Author Topic: Mystery Stan Jones witness statement  (Read 899 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8318
Re: Mystery Stan Jones witness statement
« Reply #30 on: February 20, 2020, 12:25:AM »

I think you are getting confused with the notes lookout . There are more than one .

What notes did he talk to you about?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43507
Re: Mystery Stan Jones witness statement
« Reply #31 on: February 20, 2020, 11:32:AM »
What notes did he talk to you about?






The ones which the handwriting "expert/s " were studying.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48622
Re: Mystery Stan Jones witness statement
« Reply #32 on: February 21, 2020, 11:28:PM »
If Mike is wrong about the signature, then it would leave little doubt as to who the author is.

But, I am not wrong about the signatures, and this can be verified and substantiated by reference to the fact that DS Stan Jones, was not a member of any SOCO team at the scene, so how could four exhibits (SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, ever have been recovered by DS Jones? Furthermore, considering that there exist handwritten entries in at least one of the four Major Incident Property Registers, that all four of the exhibits bearing reference to exhibits bearing DS Jones reference marks were 'Destroyed', including SBJ/1 a silencer?

If exhibit SBJ /1 (Silencer) was 'Destroyed' along with three other exhibits directly connected to DS Jones involvement in seizing them all, how come the only silencer to make it through to the start of the trial (DRB/1) when if as alleged silencer (SBJ/1) had been destroyed beforehand?

And..

Why destroy the other three exhibits bearing exhibit references, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 before the start of the 2nd part of the police investigation (SC/786/85)?



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

Offline Reader

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Mystery Stan Jones witness statement
« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2020, 04:16:PM »
Your wording "the exhibits bearing reference to exhibits" doesn't seem to make sense. Can you clarify what you meant?

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48622
Re: Mystery Stan Jones witness statement
« Reply #34 on: March 26, 2020, 05:29:PM »
The whole notion of Stan Jones finding a silencer exists because it was first registered in the lab as SBJ/1. This gives the impression he found it. However it was Ron Cook who registered it as SBJ/1 DI Cook, actually recorded the exhibit reference he placed on the exhibit label of the silencer at the Lab', in the presence of Glynis Howard as being 'SJ/1', establishable by reference to the handwritten notes he entered into his pocketbook for that days duty (13th August 1985).and he wrongly assumed Stan Jones found it. No, he did not, because by 11.10am, on the 7th August 1985, the Crime Scene had been handed over from senior officers and a team of HQ SOCO, to DI Cook and his team of SOCO from Witham police station. Along with Cook, there was DS Davidson, DC Hammersley and PC Bird (photographer). Cook testified at trial that during the entire period that he and his team were in sole control of the crime scene (10.00am, onwards), that no-one was allowed to enter the crime scene, unless invited by himself. He confirmed that PI Montgomery was invited into The crime scene to remove the anshuzt rifle from Sheila Caffells body and to make it safe! There was no mention of DS Jones returning to the scene that morning and collecting the four exhibits (SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2, and SBJ/1), despite a log kept by a PC at the main entrance by which everyone entered and exited the premises, states clearly that at 11.10am, on the 7th August 1985, that DS Jones returned to the crime scene and entered the premises. What is also on record, is that when the COLP investigators interviewed DS Jones, and pointed out to him that he had returned to the crime scene at that time on the first morning of the police investigation into these shootings, Jones replied that he had forgotten about that, and that for the life of him, he could not remember what it was for, or why he returned there! Well, he returned there because he received a message from his boss DCI Jones to return to the crime scene from Jeremy's cottage to collect another rifle and its silencer from the downstairs toilet (Not the rifle that was photographed leaning against the main bedroom window (photograph no. 23), which was later placed onto Sheila's body on the floor and rephotographed. The rifle in the downstairs toilet had got some red paint ingrained on the end of its barrel. Cook was in charge of the crime scene on that first morning when Jones returned to the crime scene, and he must have known that DS Jones had taken the four exhibits bearing his unique identifying mark of 'SBJ'. Hence, why on the 13th August 1985, when DS Jones handed Cook the silencer which cook in turn took to the Lab' at Huntingdon, he assumed it was the silencer that Jones had taken from the crime scene on the first morning of the investigation. Also bear in mind, that once the crime scene had been handed over by senior Officers and HQ SOCO at 10.00am, that DC Hammersley was the exhibits officer, and DS Jones should not have taken any exhibits from the scene on that occasion. We know with certainty, that DS Jones took possession of four unique exhibits (SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2, and SBJ/1), yet there is no other information concerning when he could have seized these from the scene, other than the date of 7th August 1985. It is also known, that DS Jones took a photograph inside the downstairs toilet and captured amongst other things, Anthony Pargeters guns, including his .22 bolt action rifle, and silencer! By some odd coincidence, that photograph has been mysteriously destroyed, paving the way prior to the COLP investigation, for Anthony Pargeter to claim that his rifle and silencer were not present at the scene at the time of the shooting incidents... This is written in Ron Cooks Colp statements.

All Comments in red, are my response to matters stated...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48622
Re: Mystery Stan Jones witness statement
« Reply #35 on: March 26, 2020, 06:09:PM »
Yes.



The reference to the silencer (DRB/1) shown to DI Cook by COLP, as part of their enquiry, could not have been the very same silencer (SJ/1) that DS Jones handed to Cook on the 13th August 1985. All that can be said concerning why the exhibit reference which Cook gave to the silencer (SJ/1) at the Lab' on that day, eventually became retrospectively referred to as exhibit reference 'SBJ/1', was / is because Cook did not realise on the 13th August 1985, that DS Stanley Jones, had a middle Christian name, of 'Brian'...

The silencer found by David Boutflour at the scene on the 10th August 1985, was subsequently given the identifying mark of 'DB/1', which was sent for examination to the lab' for the very first time on the 30th August 1985. It was inside this silencer (DB/1) that blood group activity was found at the lab' on the 12th, 13th, 18th, and the 19th September 1985. This silencer could not have been either the silencer bearing the identifying mark of SJ/1 - SBJ/1, or DRB/1 because the silencer bearing the identifying mark DRB/1 was not found by David Boutflour until the 11th September 1985, which his sister Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985. How could David Boutflour and Ann Eaton hand over a silencer to police on the 11th September 1985, if there was only ever the one silencer, and police had already sent it to the Lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August 1985. This silencer (DRB/1) which was found by David Boutflour on the 11th September 1985, which Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakey on the same day, did not get submitted to the Lab' at Huntingdon until the 20th September 1985. Between 11th and the 20th September 1985, DS Eastwood and DS Davison (HQ SOCO) fingerprinted 'DRB/1' at police headquarters. How could the other silencer 'DB/1' have been back with the police in Essex on the 13th September 1985, on it was being tested for blood group activity at the Lab' in Huntingdon from the exact same day, onwards? Furthermore, because Silencer 'DRB/1' did not get sent to the Lab' until thge 20th September 1985, it is emphatically impossible for that silencer to have been the one inside which blood group activity attributed as belonging to Sheila Caffell was found beforehand...

We therefore, have one silencer (DB/1) that was sent by police to the Lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August 1985, which by the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, blood group activity was found, detected and analysed associated to it, at Huntingdon Lab' - Bear in mind, please that silencer DB/1 was not exhibited during the trial, but the other silencer (DRB/1) was...


Also bear in mind that relatives had possession of the silencer 'DRB/1' before the first photographs which show scratch marks on the red painted aga were taken (14th September 1985) despite no such scratch marks being present there a month earlier when crime scene photographs were taken in the kitchen by two teams of SOCO, one team from HQ, and a second team of SOCO from Witham police station..

It is almost certain that ingrained red paint was found to be present on the silencer (DRB/1) when on the 1st October 1985, it was eventually examined. But any blood group activity belonged to one of the other two silencers (DB/1).

The other two silencers (SBJ/1 or SJ/1 - and DB/1), were the two silencers which a police motorcycle rider collected from relatives and brought to the court on the first day of Jeremy Bambers trial...

Exhibit 9, the silencer (DRB/1) was a piece of fabricated evidence, which had blood group activity attributed to it when it was an impossibility to have had the identified blood from the other silencer (DB/1), on occasions prior to it (DRB/1) ever arriving at the Lab' where the tests had been completed earlier ...

How did two of the silencers (SJ/1 - SBJ/1 and DB/1) end up back in the possession of the relatives before the trial had even begun?

Also contemplate the following...

What happened to the missing grey coloured hair that was supposedly stuck onto the end of the silencer (DB/1) found by David Boutflour at the scene on the 10th August 1985? Also, the elongated scratch mark along the outer length of the silencers outer casing?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...