Author Topic: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign  (Read 1209 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43603
Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
« Reply #30 on: June 07, 2020, 04:47:PM »
It was the DNA which mattered most in the 2002 appeal in which there was found to be both male and female DNA inside the baffle plates. The female DNA was a match for June but so far as I know, the male DNA wasn't named----though it wasn't JB's.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8455
Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
« Reply #31 on: June 07, 2020, 05:51:PM »
On 29 April 1986 at 11:30 am a sound moderator was examined by forensic scientist Glynis Howard and Detective Inspector Ronald Cook.  A diagram was drawn by them to indicate the location of an additional blood group discovered in the sound moderator, on the fourth and/or fifth baffle plates . This diagram can be viewed at http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.15.html diagram 14, the diagram is at the bottom of the page.
                                 

The blood group discovered (EAP  BA  HP2) exactly matches that of David Boutflour and Pamela Boutflour and not any of the deceased. The 1986 Jury were not advised of the discovery of this second blood group inside a sound moderator.

The question of course is, how did blood belonging to either of those two individuals come to be found inside the sound moderator unless it was planted there deliberately?

 
Based on the physical appearance of the sound moderator examined on 29 April 1986 it was not a Parker-Hale sound moderator at all because the drawing lacks the central groove found on Parker-Hale silencers. Scientific results pertaining to it would later be merged with the genuine Parker-Hale sound moderator to make a composite exhibit used in Court to bring about the conviction of Jeremy Bamber.

It seems that DI Ron Cook remained puzzled by the origin of blood inside a silencer right up until the start of the trial. Cook created ‘Action 1627’ on 19 September 1986. With the Trial just weeks away, DI Cook asked for blood samples to be taken from relatives Robert and David Boutflour and David and Christine (Ann) Eaton, for the purpose “to prove the origin of the sample inside the silencer". Why he would do this if the blood inside the silencer had been identified as belonging to Sheila Caffell in August 1985 is a mystery. Clearly, Cook had suspicions that there was blood in a silencer that did not belong to Sheila. Therefore, it would appear that the Boutflour family contributed at least two drops of blood inside one or more silencers in an attempt to frame Jeremy Bamber, one sample coming from Robert Boutflour and one from either David or Pamela Boutflour. My money would be on David.

What does this have to do with two silencers?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43603
Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
« Reply #32 on: June 07, 2020, 06:57:PM »
I thought there were supposed to have been 3 silencers in the 2002 appeal ?

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48707
Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
« Reply #33 on: June 08, 2020, 04:22:AM »
I thought there were supposed to have been 3 silencers in the 2002 appeal ?

Actually, a total of five different silencers

(1) Bamber owned Parker Hale silencer
(2) Pargeter owned Parker Hale silencer
(3) D Boutflour owned silencer
(4) RW Boutflour owned silencer
(5) Peter Eaton owned silencer

For the purpose of simplicity, I should add that silencers (1) and (2) became interchangeable in so far as the scientific examination of one or other. The other two/three silencers (3), (4) and (5) were used in Lab' experimentation, two of which were produced to the court at the commencement of Jeremy's trial!

The two silencers produced at court at the start of Jeremy Bamber trial belonged to (4) RW Boutflour and his son, (3) David Boutflour
« Last Edit: June 08, 2020, 11:49:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Bill Robertson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
« Reply #34 on: June 08, 2020, 04:23:AM »
What does this have to do with two silencers?
On 29 April 1986 a silencer was identified as having blood on the 4th or 5th baffle plates that did not match the blood group of Sheila Caffell, but did match the blood group of David or Pamela Boutflour. This surely implies that the police were in possession of at least two silencers?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8455
Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
« Reply #35 on: June 08, 2020, 04:32:AM »
On 29 April 1986 a silencer was identified as having blood on the 4th or 5th baffle plates that did not match the blood group of Sheila Caffell, but did match the blood group of David or Pamela Boutflour. This surely implies that the police were in possession of at least two silencers?

They found traces of blood going down to the 6th baffle plate in September 1985. So no.

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11136
Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
« Reply #36 on: June 08, 2020, 06:34:AM »
They found traces of blood going down to the 6th baffle plate in September 1985. So no.

What exactly does this mean? You need to flesh your answers out a bit.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43603
Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
« Reply #37 on: June 08, 2020, 11:49:AM »
Which means, as I've already mentioned before, that because the baffles had been removed, they weren't put back in the order that they were removed.
If this procedure was the cause of RWB's " injured " finger then it would also account for his blood being found which was a perfect match for Sheila's.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48707
Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
« Reply #38 on: June 08, 2020, 11:57:AM »
Actually, a total of five different silencers

(1) Bamber owned Parker Hale silencer
(2) Pargeter owned Parker Hale silencer
(3) D Boutflour owned silencer
(4) RW Boutflour owned silencer
(5) Peter Eaton owned silencer

For the purpose of simplicity, I should add that silencers (1) and (2) became interchangeable in so far as the scientific examination of one or other. The other two/three silencers (3), (4) and (5) were used in Lab' experimentation, two of which were produced to the court at the commencement of Jeremy's trial!

The two silencers produced at court at the start of Jeremy Bamber trial belonged to (4) RW Boutflour and his son, (3) David Boutflour

There has clearly been some sort of collusion between relatives, police and lab' experts to promote the false premis that 'there was / is only one sound moderator / silencer in this investigation' (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, AE/1, CAE/1, and DRB/1)..

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

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8455
Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
« Reply #39 on: June 08, 2020, 07:10:PM »
What exactly does this mean? You need to flesh your answers out a bit.

What else do I need to add?  :-\

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48707
Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
« Reply #40 on: June 08, 2020, 11:03:PM »
There has clearly been some sort of collusion between relatives, police and lab' experts to promote the false premis that 'there was / is only one sound moderator / silencer in this investigation' (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, AE/1, CAE/1, and DRB/1)..

Please, how many times did police and the lab make so many repeated mistakes in altering the exhibit reference to the so called solitary sound Moderator/silencer?

I don't buy into such a fictional tale!

Let's get the facts right, and list all the various exhibit references attributed to 'the sound moderator/ silencer' in sequential order..

SBJ/1 (Stan Jones retrieves 'it' from scene on morning of 7th August 1985)

SJ/1 (sound moderator/ silencer handed to Stan Jones by 'Peter Eaton' on evening of 12th August 1985, and allegedly taken to Huntington Lab' on 13th August 1985, examined by  )

DB/1 (resubmitted to Huntingdon Lab' by Essex police, on 30th August 1985)

AE/1 (the sound moderator/silencer handed over to Essex police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985)

CAE/1 (confirmation that Ann Eaton handed over this sound moderator / silencer to Essex Police on 11th September  1985)

DRB/1 ( sound moderator/ silencer, sent to lab' at Huntington on 20th August 1985)
« Last Edit: June 08, 2020, 11:44:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48707
Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
« Reply #41 on: June 08, 2020, 11:47:PM »
Five consecutive alterations to the exhibit references to an alleged alteration to the exhibit reference of the sound moderator/silencer in sequential order, unacceptable, and dishonest!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
« Reply #42 on: June 09, 2020, 07:50:PM »
Can some one confirm ( sorry have been busy with other matters) a quick sum up of the decision was , they did not say the evidence did not exist , but that even if it did show two silencers it would not affect the case ?

Or did I get that wrong ?

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
« Reply #43 on: June 09, 2020, 07:58:PM »
But surely if two silencers were misrepresented as one it is relevant ? Because someone somewhere was presenting misleading facts that were put before a jury ? Especially as it was really the only evidence that convicted him? The rest was circumstantial and supposition.

I just don’t understand the ruling ?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8455
Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2020, 09:53:PM »
But surely if two silencers were misrepresented as one it is relevant ? Because someone somewhere was presenting misleading facts that were put before a jury ? Especially as it was really the only evidence that convicted him? The rest was circumstantial and supposition.

I just don’t understand the ruling ?

"At [15] he said the value to the prosecution of the moderator was drawn from the
evidence of John Hayward that, first, it had paint on it (from a fight with Nevill
Bamber) and Sheila Caffell’s blood in it (from when she was shot). Second, Sheila
Caffell could not have shot herself with the silencer attached to the gun. Saini J said
that this conclusions were not weakened by the presence of a second moderator (if
there were one)."


So, like Saini J, I am unable to say that the CPS erred in law in refusing to make the
disclosure sought. Like him, I am not on the material I have seen readily able to accept
the premise that the existence of a second sound moderator is capable of affecting the
safety of the Claimant’s convictions in any meaningful way, notwithstanding what Mr
Ferguson said in May 2018. The facts are that the moderator which was found had Ms
Caffell’s blood in it, and she could not have shot herself when the sound moderator was
attached to the rifle. I acknowledge Mr Boyce’s expertise and the detail in his report,
but it needs to be evaluated against the whole corpus of evidence that has been
gathered in this case. As I have said, the Court is handicapped in doing that.