Author Topic: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-  (Read 3500 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
(Doc P31) Telephone Message Log 38, 11th September 1985 reads:
‘David Boutflour has found a silencer with blood on it’


You would need to claim that this entry is mistaken and also the other documents produced by several officers, but how likely is that?


A message is dated 11th September 1985. It does not state explicitly that the silencer was found on that particular day.

If I found something in January then I tell someone in February about this. That does not mean I found the item in February.

There are several reports referring to a silencer collected by DC Oakey from Ann Eaton on September 11th 1985. Suggesting that all of these are mistakes is merely absurd. This silencer is referred to by DS Davidson on September 13th.

(Doc P34) Action Report 181 allocated to DS Davidson, 13th September 1985: “Examine the following for blood fibres and finger prints. 2/ cardboard box containing silencer and ammunition. 3/ Check silencer for fibres”



Once agiain this is a gross misinterpretation. This was the cardboard box that contained the silencer that David Boutflour found it in the month before. The silencer being checked for fibers is the one found in August.

Robert Boutflour tells Barlow on the 30th of August that he thinks Jeremy had used Sheila's tampons to clean blood out of the silencer. Thus the police already knew and had the silencer before the date of this alleged discovery on september the 11th. Robert Boutflours tampon theory is the reason why they are checkig it for fibers in the first place.

Also what is very important about this is that Robert Boutflour is insinuating to Barlow that there is blood to be discovered inside the silencer, BEFORE the lab disovered this blood inside. I will let you draw your own clonclusions of how he was so clairvoyant about this.


"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497

In this post from a while back you edited what Davidson wrote to try to make out that he was only talking about an empty box. You removed the sentence (3) "Check silencer for fibres."

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9536.msg442721.html#msg442721
I am reading it carefully.


I did not edit anything. I quoted point 2 from that action report verbatim. I did not quote point 3 for the same reason I did not quote point 1. Are you going to accuse me of "editing" because I didnt quote point 1 also?

All those points are numbered and sepereated by blank spaces. As for point one are you saying this ammo by the phone was not found until september also?
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47363
The silencer (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) which Ann Eaton gave to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985, wasn't reference to the silencer (DB/1) supposedly sent to the Lab' by Essex police on 30th August 1985 - how could it have been if Ann Eaton and the relatives still had possession of 'it' some 13 days after they had no right to be in possession of 'it? Moreover, if it had been reference to the same silencer (where DB/1 and AE/1, CAE/1 and DRB/1) were in fact one and the same silencer, how could DS Eastwood and DS Davison still have possession of 'it' on 13th September 1985 to fingerprint 'it', and then how could Essex police then submit 'it' to the Lab' at Huntingdon on the 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibers, if the silencer was already at the Lab' where 'it' had been deposited as long ago as the 30th August 1985? It would be impossible to fit in all the now known facts regarding the handing over of the second silencer by Ann Eaton to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985, the fingerprinting of 'it' by DS Eastwood and DS Davison on 13th September 1985, it's submission to the Lab' on 20th September 1985 to be checked amongst other things for blood, when on the other version of the so called truth, the silencer had already been checked for blood by the 12th September 1985, the finding of the key blood group evidence over a 4 day period between 12th, 13th, 18th and the 19th September 1985 when the second silencer didn't even get examined and checked for the presence of blood until (25th September 1985) long after blood had supposedly already been found itside it at the Lab' by 12th September 1985, by which stage the second silencer wasn't even present at the Lab', and therefore no blood whatsoever could have been found either upon it or inside it at the Lab' by that date, unless by means of futuristic teleportation methods not yet fathomed out by ordinary members of the public, but to which the likes of Essex police, the relatives, and experts working at Huntingdon Laboratory appear to have a working Command of the processes required to pull off such an astonishing magicians trick..
« Last Edit: November 23, 2018, 12:48:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
The silencer (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) which Ann Eaton gave to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985, wasn't reference to the silencer (DB/1) supposedly sent to the Lab' by Essex police on 30th August 1985 - how could it have been if Ann Eaton and the relatives still had possession of 'it' some 13 days after they had no right to be in possession of 'it? Moreover, if it had been reference to the same silencer (where DB/1 and AE/1, CAE/1 and DRB/1) were in fact one and the same silencer, how could DS Eastwood and DS Davison still have possession of 'it' on 13th September 1985 to fingerprint 'it', and then how could Essex police then submit 'it' to the Lab' at Huntingdon on the 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibers, if the silencer was already at the Lab' where 'it' had been deposited as long ago as the 30th August 1985? It would be impossible to fit in all the now known facts regarding the handing over of the second silencer by Ann Eaton to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985, the fingerprinting of 'it' by DS Eastwood and DS Davison on 13th September 1985, it's submission to the Lab' on 20th September 1985 to be checked amongst other things for blood, when on the other version of the so called truth, the silencer had already been checked for blood by the 12th September 1985, the finding of the key blood group evidence over a 4 day period between 12th, 13th, 18th and the 19th September 1985 when the second silencer didn't even get examined and checked for the presence of blood until (25th September 1985) long after blood had supposedly already been found itside it at the Lab' by 12th September 1985, by which stage the second silencer wasn't even present at the Lab', and therefore no blood whatsoever could have been found either upon it or inside it at the Lab' by that date, unless by means of futuristic teleportation methods not yet fathomed out by ordinary members of the public, but to which the likes of Essex police, the relatives, and experts working at Huntingdon Laboratory appear to have a working Command of the processes required to pull off such an astonishing magicians trick..


AE/1 is the cardboard box DRB/2
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47363

AE/1 is the cardboard box DRB/2

No, AE/1, is CAE/1, is DRB/1..

Matters get complicated when cops make exhibit AE/1 into exhibit  DRB/2, when if the truth be known , Ann Eaton handed over exhibits, AE/1, CAE/1 DRB/1, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4 to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985.

The Silencer was DRB/1, found in the box DRB/2, AE/1 was the silencer from the box DRB/2, your document doesn't say that exhibit AE/1 was the box you reference to as exhibit DRB/2, what you have posted up, are handwritten notes compiled by PI Miller where he is asking DC Oakey to alter all references to AE/1 in his witness statement to DRB/2, because Essex police are trying to conceal the fact that Ann Eaton handed over the silencer DRB/1 to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, AE/1 being an alternative exhibit reference from that silencer, in the same way that exhibit reference CAE/1 was (to the same silencer)!
« Last Edit: November 23, 2018, 10:32:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
No, AE/1, is CAE/1, is DRB/1..

Matters get complicated when cops make exhibit AE/1 into exhibit  DRB/2, when if the truth be known , Ann Eaton handed over exhibits, AE/1, CAE/1 DRB/1, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4 to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985.


AE/1 is a cardboard box!
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
No, AE/1, is CAE/1, is DRB/1..

Matters get complicated when cops make exhibit AE/1 into exhibit  DRB/2, when if the truth be known , Ann Eaton handed over exhibits, AE/1, CAE/1 DRB/1, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4 to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985.


Mike. With all due respect.

1. AE and RWB knew the silencer scratched the mantle, before the lab confirmed it. RWB is insinuating that there is blood to be found inside it before it is actually discovered. They knew this because they had created this "evidence"

2. Three ballistic experts from the states have expressed the view that no silencer was attached on the gun when Sheila was shot. These expert reports remain unchallenegd.

3. There are no debris of paint under the AGA in the origional crime scene photos.

4. Nicholas suffered two contact wounds yet none of his blood was inside the silencer.

5. Jeremy claims to have left the gun in the house with no silencer attached, the above four points corroborate his statement.


So what more do you need? It is not necessary to nit pick the lab paperwork to try and establish something that can and has already been established.

There is nothing left to do.

« Last Edit: November 23, 2018, 07:28:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10808

Mike. With all due respect.

1. AE and RWB knew the silencer scratched the mantle, before the lab confirmed it. RWB is insinuating that there is blood to be found inside it before it is actually discovered. They knew this because they had created this "evidence"

2. Three ballistic experts from the states have expressed the view that no silencer was attached on the gun when Sheila was shot. These expert reports remain unchallenegd.

3. There are no debris of paint under the AGA in the origional crime scene photos.

4. Nicholas suffered two contact wounds yet none of his blood was inside the silencer.

5. Jeremy claims to have left the gun in the house with no silencer attached, the above four points corroborate his statement.


So what more do you need? It is not necessary to nit pick the lab paperwork to try and establish something that can and has already been established.

There is nothing left to do.

1) Maybe AE and RWB were the two surviving people who knew the layout of White House Farm the best.

2) This has been dismissed as speculation by the CCRC. I also bow to the superior knowledge expressed by a former member here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6658.0

3) Given that the carpets were trampled on by 43 police officers the evidence may well have been destroyed.

4) This is false because the AK1 enzyme was found inside the silencer, ruling out June Bamber only.

5) Silencers can be screwed on and unscrewed, and even if the evidence pertaining to the silencer is false this does not automatically exculpate Jeremy Bamber from the heinous crimes.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2018, 08:19:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47363
No, AE/1, is CAE/1, is DRB/1..

Matters get complicated when cops make exhibit AE/1 into exhibit  DRB/2, when if the truth be known , Ann Eaton handed over exhibits, AE/1, CAE/1 DRB/1, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4 to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985.

Things got even more complicated when DC Oakey, made one or more of the exhibits which had been DRB2, DRB/3 or DRB/4, into exhibits HGO/1(a) and or HGO/1(b)...

All the DRB exhibits (1, 2, 3 and 4) came into the evidence on the 11th September 1985, when Ann Eaton handed them over to DC Oakey at whf, because by that point her husband Peter Eaton had be given the role of farm manager, and the Eaton's and Boutflours had the run of the mill insofar as access to the contents of whf. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the relatives in the form of Dave Boutflour may have found the silencers ( including DRB/1) in the cupboard in the den at the scene in August 1985, but for one reason or another they held on to one of these, which Ann Eaton did not hand over to DC Oakey until the 11th September 1985!
« Last Edit: November 23, 2018, 10:41:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23428
You know very well that Robert Boutflour's recollection of the fingerprint dust when the silencer was found is not the only evidence that a silencer was found by David Boutflour at some date later than August 10th 1985.

Several police documents recording the finding of a silencer have been posted on this forum. You are going to have to claim that David Boutflour found a second silencer to escape the conclusion that the alleged finding on August 10th is a fiction.

Even if Robert Boutflour just invented the observation of fingerprint dust out of thin air, there is other compelling evidence that DB found a silencer on or just before September 11th. It's recorded in the telephone message log.

(Doc P31) Telephone Message Log 38, 11th September 1985 reads:
‘David Boutflour has found a silencer with blood on it’




You would need to claim that this entry is mistaken and also the other documents produced by several officers, but how likely is that?

You're suggesting that the log entry means that the silencer wasn't found with blood on it - however, read it again, it could also mean that it wasn't double packed in polythene.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47363

Mike. With all due respect.

1. AE and RWB knew the silencer scratched the mantle, before the lab confirmed it. you forgot to make mention of the red paint which had been found ingrained onto the end of a guns barrel, as alluded to by DS Davidson in his COLP interview which resulted on and handed to Davidson at the scene on the second morning of the police investigation (8th August 1985) Cook handing Davidson a paint sample ( RC/1) which Cook took from the kitchen mantlepiece! So, any original scratch marks may have been made by the barrel end of a gun scratching the kitchen mantlepiece, and not a silencer at all, at least not until the 14th September 1985, when David Boutflour, Ann Eaton and DC Oakey attended the kitchen at the scene and took the first photographs of the scratched mantlepiece...RWB is insinuating that there is blood to be found inside it before it is actually discovered. Similarly, blood was supposedly found inside silencer DRB/1 at the Lab' on 12 September 1985, blood which went on to be analysed and which produced the four blood groups (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) despite the fact that the silencer (DRB/1) had't even been taken to the Lab' by that stage, and which remain firmly under the control of the police until the 20th September 1985, and even then this particular silencer did not actually get examined until the 25 the September 1985, and so it must be obvious that the blood group activity which was said to belong uniquely to Sheila Caffell could not have been found inside the silencer at all!They knew this because they had created this "evidence" I would seek to make the distinction between someone deliberately putting Sheila's blood inside the silencer, as opposed to what really did happen, insofar as the experts at the Lab' saying that Sheila's blood was found to be present inside the silencer!, When it could not possibly have been true for all the reasons given!

2. Three ballistic experts from the states have expressed the view that no silencer was attached on the gun when Sheila was shot. Smith and Mallinson 2003/2004, expressed an opinion that a silencer may have been fitted to the end of the guns barrel which fired the first shot across Sheila's neck. They relied upon an abrasion impression around the non fatal bullet entry wound to Sheila's neck which had the dimensions / diameter as the muzzle end of a silencer, and they also relied on a series of range patterns where a duplicate semi automatic anshuzt rifle had bullets fired from it onto target paper at different distances from the target paper, when enabled the using a microscope to look at the residue upon and around the bullet entry holes, both with and without a 17 baffled Parker Hale silencer fitted at the time of the test firing experiment, and they concluded that a silencer had been used on the barrel of the weapon which had inflicted the first shot, but not the second shot! I remember them visiting Ewen Smith with me and giving him their professional opinion regarding this, and Ewen reacting to what he was being told by shrugging his shoulders and saying something along the lines, well, that puts paid to any notion Jeremy had got saying if the silencer was on the gun when she had been shot, there was a good chance her blood had got into the silencer at that point after all... These expert reports remain unchallenegd. I think the Smith / Mallinson analysis got forwarded to the CCRC by Ewen Smith who was applying to become a CCRC Commissioner at that time, so I doubt that the opinions of the two American Ballistic experts remains unchallenged! What I also remember at the time, was that the circular abrasion mark that you can just about see if you look closely enough at the lower entry wound on Sheila's neck was not replicated on any other bullet entry wounds inflicted on the other victims. In other words, it appeared to be a unique mark to the first wound in Sheila's neck.As far as I was led to believe a silencer had been on the gun at the time of the first shot, but not at the time of the second shot! I remember being struck by this anomaly as potentially working in Jeremy's favour at the time, solely on it providing an explanation for how Sheila's blood could have got into the silencer, and I toyed with the idea that at some point in-between both shots having been fired, the silencer had been or got removed from the gun altogether, or that there was another rifle with a silencer on which had been used to inflict the first non fatal shot across her neck, and the unsilencered anshuzt rifle which had fired the fatal shot which had actually killed her! Not surprisingly, Jeremy wasn't as enthusiastic with regard to suggesting that the silencer was used in one of the two shots inflicted to Sheila's throat. But to me, I realised that if it was true, then it would put paid to the suggestion that Sheila had taken her own life. How could she have, and the two shots had been fired in quick succession to one another, and she fall back clutching the unsilencered anshuzt rifle, with no silencer to be found anywhere near her body on the main bedroom floor? Not even a second rifle there or thereabouts with a silencer fitted onto the end of its barrel..

3. There are no debris of paint under the AGA in the origional crime scene photos. Yes, I am aware of the work that Mr Sutherst has done..

4. Nicholas suffered two contact wounds yet none of his blood was inside the silencer. don't overlook the fact either, that Nicholas was shot in the head a total of three times, but that only Two bullets were recovered during autopsy, a third bullet remained unrecovered, a fact which impacts upon the total number of shots fired (26), bullets (26) but only 25 recovered and spent cartridge cases(25) with no concern show by the police to locate the 26th spent cartridge case that must have been known about...

5. Jeremy claims to have left the gun in the house with no silencer attached, yes, but by the same token, Jeremy also claimed that Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle with its silencer screwed onto the end of its barrel was also present at the scene at the time of the tragedy. Whereas, Pargeter denies this, claiming that he had taken his .22 rifle home on the penultimate week-end beforehand! I believe Jeremy's explanation regarding the state and condition of both of these .22 rifles, the one he had handled he left on a settle which was located just outside an inner kitchen doorway and that Anthony Pargeters rifle and silencer were kept in storage in the downstairs bathroom.. the above four points corroborate his statement.


So what more do you need? It is not necessary to nit pick the lab paperwork to try and establish something that can and has already been established. I disagree, and I don't put it down to nit picking, since everything has to be documented before it is even taken to a Lab', and everything is documented once an item arrives at the lab, evidence of this nature is necessary to try and ensure the integrity and the continuity of each piece of evidence, but in this particular case, it becomes clear that somebody has gone to a lot of trouble to try and hide the truth not only that there appears to have been widespread tampering with key exhibits, but that between themselves they have referred to key exhibits like the silencer using a multitude of different and conflicting exhibit references and then merged all of them, as one and the same silencer, here, there, and everywhere!!

There is nothing left to do.I disagree, there's still plenty to do..
« Last Edit: November 24, 2018, 12:05:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
1) Maybe AE and RWB were the two surviving people who knew the layout of White House Farm the best.

That does not explain how they knew things that could only later be established in with laboratory apparatus.

2) This has been dismissed as speculation by the CCRC.

No it has not. Stop making things up.


3) Given that the carpets were trampled on by 43 police officers the evidence may well have been destroyed.

Since when does trampling a carpet clean it?


4) This is false because the AK1 enzyme was found inside the silencer, ruling out June Bamber only.


The blood in silencer was: A, PGM+1, EAP BA, AK 1, Hp 2-1

The twins have blood group 0 not A 
The twins have PGM 2+1+ not PGM+1
The twins have Hp 2 not HP 2-1

5) Silencers can be screwed on and unscrewed, and even if the evidence pertaining to the silencer is false this does not automatically exculpate Jeremy Bamber from the heinous crimes.

His conviction rests purely on it.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181

A message is dated 11th September 1985. It does not state explicitly that the silencer was found on that particular day.

If I found something in January then I tell someone in February about this. That does not mean I found the item in February.

Any old excuse will do! You avoid the conclusion that David Boutflour found a silencer in September by suggesting that he made the call a month or so after finding it.

You seem to have forgotten that the relatives are supposed to have made such a call straight after the alleged finding on August 10. There is no record of any such call. When asked who made it, Ann Eaton said "It was probably me." 


(Doc P31) Telephone Message Log 38, 11th September 1985 reads:
‘David Boutflour states he found a silencer with blood on it’



Two questions.

1 Why would there be such a reference in the telephone message log made on September 11th of a call which had been made a month before, assuming Ann Eaton was mistaken about who made it?

 2 Or, alternatively why would David Boutflour phone on September 11th to report finding a silencer after it had already been reported by Ann Eaton on August 10th and supposedly had already been collected by Stan Jones as early as August 12th?
 
« Last Edit: November 24, 2018, 06:57:AM by Harry »

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181

Mike. With all due respect.

1. AE and RWB knew the silencer scratched the mantle, before the lab confirmed it. RWB is insinuating that there is blood to be found inside it before it is actually discovered. They knew this because they had created this "evidence"

That reasoning is based on not having figured out the nature of the conspiracy. It was the police who decided to frame Bamber by faking the silencer evidence, but they wanted it to look like the relatives found the evidence and to look like the relatives were trying to get the police to listen to their theories.

So all of those anecdotes with the relatives noticing things first are phoney. Stan Jones was not only getting them to sign fraudulent statements, but even to do things like make fake diary entries.

So what you get are fake stories like Robert Boutflour telling us that Stan Jones was surprised to hear that the relatives had found a silencer and that he exclaimed "What silencer?".

The truth is that the police had already found a silencer on August 7th. The relatives knew that, but were told to suppress that knowledge and to pretend that they found the silencer on August 10.

I believe Mike has a document which has been posted before showing that the police found a silencer in the gun cupboard and that this is dated August 7th.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2018, 03:26:AM by Harry »

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47363
That reasoning is based on not having figured of the nature of the conspiracy. It was the police who decided to frame Bamber by faking the silencer evidence, but they wanted it to look like the relatives found the evidence and to look like the relatives were trying to get the police to listen to their theories.

So all of those anecdotes with the relatives noticing things first are phoney. Stan Jones was not only getting them to sign fraudulent statements, but even to do things like make fake diary entries.

So what you get are fake stories like Robert Boutflour telling us that Stan Jones was surprised to hear that the relatives had found a silencer and that he exclaimed "What silencer?".

The truth is that the police had already found a silencer on August 7th. The relatives knew that, but were told to suppress that knowledge and to pretend that they found the silencer on August 10.

I believe Mike has a document which has been posted before showing that the police found a silencer in the gun cupboard and that this is dated August 7th.

Yes, the police originally had one of the two silencers from the first day of the police investigation, which was returned to the scene by the evening of 9th August 1985, because police were satisfied by that stage that there had been no silencer attached to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle, a fact confirmed by Jones and Jones who stated that Jeremy had confirmed that there wasn't a silencer fitted on to the end of the anshuzt rifles barrel when Jeremy had last handled the gun which he told them had been on the evening before the shooting tragedy occurred. I think that Jones handed the Pargeter rifle and it's silencer over to Peter Eaton at the scene on that Friday evening (9th August 1985) because Ann Eaton makes mention in one of her scribbled notes that her husband had put the gun back at the scene on that particular evening! On the following day (10th August 1985) David Boutflour must have recovered two silencers from inside the gun cupboard, namely the one belonging to Anthony Pargeters bolt action rifle, and the other belonging to the Bamber owned anshuzt rifle. Peter Eaton wasn't present at whf on the day David Boutflour found the two silencers, but he was present in his own kitchen when his wife Ann and David Boutflour returned to the Eaton's residence and by that stage I feel sure that his sister Ann Eaton would already have told David Boutflour that police had already taken possession of one of the silencers, and that they had returned it back to the farm on the previous day and given it to Peter her husband to put back inside the gun cupboard. Hence why on the afternoon of 12th August 1985 Robert Boutflour had spoken to PI Miller and DS Jones at Witham police station and told them that his son had found the silencer to the other gun (the one belonging to the anshuzt rifle), and why DS Jones had commented by saying 'What silencer'? He made that exclamation because he hadn't known of the existence of a second silencer, hence why later that evening DS Jones paid Peter Eaton a visit to collect the second silencer! Jones wanted to make sure that it wasn't the same silencer he had seized earlier, and given back to the family. The other silencer was kept by the Eaton's and Boutflours, and eventually handed it over to police again on the 11th September 1985, when Ann Eaton handed it to DC Oakey! On that same date, David Boutflour contacted police by telephone to tell them that he had found the silencer to the anshuzt rifle, and he subsequently made a statement saying how he had originally found both silencers a month previously inside the same gun cupboard!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...