila's unique blood had already been identified as her blood found inside that Sound Moderator, beforehand?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 10:27:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48623
You see..

How could blood found on baffle plates of a Sound Moderator, have already been identified at the Lab' before the Sound moderator was made available (20th September 1985) for examination?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2019, 06:57:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48623
You see..

How could blood found on baffle plates of a Sound Moderator, have already been identified at the Lab' before the Sound moderator was made available (20th September 1985) for examination?

Two Sound Moderators, submitted to Huntingdon Lab'  the first taken to the lab' by Inspector Cook 13th August and 30th August 1985, verses submission of second Sound Moderator to the lab' on the 20th September 1985?

Blood found in one Sound Moderator, versus red paint from the second Sound Moderator that matched the red painted kitchen arga surround.

Blood originating from the shooting of Sheila Caffell, along with and red paint on the other Sound Moderator from the kitchen mantelpiece...
« Last Edit: October 10, 2019, 06:59:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48623
Despite what many of you think about me, I am a truth seeker..
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48623
Despite what many of you think about me, I am a truth seeker..

I know that Jeremy Bamber did not shoot his sister once, or on the second occasion  - the good cops are responsible for this / that and the other...
« Last Edit: October 11, 2019, 11:42:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43525
I know you are Mike and so am I !

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48623
The cops took advantage of the situation and sexually abused the person they believed or thought had shot and killed the other four victims...

I have seen images of Sheila laid on top of her parents bed wearing no panties, or knickers..

She was apparently dead by this stage, and if we are to believe that the first inflicted shot was non fatal in nature this cannot be true..

Therefore, there must have been a substantial delay of sorts between the time both shots had been fired...

More importantly that Sheila did not die, nor was she killed by anyone activating the non fatal economical trigger mechanism..
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 10:31:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48623
Essex Police took photographs at the scene of this multiple shooting tragedy before the 2nd team of SOCO were handed control of the farmhouse. Why was it that the  2nd SOCO team were kept from entering the crime scene until 10 am, despite them having arrived there officially at 9.20am?

Why were the 2nd SOCO team made to wait outside the scene of this tragedy for 40 minutes or so, before they took control of the crime scene?

Throughout that 40 minute period what was happening inside the farmhouse?

The answer to this involved the 1st SOCO team compromising of DC Oakley and DC Henderson (headquarters SOCO),  which dealt with the aftermath and displacement of the female body from the kitchen downstairs to the parents bedroom upstairs. How could Sheila have moved from one part of the farmhouse to another if she was already dead when the police entered the farmhouse around 7.30am? The answer to this part of the mystery lies with the decision to cover up the circumstances of how Sheila was initially shot in horizontal fashion across the neck - she could not have shot herself initially because of the angle the rifle needed to be held when the first shot was inflicted. Someone else definitely had shot Sheila initially..
« Last Edit: October 12, 2019, 10:33:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48623
There were a total of 581 photographs taken at the scene, and at the mortuary by a number of police officers, the official disclosure of 123 pictures was made to Bambers legal team pre-trial, and most of these were taken by PC Bird (2nd SOCO team after 10 am on the first morning of the investigation). However the people responsible for selecting those 123 pictures made a mistake, and included other photographs taken by DC Oakley ( 1st SOCO team who had control of the scene from 9.30am, onwards)..
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48623
What we now can prove is that the body of Sheila Caffell and the rifle had not been photographed untouched or unmoved until after Ron Cooks 2nd SOC team took control of the crime scene from 10 am onwards - 07857500071 and y virtue of the fact that DC Oakley had photographed the rifle resting against the inside of the main bedroom window, and it was only put with Sheila's body afterwards as part and parcel of the stage managing process of her death scene on the main bedroom floor as a dodgy suicide. Police officers have made false witness statements about where the five bodies were found upon entry to the farmhouse and the location of the rifle and the two Sound Moderators. The Sound Moderators bearing different exhibit references of SBJ/1 and DB/1 at different stages of the investigation were references to the same Sound Moderator. What also becomes clear from careful study of the movement and examination of this silencer with two different exhibit references versus the 2nd Sound Moderator bearing the alternative reference of DRB/1..

In a nutshell the first Sound. Mderator sent or taken to the lab' on 13th (SBJ/1) and 30th August 1985 (DB/1), must have been the Sound Moderator inside of which the blood group evidence attributed to Sheila Caffell was recovered from. This is because the Sound Moderator (DRB/1) which was exhibited at trial and since was the 2nd Sound Moderator which David Robert Boutflour contacted Essex police on the 12th September 1985 to inform them that he had found the Sound Moderator (DRB/1)of the rifle which had been used to kill the five victim's of the shooting tragedy. On the following day (14th September) police fingerprinted the second Sound Moderator (DRB/1). But how could David Boutflour have telephoned Essex police on the 12th September 1985 to tell them that he had found the Sound Moderator (DRB/1) to the Bamber owned anshuzt rifle. But what becomes clear is that by that stage the police by one means or another had already got the other Sound Moderator (SBJ/1 - DB/1) in their possession before David Boutflour contacted the police on the 12th September 1985 to tell them about a Sound Moderator they ready knew about and had control of?

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48623
I doubt any other member here believes the Police shot Sheila.

Why is / was it then, that at the time' I was the official Mackenzie man to Jeremy Bamber', that Kim Perkins' sent a message to me that information concerning the existence of two sound moderators in the investigation, was not for public disclosure?

So, there must have been at least two or more Sound moderators, used to falsify an unlawful prosecution of Jeremy Bamber for the murder of his sister, and by inference, the murders of the other four members of his extended family? All the police, Lab' documentation points to the existence, and misappropriate involvement of three / possibly as many as five different Sound Moderator / silencers,  by reference to exhibit references attributed to them in official records or police officer / lab' expert accounts, or testimony, at different stages of police investigations, namely, 'SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1', 'AE/1' and subsequently, 'DRB/1'..

How is it possible, imaginary or otherwise for all these five exhibit references ('SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1', 'AE/1') and subsequently, ('DRB/1') to relate to one and the same Sound moderator / Silencer?

Nah!
« Last Edit: March 10, 2020, 08:53:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48623

How is it possible, imaginary or otherwise for all these five exhibit references ('SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1', 'AE/1') and subsequently, ('DRB/1') to relate to one and the same Sound moderator / Silencer?

Nah!

Please, do not refer me to the 'get out if jail' explanation, that the only Sound Moderator / Silencer in existence at the heart of this or these investigation(s) / prosecution of Jeremy Bamber, had its exhibit reference ('SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1', 'AE/1'), altered to 'DRB/1', simply and correctly / lawfully because there existed other items of evidential value introduced and mentioned by a variety of other individuals, with corresponding exhibit references, to the 'selfsame' Sound Moderator / Silencer!

If true, cops, public witnesses, lab' experts, members of the judiciary, and the CPS, all made a minimum of four mistakes / errors, ('SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1', 'AE/1') and subsequently, ('DRB/1') concerning the exhibit reference of the same Sound Moderator / Silencer?

What?

Hang on a moment...
« Last Edit: March 10, 2020, 09:12:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48623

If true, cops, public witnesses, lab' experts, members of the judiciary, and the CPS, all made a minimum of four mistakes / errors, ('SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1', 'AE/1') and subsequently, ('DRB/1') concerning the exhibit reference of the same Sound Moderator / Silencer?

What?

Hang on a moment...

Consider the following - One Sound Moderator / Silencer, taken or found by a police officer, or a relative, and examined at the Lab' by so called 'scientific experts' in various fields of 'expertise'..

So, how come then, that at the commencement of the trial of Jeremy Bamber on 2nd October 1986, at Chelmsford Crown Court, that 'a motor cycle outrider' (unidentified), collected 'two additional Sound Moderator / Silencers' from the relatives and conveyed them to Chelmsford Crown Court, 'at' the behest of the CPS?

Why, and by whom?

Additionally, there was already 'a Sound Moderator / Silencer at the court, 'DRB/1' ( court exhibit no. 9 , a Sound Moderator / Silencer), making it a total of 'three different / separate Sound Moderator / silencers', in court on the first day of the trial, and yet 'the court was led to believe there only existed one'?

'Why' was the existence, or involvement of 'at least an additional two Sound Moderator / Silencers', kept from 'the court', and in particular, 'the jury' - kept from 'everyone'?

But there's more..
« Last Edit: March 10, 2020, 11:38:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48623
Consider the following - One Sound Moderator / Silencer, taken or found by a police officer or a relative, and examined at the Lab' by so called scientific experts in various fields of expertise..

So, how come then that at the commencement of the trial of Jeremy Bamber on 2nd October 1986, at Chelmsford Crown Court, that a motor cycle outrider (unidentified), collected two additional Sound Moderator / Silencers from the relatives and conveyed them to Chelmsford Crown Court at the behest of the CPS?

Why, and by whom?

Additionally, there was already a Sound Moderator at the court ( court exhibit no. 9 , a Sound Moderator), making it a total of three different / separate Sound Moderator / silencers, in court on the first day of the trial, and yet the court was led to believe there only existed one?

Why was the existence, or involvement of at least an additional two Sound Moderator / Silencers, kept from the court, and in particular, the jury - kept from everyone? there's more..

The lab' ended up carrying out 'blood grouping tests' on 'four separate Sound Moderator / Silencers', after a group of 'live rounds' were 'test fired' through it (after human blood had already been purposely and deliberately, dripped into these). Now, 'what we have here', are four so called 'other identical Moderator / Silencers', without 'any exhibit reference 'to their individual / collective identities', and 'one court exhibitors' (item 'DRB/1' or ' Court exhibit no. 9'), which totals 'five Sound Moderator / Silencers' involved in the police, and scientific conclusions of either part of police inquiries (SC/688/85) or (SC/786/85) / scientific examination, and or, analysis!...

Basically put, 'a total of five Sound Moderators'...

'Four' that were used in Lab' tests to try and determine, whether or not deliberately dripped blood would continue to be clearly identifiable ( blood group wise) after a series of live rounds had been fired through an identical .22 semi automatic Anshuzt rifle, that was fitted with a Sound Moderator!

OK, I got the picture!

What I ain't got, (YET) are 'the exhibit references' to any or all of 'these four Sound Moderators'  that were used in these experiments at the Lab', or 'the rifle', or the  'rifles' that were used in these so called scientific tests (of the day)!

« Last Edit: March 10, 2020, 04:16:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48623

What I ain't got, (YET) are 'the exhibit references' to any or all of 'these four Sound Moderators'  that were used in these experiments at the Lab', or 'the rifle', or the  'rifles' that were used in these so called scientific tests (of the day)!

At the heart of this matter is lab' item 135, MDF/1 and the date and time it came into existence!

Furthermore, Malcomb Fletcher (ballistics expert), has only officially declared this, as an item of interest related to his involvement in the examination of the .22 Anshuzt rifle, the Sound moderator / silencers, crime scene and test fired Eley .22LR ammunitions..
« Last Edit: March 10, 2020, 04:36:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...