Author Topic: Disturbing Evidence, which confirms that cops handed back silencer to the family  (Read 17959 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47792
One does have to ask why the need to report/confess -on Sept 3/5/8th 1985- that he undertaken a "covert" operation -in the form of returning a silencer previously taken from WHF two day earlier- as recently as on or around Aug 9th.

Hi Jane J,  I don't know the answer to that, but what we have to remember or consider, was that at around the time that this composite witness statement was made in DS Jones name, that DS Jones role in the following investigation (SC/786/85) took a twist and he was able on the face of the evidence used to prosecute Jeremy Bamber as the killer, to free himself from the shackles of DCI Jones wwho was replaced as lead detective of the investigation by his replacement DCS 'Mick' Ainsley...

Maybe this was Ainsleys way of trying to distance DS Jones from the influence of DCI Jones?

Essex police will have to deal with that / this, it is not for me to answer for them!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47792
I remember Jeremy once telling me that there was reference in the case papers in my possession, that Essex police had taken possesssion of the silencer at the beginning of their investigation, prior to David Boutflour finding a silencer in the gun cupboard - it is mentioned in a press report, somewhere, or other...
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 04:34:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47792
On occasions, Jeremy and I discusssed the conflicting design features (internally) of (a) the Bamber owned silencer, and (b) the Pargeter owned silencer. The one owned by the Bambers only had 15 internal baffle plates, or was it 14? The Pargeter Silencer had 17 baffle plates...
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 12:35:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47792
On occasions, Jeremy and I discusssed the conflicting design features (internally) of (a) the Bamber owned silencer, and (b) the Pargeter owned silencer. The one owned by the Bambers only had 15 internal baffle plates, or was it 14? The Pargeter Silencer had 17 baffle plates...

Sorry, I must rest, I am feeling extremely tired, and depressed...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40856
Mike in your posts of March 5th 2011,you enclosed some typed notes made by RWB stating that a silencer had been found in a cupboard in the garage. The said notes had been written/typed between Aug.25th and Sept.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40856
It's headed " David Boutflour found a silencer in a cupboard in the garage ".

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40856
Didn't RWB also admit to being present when his son also found a silencer inside WHF ?

So that's two silencers ?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 12:52:PM by lookout »

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3099
Didn't RWB also admit to being present when his son also found a silencer inside WHF ?

So that's two silencers ?
thats interesting,lookout

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47792
Mike in your posts of March 5th 2011,you enclosed some typed notes made by RWB stating that a silencer had been found in a cupboard in the garage. The said notes had been written/typed between Aug.25th and Sept.

Lookout, I've got thousands and thousands of notes, so many that although I may have posted images up on our forum back in March, 2011, but if the truth be known I wouldn't be able to go and lay me hands on the same documents today without it involving a research of all the material currently in my possession!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5473
All I can say is that if the statement is genuine, then it casts doubt on who placed the sound moderator in the cupboard. Jones doesn't say where he found the moderator in the first place. Something should be done with this document - if it's genuine.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
All I can say is that if the statement is genuine, then it casts doubt on who placed the sound moderator in the cupboard. Jones doesn't say where he found the moderator in the first place. Something should be done with this document - if it's genuine.

Couple of things;

Why would there be a double sided statement when none of the others are?
Why would  anew statement be piggy backed on a previous statement when none of the other are?
Why would they use a different type face for that one statement?
Why are there no details other than a silencer was found by Jones?

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47792
It has long since been suspected or known that Essex police, the relatives and the lab' experts at Huntingdon, used two different silencers which they sought to present as the one and only silencer!

Clearly, there was never only just the one silencer...

Since, how did Ann Eaton and the family, still have possession not the silencer by 11th September 1975, if Ron Cook had already submitted 'it' to Huntingdon Lab' on the 30th August 1985?

Ann Eaton, Essex police, and the experts at Huntingdon Lab' all played a role in the handing over of the second silencer by Ann Eaton to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985, the fact that this second silencer was fingerprinted by DS Eastwood and DS Davidson on the 14th September 1985, and that eventually on the 20th September 1985, that Essex police should be submitting it to the Lab' with a request that 'it' be checked for blood and fibers?

I mean, hang on there was supposedly already a silencer at the Lab' which arrived there on the 30th August 1985, a silencer inside which was discovered a loose dried flake of blood by the 12th September 1985, which when analysed produced the four key blood group results belonging to Sheila Caffell, and Robert Boutflour! So, why are Essex police submitting a second silencer to the same lab' on the 20th September 1985, requesting that 'it' be checked for blood?



What also becomes somewhat obvious is that the first silencer was never known or referred to by any exhibit reference, other than 'SJ/1'(22), or 'DB/1'(23), and that the silencer which Ann Eaton handed over to dC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, is the 'DRB/1' silencer which came to be exhibited during Jeremy Bambers trial during October 1986. We know this is true because on the 11th September 1985, Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakey several items of evidential value, which bore the original exhibit references of DRB/4, DRB/3, and DRB/2! We know that she also handed over the second silencer on this date because police records confirm this - the silencer handed over to DC Oakey on that date had the exhibit reference of DRB/1, in other words, court exhibit No.9...


It stands to reason, therefore, that the second silencer (DRB/1) was not the same silencer inside which Fletcher and Hayward found the blood group evidence attributed uniquely to Sheila Caffell. The key blood evidence must have been found inside the other silencer (DB/1), the silencer which Essex police took to the Lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August 1985...

So, why did the prosecution rely upon the key blood group evidence and the paint from the kitchen aga evidence as being applicable to only one of the two silencers? Sheila's blood could not have been found inside the silencer marked 'DRB/1', because that second silencer arrived at the lab' long after the blood that was present in the first silencer (DB/1) was matched as being unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell!

Jeremy Bamber was stitched up by the state irganisions and his relatives using dodgy silencer, blood and paint evidence which it was impossible to have been found on the same item! There were two silencers, Sheila's blood in the first of these two (DB/1) and paint from the kitchen aga surround ingrained into the second silencer (DRB/1)...

Two silencers, not one silencer, blood in one, paint on the other. Yet to be fathomed out was if these five shootings had only involved one gun, why the key evidence was found on two different silencers? Since, why would the shooter attach a different silencer to the same guns barrel during the attack on Neville Bamber downstairs in the kitchen, and upon Sheila Caffell upstairs in the main bedroom!

Cops and the dastardly CPS knew the significance of the existence of the two silencers, each one the bearer of blood, or paint!

There is now a chunk of light in sight at the end of Jeremy Bambers plight!

He was stitched up, by Essex police, by his relatives, by the experts at the lab' and by the CPS....

Judgement day for the conspirators is looming large, justice must surely prevail in this case, an innocent man has been incarcerated in prison for over three decades, convicted by dishonest evidence!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5473
Couple of things;

Why would there be a double sided statement when none of the others are?
Why would  anew statement be piggy backed on a previous statement when none of the other are?
Why would they use a different type face for that one statement?
Why are there no details other than a silencer was found by Jones?

I'm not sure that any of that matters. Perhaps statements were photocopied back to back for some reason. What matters is the content. If this statement is genuine, it potentially destroys a huge amount of the prosecution's case. I don't really get why people aren't more intrigued by this document.

Why would Stan Jones pick up a silencer and then take it back again two days later without any examination of it? Why would he return it covertly?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
I'm not sure that any of that matters. Perhaps statements were photocopied back to back for some reason. What matters is the content. If this statement is genuine, it potentially destroys a huge amount of the prosecution's case. I don't really get why people aren't more intrigued by this document.

Why would Stan Jones pick up a silencer and then take it back again two days later without any examination of it? Why would he return it covertly?

I think it matters a lot because if it doesn't LOOK genuine, then it's likely not to be.

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3099
Couple of things;

Why would there be a double sided statement when none of the others are?
Why would  anew statement be piggy backed on a previous statement when none of the other are?
Why would they use a different type face for that one statement?
Why are there no details other than a silencer was found by Jones?
i agree good points,caroline