Author Topic: Gun dealer (Radcliffe) couldn't positively Identify Bamber Silencer...  (Read 400 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47361
The gun dealer who sold Neville Bamber the Anshuzt Rifle and a parker hale silencer, could not positively identify the silencer shown to him  by Detective Sergeant Bernard, at the business premises, 150 High Street, Colchester, at about 13.00hrs on Saturday, 16th November 1985. The furthest he went was to say that the PARKER HALE Sound Moderator is identical in every respect to the one sold to Mr Bamber on 30th November 1984. He added that it was the only model of Sound moderator that they sold...

Note that on this date (16th November 1985) that Sgt. Bernard showed Radcliffe the Moderator (DRB/1), and telescopic sight (DRB/2) - which is odd because the sound moderator never left the lab' after it had been sent there on 20th September 1985

How could Sgt. Bernard have showed Radcliffe the Sound moderator at the premises of Radcliffes, 150 High Street on the 16th November 1985, if the said Sound Moderator was still under examination at Huntigndon Lab'?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27425
The gun dealer who sold Neville Bamber the Anshuzt Rifle and a parker hale silencer, could not positively identify the silencer shown to him  by Detective Sergeant Bernard, at the business premises, 150 High Street, Colchester, at about 13.00hrs on Saturday, 16th November 1985. The furthest he went was to say that the PARKER HALE Sound Moderator is identical in every respect to the one sold to Mr Bamber on 30th November 1984. He added that it was the only model of Sound moderator that they sold...

Note that on this date (16th November 1985) that Sgt. Bernard showed Radcliffe the Moderator (DRB/1), and telescopic sight (DRB/2) - which is odd because the sound moderator never left the lab' after it had been sent there on 20th September 1985

How could Sgt. Bernard have showed Radcliffe the Sound moderator at the premises of Radcliffes, 150 High Street on the 16th November 1985, if the said Sound Moderator was still under examination at Huntigndon Lab'?


I'd have thought the reason for it was glaringly obvious. Unlike the firearm, the silencer didn't have a unique serial number. NOT identifying it didn't mean he had doubts about it's provenance. 

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23428
The gun dealer who sold Neville Bamber the Anshuzt Rifle and a parker hale silencer, could not positively identify the silencer shown to him  by Detective Sergeant Bernard, at the business premises, 150 High Street, Colchester, at about 13.00hrs on Saturday, 16th November 1985. The furthest he went was to say that the PARKER HALE Sound Moderator is identical in every respect to the one sold to Mr Bamber on 30th November 1984. He added that it was the only model of Sound moderator that they sold...

Note that on this date (16th November 1985) that Sgt. Bernard showed Radcliffe the Moderator (DRB/1), and telescopic sight (DRB/2) - which is odd because the sound moderator never left the lab' after it had been sent there on 20th September 1985



How could Sgt. Bernard have showed Radcliffe the Sound moderator at the premises of Radcliffes, 150 High Street on the 16th November 1985, if the said Sound Moderator was still under examination at Huntigndon Lab'?

He may have been shown photographs, not the actual articles.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47361
He may have been shown photographs, not the actual articles.

No, it says in the statement that he was shown them - the sound moderator never left the Lab', so here is a clear cut example of the police doctoring the silencer evidence. Tell you what, those representing Bamber at the moment ought to send somebody round to see this Radcliffe chap and take a statement as to whether or not Sgt. Bernard showed him the silencer, or a photograph? If Bernard didn't show him the sound moderator (DRB/1), then Radcliffe has made a false witness statement and should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice...


Whats more, there were signed exhibit Labels attached to them!!!!
« Last Edit: January 20, 2019, 01:11:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47361
OK, lets go the full hog:-

Radcliffe the gun dealer, made a false witness statement, claiming that Sgt. Bernard showed to him the rifle (DRH/15), the sound moderator (DRB/1) and the telescopic site DRB/2)…

Bernard couldn't have showed him the sound moderator (DRB/1) because it was still at the lab' under examination and in storage until the trial. Furthermore, he couldn't have showed Radcliffe the exhibit label (DRB/1) because that was stuck to the Sound Moderator at the lab'...

So, there must have been  some form of collusion between Bernard and Radcliffe which amounts to a criminal offence.

Mind you, there is the matter of the signed exhibit label, bearing Radcliffes signature at position one, along with Cooks signature, Howards signature, and the signatures of...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27425
No, it says in the statement that he was shown them - the sound moderator never left the Lab', so here is a clear cut example of the police doctoring the silencer evidence. Tell you what, those representing Bamber at the moment ought to send somebody round to see this Radcliffe chap and take a statement as to whether or not Sgt. Bernard showed him the silencer, or a photograph? If Bernard didn't show him the sound moderator (DRB/1), then Radcliffe has made a false witness statement and should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice...


Whats more, there were signed exhibit Labels attached to them!!!!


Why? Radcliffe sold them the firearm and the moderator. The firearm was identifiable by it's serial number. Because the moderator had no such way of identifying it, the best that could be said was that it looked the same as the one he sold to the Bambers because it was the only one he stocked. It could hardly have been thrown open to every gun dealer in the country because Radcliffe was the Bamber's go to gun dealer.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47361

Why? Radcliffe sold them the firearm and the moderator. The firearm was identifiable by it's serial number. Because the moderator had no such way of identifying it, the best that could be said was that it looked the same as the one he sold to the Bambers because it was the only one he stocked. It could hardly have been thrown open to every gun dealer in the country because Radcliffe was the Bamber's go to gun dealer.

He didn't say it was the one that he sold the Bambers he said it looked identical - if he had bothered to dismantle it and count the inner baffle plates he would have been able to be more sure because the silencer he sold the Bambers was the latest one with less baffle plates than the 17 baffled Pargeter one, or the ones owned by David Boutflour, and Robert Boutflour. The point being it coukld have belonged to anyone, not necessarily to the Bamber rifle. Anyway, Bernard couldn't even have showed him the DRB/1 silencer because it never left the lab' after 20th September 1985 - cops obvious took along the other silencer, or even another substitute one..

Which ever way you look at it, here is a prime example of a bent copper getting a witness to make a false witness statement!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27425
He didn't say it was the one that he sold the Bambers he said it looked identical - if he had bothered to dismantle it and count the inner baffle plates he would have been able to be more sure because the silencer he sold the Bambers was the latest one with less baffle plates than the 17 baffled Pargeter one, or the ones owned by David Boutflour, and Robert Boutflour. The point being it coukld have belonged to anyone, not necessarily to the Bamber rifle. Anyway, Bernard couldn't even have showed him the DRB/1 silencer because it never left the lab' after 20th September 1985 - cops obvious took along the other silencer, or even another substitute one..

Which ever way you look at it, here is a prime example of a bent copper getting a witness to make a false witness statement!


I'm perfectly certain that it wasn't the only one he'd sold, but without a unique serial number, how would he know? I've yet to read of anyone other than yourself who is insisting he was shown anything other than the item he sold to the Bambers.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47361

I'm perfectly certain that it wasn't the only one he'd sold, but without a unique serial number, how would he know? I've yet to read of anyone other than yourself who is insisting he was shown anything other than the item he sold to the Bambers.

You miss the point - the fact being that he couldn't have shown Radcliffe the sound moderator (DRB/1) because it didn't leave the lab' at any stage between 20th September 1985 and the start of the trial in October 1986...

You obviously think its alright and lawful for police officers and witnesses to make false witness statements, if so lets not discuss the matter between ourselves because you have a totally different way of knowing or deciding what the truth in the matter is...

I too have my own views...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47361
Whilst one silencer was being held in storage at the Lab' at peril of investigation, police used a second identical look silencer to take a photograph of the gun cupboard at the scene with the additional silencer fitted to the barrel of then anshuzt rifle, placed inside it...


This constitutes proof positive that police, relatives and prosecution witnesses were using two identical looking silencers to build up a body of false evidence to use in the Bamber prosecution...

No evidence exists to show or to confirm that the silencer held at the lab' was ever handed back to police prior to trial in October 1986. The silencer at the lab' had an exhibit reference DRB/1 - the sound moderator used in faking this photographic evidence also had the same exhibit reference DRB/1. Police had use of two identical looking silencers which they were brandishing about left right and centre as though it was always the same silencer...

The same silencer could not possibly have been in two different locations or places at one and the same time!
« Last Edit: January 20, 2019, 02:19:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27425
You miss the point - the fact being that he couldn't have shown Radcliffe the sound moderator (DRB/1) because it didn't leave the lab' at any stage between 20th September 1985 and the start of the trial in October 1986...

You obviously think its alright and lawful for police officers and witnesses to make false witness statements, if so lets not discuss the matter between ourselves because you have a totally different way of knowing or deciding what the truth in the matter is...

I too have my own views...


You're correct. Because I only have your word for it that police, in this case, acted in a deliberately unlawful way, and you make plain your detestation of police, I find it hard to accept that your views are altruistic and agenda free. Nonetheless, I've always commended your loyalty to Jeremy.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47361
We now know, that Sgt. Bernard showed Radcliffe a silencer that was identical to the one he sold to the Bambers - but it couldn't have been the same silencer, because the one belonging to the Bamber rifle was still being held in secure storage back at the lab' at the time Bernard showed Radcliffe the other silencer bearing an identical exhibit label DRB/1 (which Radcliffe, duly signed at position one on the label). Radcliffe signed an exhibit label which must have been attached to the wrong identical looking silencer...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47361
We now know, that Sgt. Bernard showed Radcliffe a silencer that was identical to the one he sold to the Bambers - but it couldn't have been the same silencer, because the one belonging to the Bamber rifle was still being held in secure storage back at the lab' at the time Bernard showed Radcliffe the other silencer bearing an identical exhibit label DRB/1 (which Radcliffe, duly signed at position one on the label). Radcliffe signed an exhibit label which must have been attached to the wrong identical looking silencer...

If that's not fabricating evidence then what further proof does anybody need, the blighters were using two silencers to build up a body of evidence which they presented during the trial as though there had only been just the one silencer, but the deeper you delve into the statements and records, the truth leaps out of the papers at you!

So, Bamber was the killer then, he used two identical looking parker hale silencers on the same gun!


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

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23428
No, it says in the statement that he was shown them - the sound moderator never left the Lab', so here is a clear cut example of the police doctoring the silencer evidence. Tell you what, those representing Bamber at the moment ought to send somebody round to see this Radcliffe chap and take a statement as to whether or not Sgt. Bernard showed him the silencer, or a photograph? If Bernard didn't show him the sound moderator (DRB/1), then Radcliffe has made a false witness statement and should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice...


Whats more, there were signed exhibit Labels attached to them!!!!

How has he made a false statement? If the photograph showed the serial number, he can identify it from that. The PH silencer would look like any other and he didn't say it was the actual silence (and sights) solf to NB, just that it was the same make - which is the only one they sell.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47361
How has he made a false statement? If the photograph showed the serial number, he can identify it from that. The PH silencer would look like any other and he didn't say it was the actual silence (and sights) solf to NB, just that it was the same make - which is the only one they sell.

Stop being silly...

Bernard states he had the silencer (DRB/1) but he couldn't have had the real DRB/1 which was in storage at the Lab', How can someone try to make out that the cop and the witness did nothing wrong, when the facts show that they did...

Bernard didn't have possession of the silencer (DRB/1) which was in storage at the Lab', you can pretend that he did all that you like, but he most certainly did not...

Bernard is a lying no good for nothing bent copper, and anybody who purports to support what he did and has done, ahould hang their heads in shame...

Bernard couldn't have had possession of the silencer (DRB/1) on 16th November 1985,  that was in storage at the lab' where it had been from 20th September 1985, you are talking utter bullshit! Show me the evidence that cops received possession of that silencer back from the lab' at any stage after 20th September 1985 - you can't because it was never handed back to police. You are simply talking utter bullshit, and you are showing your true colours (you obviously support the corrupt actions of criminals in uniform, and wigs and gowns), stop acting so utterly pathetic...

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