Lab' Item No.23 - was a disposable bodily fluid (not a silencer) Proof...

[mike tesko]

I have already gone on record, as stating that the exhibit DB/1 (23) was not a silencer that was either taken, or submitted to the Lab', on 30th August 1985, but that (a) it was a flake of dried blood, that David Boutflour had scraped from the outside of one of the two silencers that he recovered from inside a cupboard in the den at the scene on 10th August 1985..

Here, I reproduce partial documentary evidence regarding this, and that what I am speaking about is the absolute truth in the matter...

[mike tesko]

I have already gone on record, as stating that the exhibit DB/1 (23) was not a silencer that was either taken, or submitted to the Lab', on 30th August 1985, but that (a) it was a flake of dried blood, that David Boutflour had scraped from the outside of one of the two silencers that he recovered from inside a cupboard in the den at the scene on 10th August 1985..

Here, I reproduce partial documentary evidence regarding this, and that what I am speaking about is the absolute truth in the matter...

Lab' Item No.23 - was a disposable bodily fluid!

If it was, then of course everyone else must accept that Lab' item No.23 was not a silencer, to the gun!

[mike tesko]

Let's pay a little bit more attention to what David Boutflour had done, and what he did?

Yeah, he used a razor blade to scrape dried blood from the outside of one of the silencers he had seized from the gun cupboard! He told the COLP investigators that he did this because it fascinated him'! He appears to have had no thoughts for his actions on this / that occasion! Why would an ordinary member of the public want to tamper with the credibility and the integrity of such an important exhibit?

It gets worse, because when it came around to him making a witness statement to Essex police, he forgot to mention (a) that he had seized two silencers from the scene on that same morning, or that he had scraped a flake of dried blood from one of these! And, (b) when he testified during the trial he once again forgot to make mention to the jury, that not only had he seized two different identical looking Parker Hale silencers from the scene, but that he could not be sure which one of the two silencers it had been that he had scraped the flake of dried blood from?

[mike tesko]

I have already gone on record, as stating that the exhibit DB/1 (23) was not a silencer that was either taken, or submitted to the Lab', on 30th August 1985, but that (a) it was a flake of dried blood, that David Boutflour had scraped from the outside of one of the two silencers that he recovered from inside a cupboard in the den at the scene on 10th August 1985..

Here, I reproduce partial documentary evidence regarding this, and that what I am speaking about is the absolute truth in the matter...

Here...

'X' marks the spot - items 1 to 17, and item '23' all described as 'PERISHABLES'..

If the Lab' item No.23 was the silencer which was sent to the Lab' on the 30th August 1985, how on earth could anyone describe a silencer as a ' Perishable'?

[mike tesko]

Lab' item No.23 was never a silencer, as I have been saying all along, it was the flake of blood which David Boutflour had scraped off one of the two silencers which he had recovered from the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985...

[mike tesko]

Lab' item No.23 was never a silencer, as I have been saying all along, it was the flake of blood which David Boutflour had scraped off one of the two silencers which he had recovered from the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985...

One thing which David Boutflour appears not to have had any control over, was which of the two silencers Peter Eaton had handed over to DS Jones on the evening of 12th August 1985! This became something of an issue within a month of the tragedy when Anthony Pargeter was given his bolt action rifle back by the other relatives (minus it's silencer). Peter Eaton had handed over the Pargeter silencer to DS Jones on the 12th August 1985, and for a time once the relatives found out about this, they suspected Anthony Pargeter of having had something to do with the shootings!

[mike tesko]

One thing which David Boutflour appears not to have had any control over, was which of the two silencers Peter Eaton had handed over to DS Jones on the evening of 12th August 1985! This became something of an issue within a month of the tragedy when Anthony Pargeter was given his bolt action rifle back by the other relatives (minus it's silencer). Peter Eaton had handed over the Pargeter silencer to DS Jones on the 12th August 1985, and for a time once the relatives found out about this, they suspected Anthony Pargeter of having had something to do with the shootings!

However...

By the 11th September 1985, the relatives in the form of Ann Eaton and David Boutflour, took the step of trying to rectify the situation by handing over the 2nd silencer (the BAMBER silencer), claiming there had been a mix up and that Peter Eaton had earlier handed over the wrong silencer!

[mike tesko]

However...

By the 11th September 1985, the relatives in the form of Ann Eaton and David Boutflour, took the step of trying to rectify the situation by handing over the 2nd silencer (the BAMBER silencer), claiming there had been a mix up and that Peter Eaton had earlier handed over the wrong silencer!

By that time, Essex police had already taken possession of the flake of dried blood from David Boutflour, and they had submitted it to the Lab' at Huntingdon under the exhibit reference of DB/1, Lab' item number 23 (a perishable) - this was the blood which John Hayward would later test to destruction (between 12th and the 19th September 1985)...

[mike tesko]

As I keep reminding you all - there was no silencer at Huntington Lab' on the 12th September 1985, in order to permit the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher to dismantled it and find the flake of blood inside it on that date! Fletcher simply recieved the flake of blood from Essex police under the exhibit reference DB/1 (23) and transferred it to the blood expert, John Hayward, who during the course of the following next few days simply tested it for blood group activity..

The fact that blood group activity was obtained ( A, EAP BA, AK/1 and HP2-1) caused Essex police to submit the second silencer to the Lab' on the 20th September 1985, amongst other things and reasons, to be checked for blood!

[mike tesko]

What also becomes apparent, is that when the 1st silencer (SJ/1) 22, was taken to the Lab' by Cook on the 13th August 1985, that Glynis Howard had taken a blood sample from the outside of 'that' silencer, which subsequently turned out to be of human origin, whereas the the 2nd silencer police sent to the Lab' on the 20th September 1985 to be checked for blood, simply had no human blood anywhere at all on its outside!

[mike tesko]

Linked to this matter, was the fact that when Anthony Pargeter stated in one of his witness statements that according to what David Boutflour had told him, 'that police had at some stage handed the silencer back to the family' ( something which David Boutflour denied he had ever said to Anthony Pargeter), that Pargeter must have been referring to the fact that police had originally taken his silencer (the 1st silencer), and that by the beginning of September 1985, Ann Eaton and David Boutflour (between them) had found a way to get Anthony Pargeters silencer back, and place the Bamber owned silencer (the 2nd silencer) into police possession..

Thereafter the relatives, the police and those at the Lab' all agreed to make a pact whereby they would merge the involvement of the two different identical looking Parker Hale silencers as the same one! The office manager, who turned out to be PI Miller in this case, then drafted up a handwritten document listing all the witness statements and other documents both at the police station and at the Lab' where alterations would need to be made, so that any reference to the silencer having an exhibit reference of SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, AE/1, CAE/1 and DRB/1 would appear to relate to the same silencer, when in fact there had been two silencers!

[mike tesko]

Thereafter the relatives, the police and those at the Lab' all agreed to make a pact whereby they would merge the involvement of the two different identical looking Parker Hale silencers as the same one! The office manager, who turned out to be PI Miller in this case, then drafted up a handwritten document listing all the witness statements and other documents both at the police station and at the Lab' where alterations would need to be made, so that any reference to the silencer having an exhibit reference of SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, AE/1, CAE/1 and DRB/1 would appear to relate to the same silencer, when in fact there had been two silencers!

In order to try and make the deception undetectable at first blush, exhibit references AE/1, AE/2, AE/3 and AE/4 became CAE/1, CAE/2, CAE/3 and CAE/4, before the 2nd silencer took on the mantle of exhibit reference DRB/1, and the other exhibits which Ann Eaton handed to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, became DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4. The final deception turning out to be to try and get rid altogether of any reference to Ann Eaton having handed over the 2nd Silencer at all to DC Oakey on that date, hence why thereafter Ann Eaton s, 2nd, 3rd and 4th items, subsequently became DC Oakey exhibits, HGO/1(a), HGO/1(b) and HGO/2(a), etc, etc, etc...

[mike tesko]

Like in every other deception of this nature, the whole truth can never remain hidden, or undiscoverable...

[mike tesko]

In order to try and make the deception undetectable at first blush, exhibit references AE/1, AE/2, AE/3 and AE/4 became CAE/1, CAE/2, CAE/3 and CAE/4, before the 2nd silencer took on the mantle of exhibit reference DRB/1, and the other exhibits which Ann Eaton handed to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, became DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4. The final deception turning out to be to try and get rid altogether of any reference to Ann Eaton having handed over the 2nd Silencer at all to DC Oakey on that date, hence why thereafter Ann Eaton s, 2nd, 3rd and 4th items, subsequently became DC Oakey exhibits, HGO/1(a), HGO/1(b) and HGO/2(a), etc, etc, etc...

Anyone who believes the police explanation for why the exhibit reference to the silencer had to be altered from 'DB/1' to 'DRB/1' because of a supposed clash of exhibit references between David Boutflour (silencer) and PC David Bird (soil sample) should take a step back and ask yourselves if the true reason was / is as Essex police have told the tale, why has it been possible to unravel a Warren full of exhibit references, in addition to the DB/1 - DRB/1 problem? How many excuses do they need?

SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, AE/1, CAE/1 and DRB/1 which all are supposed to relate to the same silencer at one time or another serves to undermine the narrative which Essex police would have the gullible public at large believe...

[mike tesko]

Anyone who believes the police explanation for why the exhibit reference to the silencer had to be altered from 'DB/1' to 'DRB/1' because of a supposed clash of exhibit references between David Boutflour (silencer) and PC David Bird (soil sample) should take a step back and ask yourselves if the true reason was / is as Essex police have told the tale, why has it been possible to unravel a Warren full of exhibit references, in addition to the DB/1 - DRB/1 problem? How many excuses do they need?

SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, AE/1, CAE/1 and DRB/1 which all are supposed to relate to the same silencer at one time or another serves to undermine the narrative which Essex police would have the gullible public at large believe...

Who else had an exhibit SBJ/1 (except DS Jones)?

Who else had an exhibit SJ/1?

Who else had an exhibit AE/1 ( oh, sorry Ann Eaton)?

Who else had an exhibit CAE/1 (oh, sorry Ann Eaton)?

You see, the closer you look into the narrative the cops, relatives and experts at the lab buy into, it becomes more and more obviously that what they are saying is nothing but a complete pack of lies! There were two silencers, the cops seized one on the first morning of the investigation (SBJ/1), they held onto it for  couple of days and returned it to the farmhouse on evening of 9th August 1985. David Boutflour recovered two different identical looking silencers from inside the gun cupboard in the downstairs office, one of which (unbeknown to himself) was almost certainly the silencer (SBJ/1) which DS Jones had taken possession of, and later returned to the farmhouse because the police were satisfied that everybody else that mattered was satisfied that it had played no role in any of the shootings! When the silencer was put back at the scene it didn't have an exhibit label attached to it, so David Boutflour wouldn't have known that the police had already had one of the two silencers he recovered ( but Ann Eaton and her husband Peter Eaton knew the police had returned Anthony Pargeters rifle and silencer that evening, because Ann makes reference to Peter putting the gun back in the farmhouse on that occasion). This was followed by the collection of one of the two silencers by DS Jones from Peter Eaton on Evening, 12th August 1985 ( which turned out to be exhibit reference 'SJ/1'). Peter Eaton and DS Jones would have been able to recognise the silencer which DS Jones had returned to the farmhouse on evening of 9th August 1985 because it was attached to Anthony Pargeters rifle. I believe that the blood (DB/1) 23 which David Boutflour scraped off one of the silencers would have been the Pargeter rifles silencer (SBJ/1, and subsequently SJ/1). Cook took this silencer 'SJ/1' to the Lab' on 13th August 1985, Glynis Howard provisionally examined it, and took a sample from the flat end of the silencers end cap before returning the same silencer to Cook who wanted to fingerprint it. The sample which Howard took from the silencer on this occasion wasn't given an exhibit reference or a Lab' item number which is strange. In any event eventually she informs Essex police that the sample from the end of the silencer is of human origin. At this point, nobody had told Cook that David Boutflour had scraped a flake of blood from the outside of the only silencer the police knew about at that time! Nobody told Cook that David Boutflour had physically tried to unscrew the top from the silencer so that he could look inside it - therefore when Glynis Howard examined the silencer (SJ/1) she was not to know that the blood on the outside of the silencer she was examining could have been either accidentally or deliberately contaminated with human blood through the mishandling of the silencer in question by David Boutflour previously. Cook retained possession of the silencer (SJ/1), fingerprinting it on 15th and 23rd August 1985! He then dismantled 'it' removing all of the silencers baffles and he prized open the first five or six baffle plates so that there was a distinctive gap between them, leaving the remaining eleven or so baffle plates compacted, before he rebuilt the silencer, after which he screwed the rebuilt silencer (SJ/1) directly into the thread on the end of the anshuzt rifles barrell. This silencer (SJ/1) did not get sent it taken back to the Lab', albeit Essex police claim that the silencer was sent back to the Lab' on the following day in the guise of exhibit DB/1 (23), but the flake of blood which David Boutflour had scraped from the outside of one of the silencers was actually DB/1 (23), the silencer had originally been SJ/1 or SBJ/1 (22). It appears that the reason why Cook had taken it upon himself to physically dismantled the silencer was because he wanted to see if any of the blood which David Boutflour had scraped off the silencer had got into that silencer? When Cook did not find any blood inside on the first half dozen or so baffle plates he got suspicious of the possibility that the relatives were trying to stitch Jeremy Bamber up for the murders! So, Cook kept the silencer (SJ/1) back from the Lab', but sent the blood flake which Boutflour had removed to the Lab' under DB/1 (23)..