Author Topic: Jury question - was the blood in the silencer a mixture of parents bloods?  (Read 204 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38976
Once you become aware of the true facts surrounding the killing of Sheila Caffell, it doesn't matter whether or not the blood group evidence from the silencer belonged to an intimate mixture of the parents bloods, or even if it was unique to Sheila Caffell! It doesn't even matter who unscrewed the silencer (if one was fitted), or who concealed it, and when in the gun cupboard! That person cannot have been poor Jeremy Bamber!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38976
Once you become aware of the true facts surrounding the killing of Sheila Caffell, it doesn't matter whether or not the blood group evidence from the silencer belonged to an intimate mixture of the parents bloods, or even if it was unique to Sheila Caffell! It doesn't even matter who unscrewed the silencer (if one was fitted), or who concealed it, and when in the gun cupboard! That person cannot have been poor Jeremy Bamber!

For the record - DS 'Stan' Jones returned the silencer to the farmhouse on evening of 9 August 1985, when he and DCI 'Taff' Jones returned the keys of the farmhouse to Ann Eaton! I do not need to repeat everything I know about 'that' silencer, it's all meaningless, once you know that cops shot Sheila! The evidence proving this is all there, Sheila didn't shoot herself twice, how could she possibly have done that when one of the bullets (the original piece of badly fragmented PV/20 bullet) was fired from a cops gun? That can be proven and will be provable because they tampered with the crime scene ammunition as everyone is now well aware! You do not allow the cops to go tampering with bullets in a murder case, and convict somebody of a murder on the back of a piece of tampered with ammunition by claiming the same gun fired both shots! This poor guy Jeremy Bamber certainly did not shoot his sister once, let alone twice! How was it possible if a cop shot Sheila with his gun when he entered the kitchen?

And, a cop 'did' shoot Sheila with a bullet from his cop gun as he entered the kitchen! After he shot her, police passed a message that two bodies had been found, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, a murder, and a suicide (Neville and Sheila)!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38976
The backspatter explanation for how the blood got into the silencer is nothing but a red herring!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38976
The backspatter explanation for how the blood got into the silencer is nothing but a red herring!

Whether the blood was a mixture of the parents bloods, or unique to Sheila, or even if it included animals blood, is all irrelevant once you know that Sheila got shot once downstairs in the kitchen (7.35am) by a cops gun, and shot a second time upstairs in the bedroom (9.13am) by the family owned anshuzt rifle. As I say, there were two significant periods of deep unconsciousness which led police to mistakenly believe that she was dead, or had died! The first of these periods lasted between 7.35am and 8.10am, the second of these periods, lasted from 8.30am to 9.13 am! Two different SOCO teams examined the scene, the first (DC Oakey, and DC Henderson), performed these duties between 9am and 10 am, whilst senior officers conducted 'informatives', where the bodies of victims were moved from on top of the bed, to the floor, and the gun which had been brought from its original resting place at a box room window was moved around on the bed, placed at the bedroom window, and ending up on Sheila's body in time for the second team of SOCO (DI Cook, PC Bird, DS Davidson, DC Hammersley) to take control of the main bedroom scene once senior officers had 'staged' Sheila Caffells suicide on the bedroom floor! From 'that' point on photographs which were then taken was dishonestly used as showing the bodies and exhibits Insitu undisturbed from two and a half hours earlier!

A damn right lie!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38976
The presence of her blood groups inside the silencer was a formidable argument during the trial (1986), and the subsequent failed appeal (2002)! But close scrutiny of the evidence and by reference to police and Lab' documentation, it now appears that the courts were deceived into accepting the scientific argument that Sheila's blood in the form of a piece of dried flake had been found inside the silencer after 'its' resubmission to the lab' on 30th August 1985 under an exhibit reference of 'DB/1'..

In fact, no such silencer was sent or taken to the Lab at Huntingdon on that date! A flake of dried blood was...

The silencer (SJ/1) taken to Huntingdon Lab' on 13 August 1985, (lab' item number 22) by 'Ron' Cook and examined by Glennis Howard, was returned to Essex police the very same day, because Cook wanted to fingerprint it! Fingerprinting was performed upon the silencer on 15 August 1985 by oblique light test, and by Superglue treatment on 23 August 1985!

We now know that on 29 August 1985, whilst Cook still had possession of the aforementioned silencer, that he dismantled it, removing the screw theaded metal end cap, it's top washer, and the 17 internal used baffle plates! We know he did this because Cook took a series of photographs at the material time, confirming this!  Of particular significance was the fact that he separated the first five or six baffle plates so there was a gap between them, the remaining Elena or twelve baffles remained compact! If there had been any blood upon or between any of these separated baffles then 'Ron' Cook would have found 'it'. If there had been a loose flake of dried blood Cook would have found 'it'. But he does not report seeing or finding any such blood at all anywhere upon or between any of the baffle plates he separated on that occasion! He then rebuilt the silencer, replacing the 17 baffle plates back inside the silencers tubing, and once this was completed Cook screwed the rebuilt silencer directly onto the threaded end of the anshuzt rifles barrel. He took photographs of the whole of this procedure which in due course he sent along to the ballistic expert Malcolm Fletcher at the lab' for his attention!

According to the ballistic experts account after receiving the resubmitted silencer under an exhibit reference 'DB/1' (lab' item number 23), he allegedly dismantled it and upon doing so he discovered a flake of blood trapped between baffle plates one and two! He handed the flake to blood expert John Hayward who made a solution from the flake which was distributed into several pots for the purpose of carrying out checks for individual human blood group activity! These tests were in fact carried out on the different pots of solution on the flooring dates - 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985! In a rather haphazard manner neither of these pots filled with solution were given their own unique exhibit references!  Information received recently appears to confirm that a silencer was not resubmitted to the lab' under an exhibit reference of 'DB/1' (23) on the 30th August 1985, but that in fact a loose flake of blood was!

Close consideration of all the now available information confirms that David Boutflour admitted to the COLP investigators, that Essex police knew he had used a razor blade to scrape off a flake of blood from the silencer in his possession! This was given the exhibit reference of 'DB/1', (23), and this flake was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, not the silencer!

Linked to this, is the lack of information supplied by David Boutflour, Essex police, and the COLP investigators regarding when exactly and at what stage had David Boutflour tampered with the silencer and retained the aforementioned flake of blood? It seems almost certain that after Cook dismantled the silencer and rebuilt it on 29 August 1985, that police have the silencer back to the family! Indeed, Anthony Pargeter said in one version of his witness statement that David Boutflour had told him that the silencer David found in the gun cupboard had been handed back to the family by the police (a claim which David Boutflour denies ever having said)! Non the less, it now seems certain that police did indeed give the silencer back to the family either on, or soon after Cook had dismantled and rebuilt 'it'. Since, a resubmission of the silencer (SJ/1) under the guise of a different exhibit reference of 'DB/1' with a different lab' item number of 23, rather than 22, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! Exhibit 'DB/1' (23) was almost past the aforementioned flake of blood which David Boutflour scraped from the silencer once police had returned the silencer (SJ/1) 22 to the family!

My research has led to the discovery that the silencer (SJ/1) 22, which got taken to the lab' on 13 August 1985, did not get resubmitted back to Huntingdon Lab' until 20th September 1985! By this stage the silencer had a completely different exhibit reference number, namely it arrived there as 'AE/1', then became 'CAE/1', until the beginning of November 1985, when it became exhibit 'DRB/1'. There then existed a degree of confusion at the lab' because somebody had allocated a lab' item number of 23 to it, when originally under its guide as exhibit 'SJ/1', it was known as lab' item 22! The reference to the silencer on 13 August 1985, assumed the exhibit reference of 'SBJ/1', after the office manager (Police Inspector, 'Bob' Miller) realised that on the morning of the tragedy that DS 'Stan' Jones had returned to the farmhouse and taken possession of 'it' along with three other exhibits, which were originally referred to as exhibits, 'SBJ/4', 'SBJ/3', 'SBJ/2', and (the silencer) 'SBJ/1'. The silencer ('SBJ/1') was retained by DCI 'Taff' Jones on his desk in his office at Witham police station, until evening of 9th August 1985, at which point DS Jones returned it to the scene by covertly placing it in the cupboard known as the gun cupboard in the downstairs office (the den) when police handed the keys of the farmhouse back to Ann Eaton! Jones and Jones gave Ann Eaton a tour of the farmhouse on this occasion explaining to her where things had happened. This provides an ideal opportunity for 'Stan' Jones to slip the silencer into the cupboard! Hence, why on the following day (10th August 1985) David Boutflour was able to discover the aforementioned silencer, etc, etc, etc...

On the first morning of the tragedy 'Stan' Jones had returned to the scene just before lunch time from Jeremy's cottage, at a time when the second team of SOCO (Cook, Bird, Davidson and Hammersley) had got control of the crime scene. Hence, why 'Ron' Cook labelled the silencer which 'Stan' Jones handed to him on 13th August 1985, as 'SJ/1' as the finder of the silencer! Cook did not know that 'Stan' Jones had got a middle Christian name of 'Brian' in keeping with Cooks explanation regarding this which he gave to the COLP investigators! This explains the apparent mix up involving the silencer being referred to at different times by different people as 'SBJ/1', and 'SJ/1'..

My research into these matters, has also served to uncover a 'Conspiracy' involving Essex police, experts at Huntingdon Lab', relatives, and COLP, where an imaginary resubmission of the silencer under the guise of exhibit 'DB/1' (23) was introduced to try to  hide the fact that David Boutflour had physically tampered with the silencer by scraping the flake of blood from it, which led to the blood grouping results becoming obtained out of sequence, on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985! Out of sequence, because the silencer did not get resubmitted back to the lab' after 13th August 1975, until the 20th September 1985 (aforementioned)! The conspirators introduced the resubmission of the silencer as having occurred sooner than it actually had done, by claiming it occurred on 30 August 1985 in the guise of 'DB/1' (23), discarding the evidence that David Boutflour's flake had been submitted at all! Hence why there is so much confusion surrounding the exhibit references of the same silencer ('SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1', 'DRB/1'). The same silencer was given one or other of these exhibit references at different stages of the police investigations! They were very subtle how they morphed the silencer under the guise of 'DB/1' (23) claiming it had been resubmitted to the lab' on 30th August 1985, when in fact it had not been, exhibit 'DB/1' (23) on 'that' occasion was David Boutflour's flake of blood! This was why the blood expert John Hayward and his team were able to obtain individual blood group activity at the lab' on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, before the silencer arrived back at the lab' (20 September 1985)..

The cops, relatives, and experts at the lab' were very clever in trying to cover their tracks, but unfortunately for them I have uncovered and reconstructed exactly what they have done and did! I am a self confessed 'genious'!!

What we now know for example, is that on 11th September 1985 Ann Eaton handed the silencer in question back to DC Oakey! At this stage, the silencer had been handed about from pillar to post, been tampered with, and returned to the relatives after 29th August 1985! At this particular stage, 'its' exhibit reference was 'AE/1'. It would later become 'CAE/1', and then in turn 'it' became 'DRB/1' (23) 22...

They went about trying to cover their tracks by intermingling exhibit references to 'this' silencer, and other items of evidential value which Ann Eaton had also handed to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985, for example, 'AE/1, 'AE/2', 'AE/3', and 'AE/4', eventually became, 'CAE/1', 'CAE/2', 'CAE/3', and 'CAE/4', followed by 'DRB/1', 'DRB/2', 'DRB/3', and 'DRB/4'..

To complicate matters even further, DC Oakey got in on the act, and most of the items, aforementioned, ended up becoming exhibits 'HGO/1', 'HGO/1(a)', 'HGO/2', and 'HGO/3', etc, etc, etc...

The silencer handed back to police on 11th September 1985 by Ann Eaton, was retained by Essex Police until 20th September 1985, it was 'never' at the lab' at any stage during that period to enable the ballistic expert to dismantle 'it' and find a flake of blood trapped in-between baffle plates one and two! Fletcher had lied! Cops have lied! The relatives have lied! The silencer with blood inside 'it' was never at the lab' at any stage between 30th August 1985 and 20th September 1985, they have all lied through the skin of their feather and framed Jeremy Bamber for these murders by a reliance upon totally fabricated evidence!

My indepth research into these matters, also discovered that DS Davidson and DS Eastwood, re- fingerprinted the silencer on 13th September 1985, after it had been returned to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985! By then of course the silencer had already been coated in Superglue residue subject of Cooks resting on 23rd August 1985! Why would police want to re-finding a silencer which had already been fingerprinted twice by 'Ron' Cook? Well, it seems that by 13th September 1985, police were suspecting that relatives might be trying to frame Jeremy Bamber using the silencer and the flake of blood which David Boutflour scraped from it! I have been reliably informed that the fingerprints of key relatives were found to be present upon the silencer when Davidson and Eastwood' fingerprinted 'it'! This evidence was suppressed because nobody was supposed to find out that cops had given the silencer ('SBJ/1', 'SJ/1') back to the family, and that Ann Eaton had given it back to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985, a silencer which did 'not' get resubmitted back to the lab' until 20th September 1985, much too late for any obtained blood grouping results to have been found, and recognised as unique blood belonging to Sheila Caffell...

Almost finally, during the trial Robert Boutflour boasted that he had never physically handled the silencer, obviously in an attempt to distance himself from the allegation that the blood results relied upon were his, rather than Sheila Caffells, because they both shared the exact same blood groups! Well, Robert Boutflours fingerprints were found to be present on the silencer which Davidson and Eastwood fingerprinted on 13th September 1985, so Robert Boutflour has been found wanting!

Lastly, when the silencer which Ann Eaton handed to police was eventually resubmitted to the Lab' on 20th September 1985, it was requested 'it' be checked for blood and fibres! Now, bear this in mind. If the silencer was already at the lab' and it had been there ever since 30th August 1985 as exhibit 'DB/1' (23), how could Ann Eaton hand 'it' to DC Oakey on 11th September 1975, how could Davidson and Eastwood fingerprint 'it' on 13 September 1975, and why would cops be sending the silencer to the lab' on 20th September 1985 to be checked for blood, if the silencer was already there at the lab and blood had already been found inside it? Blood which was supposedly unique to Sheila Caffell? This makes a complete mockery of the ballistic experts conclusion that the only way Sheila's blood could have got into the silencer was if it was fitted to the barrel of the gun at the time Sheila got shot! It's all nonsense, the experts didn't even find a flake of blood inside the silencer, they examined a flake of dried blood which David Boutflour claimed he'd scraped from the silencer, but for all we know it could have been his dad's blood (Robert Boutflour) or he could have got it from the scene!  Once the silencer was re-submitted to the lab' on 20th September 1985 requesting 'it' be checked for blood, 'it' was checked for blood that very same date - the records from the lab show that blood found on the silencer tested positive as being 'human' not animal blood! This finding confirmed what Glennis Howard said after she exited the silencer in the guise of 'SJ/1' on 13th August 1985, that it contained 'human' blood', insufficient for blood grouping purposes!

This explanation is the correct interpretation of the silencer/blood based evidence in the case! It can now be shown to be nothing more than fabricated nonsense! The prosecution secured these convictions using dishonest evidence! I call for an immediate police investigation into all parties involved, with a view to the lot of them (if still alive) to be arrested, interviewed, charged and stand trial! Refuse bail in all instances! Lock the buggers up, and throw away the key, that's what I say...


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

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38976
'SBJ/1' - silencer (7 August 1985)
'SJ/1' (22)- silencer (13 August 1985)
-----------------------------------------------------------
'DB/1' (23)- flake of blood (30 August 1985)
-----------------------------------------------------------
'AE/1' - silencer (11 September 1985/20 September 1985)
'CAE/1' - silencer (11 September 1985/20 September 1985)
''DRB/1' (23/22) - silencer (1 November 1985)
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34957
Why would Jeremy go to the trouble of a practicing contortionist in order to shoot Sheila in her neck anyway when a bullet in the head would have sufficed ?? I can't understand the logic there.

Ooops,I can see a flurry of posts,in chorus saying----" to make it look like a suicide ".Yeah,with two shots ??

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38976
The chief problem facing the prosecution in the cold light of day, is that we now know the the crucial blood group results were obtained supposedly from the silencer which did not arrive at the lab', until after the blood group activity had already been verified days beforehand! How could a flake of dried blood have been found inside the silencer at the lab', before the silencer was even sent to the lab?

They have stitched Jeremy Bamber up as the murderer by a reliance on faked evidence! Prosecution can now be seen to have put the cart before the horse and got away with it thus far for over 32 years!

Justice will prevail no matter how long it takes to capture all these rotten apples in the same basket..
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 01:41:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38976
The chief problem facing the prosecution in the cold light of day, is that we now know the the crucial blood group results were obtained supposedly from the silencer which did not arrive at the lab', until after the blood group activity had already been verified days beforehand! How could a flake of dried blood have been found inside the silencer at the lab', before the silencer was even sent to the lab?

They have stitched Jeremy Bamber up as the murderer by a reliance on faked evidence! Prosecution can now be seen to have put the cart before the horse and got away with it thus far for over 32 years!

Justice will prevail no matter how long it takes to capture all these rotten apples in the same basket..

Oh, I get it...

We've had a 'trick of light' used as an excuse, we've had 'a trick of time', we've had 'a trick of bullets', we've had 'a trick of silencers', we've had 'a trick of police notebooks', and 'a trick of witness statements', we've had 'a trick of bodies downstairs in the kitchen' and 'upstairs in the bedrooms', we've had 'a trick of the rifle at whichever upstairs window', we've had 'a trick of the Bible', so I guess now they are  going to be claiming it's 'a trick of blood' next!!

Let's accommodate these criminals in uniform, gowns and wigs, and simply encapsulate everything this lot has done and call the prosecutions case 'a trick of the truth'...
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 01:51:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38976
I can't stand liars!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23965
I can't stand liars!

Well, at least we're in agreement on something.

Online Roch

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9783
Oh, I get it...

We've had a 'trick of light' used as an excuse, we've had 'a trick of time', we've had 'a trick of bullets', we've had 'a trick of silencers', we've had 'a trick of police notebooks', and 'a trick of witness statements', we've had 'a trick of bodies downstairs in the kitchen' and 'upstairs in the bedrooms', we've had 'a trick of the rifle at whichever upstairs window', we've had 'a trick of the Bible'...
 
The number of anomalies that have to be overlooked, cast aside, termed coincidence / mistake - just to keep Jeremy in the frame..

"She was on a mission - a date with death, in league with the devil..." 

(Mike Tesko 2012)

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23965
 
The number of anomalies that have to be overlooked, cast aside, termed coincidence / mistake - just to keep Jeremy in the frame..

And the more you produce as being such, the more TOTALLY unbelievable/impossible you make it become.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38976
Well, at least we're in agreement on something.

Well, thank you Jane, like you say at least we have some common ground on both sides!

In all the time I spent incarcerated with Jeremy at HMP Full Sutton, and all the times I visited him as a friend, and his McKensie man, and all the times we wrote to eachother, and spoke on the telephone, all the times we had different opinions about this and that, one thing stood out in all these occasions (except once) when I knew in my own heart and in my own mind that this kid did not kill his family! As I say, there was the one occasion when instinctively I didn't get the right vibes from his response, and that was when I told Jeremy that I thought that his sister Sheila must have had an accomplice!

For those of you who don't know the detail behind this episode, when I mentioned to him that I thought Sheila must have had an accomplice, I told Jeremy straight out when he asked me who that accomplice might be, and without hesitation I said, 'why her accomplice was you, Jeremy', and he immediately responded by saying, ' you clever, Bastard'...

That particular conversation I had with Jeremy is one that has stuck in my mind ever since!
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 03:08:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23965
Well, thank you Jane, like you say at least we have some common ground on both sides!

In all the time I spent incarcerated with Jeremy at HMP Full Sutton, and all the times I visited him as a friend, and his McKensie man, and all the times we wrote to eachother, and spoke on the telephone, all the times we had different opinions about this and that, one thing stood out in all these occasions (except once) when I knew in my own heart and in my own mind that this kid did not kill his family! As I say, there was the one occasion when instinctively I didn't get the right vibes from his response, and that was when I told Jeremy that I thought that his sister Sheila must have had an accomplice!

For those of you who don't know the detail behind this episode, when I mentioned to him that I thought Sheila must have had an accomplice, I told Jeremy straight out when he asked me who that accomplice might be, and without hesitation I said, 'why her accomplice was you, Jeremy', and he immediately responded by saying, ' you clever, Bastard'...

That particular conversation I had with Jeremy is one that has stuck in my mind ever since!

And if you team that immediate response, from which you didn't get "the right vibes" with the psychiatrist's view of him as being manipulative, intelligent and astute, might it not encourage you to broaden your horizons about your own perspective of him?