Re: The Finding of the Silencer by David Boutflour on September 11th 1985

[mike tesko]

But the relatives, police and Lab' experts appear to have drafted the silencer evidence into the case, a month beforehand without any witness statement existing at the time of the silencers original coming into being!

[mike tesko]

But the relatives, police and Lab' experts appear to have drafted the silencer evidence into the case, a month beforehand without any witness statement existing at the time of the silencers original coming into being!

In addition..

There is no record at Sandridge police research facility confirming that DI Cook took a silencer to be fingerprinted on either 15th or 23rd August 1985 (no fingerprint results negative or positive in relation to examination of any silencer, at all)..

[mike tesko]

The Other thing worthy of note, was that Basil Cock didn't attend whf on Saturday 10th August 1985! I know the relatives say that he was there then, but he wasn't and he simply couldn't have been there then! This was because Basil Cock remembers that there was fingerprint dust on everything, all over the place but the police didn't fingerprint whf in August 1985, they only started doing that after Jeremy Bambers arrest on 8th September 1985...

So, Basil Cocks presence at the scene has been brought forward by at least a month (from September to Auguyst 1985), just so the reltives had someone impartial to confirm that they did find a silencer in the gun cupboard. Exactly why the relatives had to fake Basil Cocks presence there at the scene a month before he was actually there, sets alarm bells off...

Basil Cock couldn't have been present at whf any sooner than the police had already fingerprinted all of the farmhouse at the beginning of September 1985...

This deduction serves to confirm that the relatives found the crucial silencer (the one exhibited during the trial) in September 1985, and not August 1985...

[mike tesko]

Despite what Cook has said about the silencer being in police possession from evening of 12th August 1985, onward, there exist no property store records to confirm that throughout the period of that first month (August 1985) there was any silencer at all in police storage! In one version of his explanation for this which he gave to COLP, he claimed that he kept the silencer in his jacket pocket throughout the whole of the August period, and carried it around with himself wherever he went (Who believes such nonsense)?

[mike tesko]

Despite what Cook has said about the silencer being in police possession from evening of 12th August 1985, onward, there exist no property store records to confirm that throughout the period of that first month (August 1985) there was any silencer at all in police storage! In one version of his explanation for this which he gave to COLP, he claimed that he kept the silencer in his jacket pocket throughout the whole of the August period, and carried it around with himself wherever he went (Who believes such nonsense)?

The way I see it having panned out, was that the police had one of the silencers from the first morning of the police investigation into the shooting tragedy (7th August 1985), this was the silencer which DS Jones collected from the farmhouse after he returned there from Jeremy's cottage, and that this same silencer was the one which DCI Jones kept on his desk at Witham Police Station and used it as a paper weight. Now, I have always believed that on the evening of 9th August 1985 that DS Jones acting on instruction from DCI Jones returned the silencer to the farmhouse when they attended the scene to return the door keys back to the family. But, it may well have been the case, that a shotgun or a rifle was returned to Peter Eaton on that occasion. Moving on from this, it deserves consideration that Peter Eaton never handed over a silencer to DS Jones at all on the evening of 12th August 1985, police still had the silencer which DS Jones collected from the scene earlier...


I think its somewhat bizarre that we have two accounts one where the husband Peter Eaton hands over a silencer on 12th August 1985, and his wife, Ann Eaton hands over another silencer to police on 11th September 1985 and that both the relatives and the police are making out that there was only just the one silencer! The part which troubles me concerns the presence of Basil Cock at the scene when the relatives purportedly found the silencer - he has fingerprint dust on everything and all over the place in his version of the events, but that couldn't have been the case back in August 1985, because police didn't start fingerprinting at the scene until after 8th September 1985. This being so, everything points to the silencer having been recovered from the cupboard at the scene in September 1985, whilst Jeremy was in custody...

The relatives must be guilty of lying about when they say they had found the silencer!

They couldn't have found it in August 1985, because there was no Basil Cock there on that occasion, and moreover, no fingerprint dust all over the place at the scene until after the first week in September 1985..

Nobody makes a witness statement mentioning the find or the recovery of a silencer until 12th September 1985, because that was when the relatives took possession of it (DRB/1)...

[Harry]

The way I see it having panned out, was that the police had one of the silencers from the first morning of the police investigation into the shooting tragedy (7th August 1985), this was the silencer which DS Jones collected from the farmhouse after he returned there from Jeremy's cottage, and that this same silencer was the one which DCI Jones kept on his desk at Witham Police Station and used it as a paper weight. Now, I have always believed that on the evening of 9th August 1985 that DS Jones acting on instruction from DCI Jones returned the silencer to the farmhouse when they attended the scene to return the door keys back to the family. But, it may well have been the case, that a shotgun or a rifle was returned to Peter Eaton on that occasion. Moving on from this, it deserves consideration that Peter Eaton never handed over a silencer to DS Jones at all on the evening of 12th August 1985, police still had the silencer which DS Jones collected from the scene earlier...


I think its somewhat bizarre that we have two accounts one where the husband Peter Eaton hands over a silencer on 12th August 1985, and his wife, Ann Eaton hands over another silencer to police on 11th September 1985 and that both the relatives and the police are making out that there was only just the one silencer! The part which troubles me concerns the presence of Basil Cock at the scene when the relatives purportedly found the silencer - he has fingerprint dust on everything and all over the place in his version of the events, but that couldn't have been the case back in August 1985, because police didn't start fingerprinting at the scene until after 8th September 1985. This being so, everything points to the silencer having been recovered from the cupboard at the scene in September 1985, whilst Jeremy was in custody...

The relatives must be guilty of lying about when they say they had found the silencer!

They couldn't have found it in August 1985, because there was no Basil Cock there on that occasion, and moreover, no fingerprint dust all over the place at the scene until after the first week in September 1985..

Nobody makes a witness statement mentioning the find or the recovery of a silencer until 12th September 1985, because that was when the relatives took possession of it (DRB/1)...

"Moving on from this, it deserves consideration that Peter Eaton never handed over a silencer to DS Jones at all on the evening of 12th August 1985, police still had the silencer which DS Jones collected from the scene earlier..."

A clue to the deception is that the telescopic sight originally had the reference SBJ/2, the reason being that it had been found at the same time as the silencer SBJ/1 on August 7th. It should seem strange that an item which was allegedly not collected by DS Jones, but left at the Eatons' house should have originally had the reference SBJ/2 even though it was not even collected until after the the silencer reference had been changed to DBR/1.

The point being that since it was allegedly collected by DC Oakey at a time later than the changes to references with David Boutflour's initials, it's hard to make sense of a reference which harks back to a time before the exhibit reference for the silencer was changed. But the truth is they, the police, had collected it on August 7th 1985.

When the relatives handed in the items they found on their visit to Whitehouse Farm on September 11th, they handed in the "other" silencer which had been deliberately contaminated.

They were then told  to sign fraudulent statements backdating the finding of those items to August 10th.

The story that Jones collected the silencer from Peter Eaton on August 12th, but left the other other things at the Eatons' house was almost certainly made up by Stan Jones and with that familiar anecdote thrown in. Peter Eaton relates that DS Jones drank half a bottle of whiskey on the evening when he collected it before driving home.

How likely is that Peter Eaton would be dumb enough to say something which could potentially get Stan Jones into trouble when Jones was their saviour and benefactor. It was basically Jones who by framing Bamber got them the inheritance.

Apart from a drinking and driving offence, the police are not allowed to drink when on duty  Putting two and two together, Jones probably told Mr Eaton to say that. He made up the anecdotes for witnesses, to add a touch of realism.

He told Robert Boutflour to write down things in his diary which he Stan Jones had made up.

Jones wanted to make it look like the police had been careless and that the relatives had noticed what the police had missed, even though they had supposedly searched the premises.

So when the silencer was supposedly found by his son David, Robert Boutflour exclaims "The buggers aren't looking! He relates that when he told Jones about finding the silencer, Jones responded with "What silencer? It was all play acting with Uncle Bobby the leading man and his daughter Ann Eaton best supporting actress.

[Harry]

If the police found the silencer in the gun cupboard on August 7th 1985, they must have also found the other items which were in the same location and which were given related exhibit references. SBJ/1 was the silencer, SBJ/2 was the telescopic sight and so on. So how could the relatives have found those things on the August 10th?

Sometimes it is the attempt to cover up a deception which gives it away that there was a deception. The official version of events reveals the strategy of the conspirators.

The relatives did not really find a silencer on August 10th. Nor did they find the telescopic sight and the bag of .22 ammunition and those other things which David Boutflour allegedly found on that date. If the police found the silencer on August 7th as stated by ACC Peter Simpson in a press conference on September 17th, they must have also found the other stuff that was in the same box.

So what should we make of the strange sounding story that the relatives found all of those things on August 10th and took them back to to the home of Ann and Peter Eaton, where the silencer was collected by DS Stan Jones on August 12th, but not the other items which remained there for a month afterwards, before being collected by DC Oakey on September 11th?

It was all an elaborate hoax. What really happend was this. After Julie Mugford came forward on September 6th the police, namely Stan Jones, thought up a plot to frame Jeremy Bamber by faking the silencer evidence. This was the plan.

The items which the police found in the gun cupboard on the day of the killings August 7th were returned to Whitehouse Farm and the relatives were told by the police to go there on September 11th to make an arranged finding of the things which the police had already found and put back, but with a difference.

Instead of the silencer which they had sent to Huntingdon laboratory and which was examined by Glynnis Howard, they planted an identical  silencer which had been deliberately contaminated with Sheila's blood and with paint from the fire surround, which it would be alleged was used by Bamber when he committed the murders.

It's possible the relatives  weren't told what they would find, but were expected by the police to find the silencer, guns and ammunition. Things may have been left lying around as if to catch their attention. But if that happened the plot must have been explained to the relatives soon afterwards, otherwise the backdating of the finding in statements would make no sense to them.

After the items were found by David Boutflour and transported to the house of Ann and Peter Eaton on September 11th they were all, including the silencer, collected by DC Oakey on the same day or shortly after, but Oakey was told to leave out any mention of the silencer in his statement of October 25th 1985. The official version was to be that the relatives found those items on August 10th, but that Jones had for some reason only collected the silencer.

[Harry]

The fact that no mention of finding a silencer on August 10th is made in Ann Eaton's statement of August 14th strongly suggests that the event never really took place, which is what Jeremy now alleges. Consider what Mrs Eaton says in her statement of September 8th to 13th.

"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead".

Yet she did not consider it to be important enough to mention in her first statement. Mrs Eaton gave a somewhat half hearted explanation of the anomaly in her later statement to City of London Police on August 14th 1991.

"I have been asked why in my statement dated 14.8.85 is there no mention of the finding of the silencer. The only reason I can think of is that DS Jones was not convinced of our observations hence it was a nothing statement. I don't even think we spoke about it".

The last sentence from her COLP interview blatantly contradicts her claim in her second statement of September 8th that she and her relatives figured out the essential argument of the prosecution before the police had even thought of it. If that were really true, then the finding would surely have been referred to in her August statement.

If Ann Eaton had contaminated the silencer herself, then the relatives would have had an even stronger motives to tell what they had allegedly found as soon as they could.

If the relatives had fabricated the silencer evidence before supposedly handing it in to the police on August 12th, why would Ann Eaton leave it out of her statement of August 14th.

The truth is that the relatives didn't find it, so they couldn't have put the blood on it or scratched the mantelpiece with it. They were told to say they had found it. The plan to frame Bamber was thought up by the police.

[Harry]

In a number of instances, what are allegedly Robert Boutflour's reflections look very likely to have originated with DS Jones. It most likely would have been Jones who told Boutflour to say he had heard Jeremy say that he could easily kill his parents. Jones possibly knew that Sheila's fingerprints were on the bullet cases, so he told Mr Bourflour to say he had seen Jeremy getting Sheila to load the rifle.

People should look at the case from this point of view instead of just believing what witnesses say in their statements. Things add up when you recognise that the silencer evidence was faked and that everyone involved, both police and relatives, knew it was faked.

Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) PETER SIMPSON stating in a press conference and reported in ‘The Echo’ dated 17th September 1985,
‘A silencer was found at the White House Farm on the day of the killings, but this does not have to mean anything suspicious.’ (See Material Exhibits File News clippings)

What probably was going on is that at that stage Peter Simpson did not know about the plot to fake the silencer evidence, so he blithely told the press about the police finding it on the day of the killings. But when informed of what was afoot involving Stan Jones and Ron Cook instead of putting a stop to it, as he should have done, he decided to go along with it, so the report of finding a silencer was retracted.

In order to cover himself in case it was proven that the police found the silencer, notwithstanding the retraction, Jones produced that fake document where he talks about returning the silencer ""covertly". It is probably meant to look fake, so it could potentially be interpreted as proof the silencer was returned, or alternatively dismissed as fake, if the retraction was believed.

Stan Jones was a corrupt police detective who knew all the dark arts. The fake document was probably an attempt to cover himself, in case the truth became established that the police found the silencer and not the relatives.

If the police returned the silencer before August 10th, it could explain how the relatives found it afterwards. On the other hand if you prefer to deny the police ever found it and just to say that Peter Simpson must have been mistaken, you can dismiss it as something faked by Bamber supporters. It is fake, but most likely the work of Stan Jones.

[mike tesko]

"Moving on from this, it deserves consideration that Peter Eaton never handed over a silencer to DS Jones at all on the evening of 12th August 1985, police still had the silencer which DS Jones collected from the scene earlier..."

A clue to the deception is that the telescopic sight originally had the reference SBJ/2, the reason being that it had been found at the same time as the silencer SBJ/1 on August 7th. It should seem strange that an item which was allegedly not collected by DS Jones, but left at the Eatons' house should have originally had the reference SBJ/2 even though it was not even collected until after the the silencer reference had been changed to DBR/1.

The point being that since it was allegedly collected by DC Oakey at a time later than the changes to references with David Boutflour's initials, it's hard to make sense of a reference which harks back to a time before the exhibit reference for the silencer was changed. But the truth is they, the police, had collected it on August 7th 1985. Yes, police definitely had the silencer / sound moderator from the first morning of the police investigation. DS Jones returned from Jeremy's cottage at about 11.15am, and he was allowed into the farmhouse even though Cook and the second team of (Witham) SOCO's claim that they let no-one in other than PI Montgomery in order to remove the rifle from Sheila's body and make it safe. Thing is, in addition to PI Montgomery, Cook allowed in PS Woodcock and DS Jones. DS Jones took a total of four exhibits from the scene on that first morning (SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1 - the silencer / sound moderator). What I will say is that by 12th August 1985 that Jeremy had confronted the relatives about taking things from the farmhouse, and he told them in no uncertain terms to put everything back until everything had been sorted out to do with death duties and the wills. So, anything the relatives had taken from the house up until that stage would have been returned. I can't begin to imagine that the relatives would have handed everything back or taken everything back to whf and kept hold of Jeremy's parker Hale silencer. I think Jeremy would have known that his silencer was missing, because he noticed everything else which had been taken?  If Cook took a silencer to Huntingdon Lab' on 13th August 1985 which Glynis Howard examined briefly it must have been the silencer which DS Jones had seized earlier (7th August 1985), and if that is true, then Peter Eaton never handed over a silencer to the police on the evening of 12th August 1985. That part of the case has to be bogus! Furthermore, we know that that silencer was handed back to Cook by Glynis Howard and that at some stage Cook dismantled it and separated its baffle plates without finding or reporting a presence of any blood upon or inside it. He then rebuild it and took photographs of this process and procedure. I think we can be fairly sure that if there had been any blood on or in the baffle plates at the time that he checked them, that he would have been the person credited with finding it. With this in mind, I can't see any reason why the police would have resubmitted the same silencer back to the lab' on 30th August 1985 under a completely different exhibit reference (DB/1, 23) and a different Lab' item number, where previously it had been 'SJ/1 (22). I think police submitted something else to the Lab' on 30th August 1985, but it wasn't a silencer. I believe it was a piece of dried blood, the same blood that was used to obtain the blood grouping results (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) at the Lab' on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, at a time when there was no silencer present at the Lab' at all. The silencer the relatives took from the cupboard at whf in September 1985 was eventually sent to the Lab' on or by 20th September 1985, and the blood group results were attributed to it upon its arrival there. When the silencer arrived at the Lab' it had red paint crushed into the knurl on its end cap..

When the relatives handed in the items they found on their visit to Whitehouse Farm on September 11th, they handed in the "other" silencer which had been deliberately contaminated. Yes, particularly the red paint particles from the kitchen aga surround..

They were then told  to sign fraudulent statements backdating the finding of those items to August 10th. Yes, the cops and relatives along with the consenting experts at the Lab' set about merging the evidence from both silencers, the blood and paint as though it had always been one silencer / sound moderator, and that relatives had not had possession of the silencer in question since evening of 12th August 1985 when Peter Eaton supposedly handed over 'that / the' silencer to DS Jones - but relatives had access to the second silencer in September when Jeremy was reminded in police custody and being questioned. Relatives had access to the farmhouse, to Sheila's blood, and to the red painted kitchen aga surround. That is precisely why nobody makes a witness statement about the silencer, blood and paint until September 1985, when the pact has been made

The story that Jones collected the silencer from Peter Eaton on August 12th, but left the other other things at the Eatons' house was almost certainly made up by Stan Jones Correct..and with that familiar anecdote thrown in. Peter Eaton relates that DS Jones drank half a bottle of whiskey on the evening when he collected it before driving home. I can't see that being true...

How likely is that Peter Eaton would be dumb enough to say something which could potentially get Stan Jones into trouble when Jones was their saviour and benefactor. It's made up nonsense.. It was basically Jones who by framing Bamber got them the inheritance. From what I know and can see, DS Jones had his hands into everything that was dodgy in this case, hence why it doesn't surprise me that he had to fabricate the contents of his pocketbook, or two..

Apart from a drinking and driving offence, the police are not allowed to drink when on duty  Putting two and two together, Jones probably told Mr Eaton to say that. He made up the anecdotes for witnesses, to add a touch of realism. Perfectly feasible, that's what bent cops do...

He told Robert Boutflour to write down things in his diary which he Stan Jones had made up. Seems to me to possibly have been a matter of Robert Boutflour and DS Jones, or vice versa, pulling each others strings

Jones wanted to make it look like the police had been careless and that the relatives had noticed what the police had missed, even though they had supposedly searched the premises. Cops were only interested in one silencer, hence why they didn't bother looking for the second silencer at the beginning of their investigation. In any event even if they had done, its almost certain that they would not have found any human blood on or inside it, or any paint crushed into the knurl of its metal end cap at that early stage..

So when the silencer was supposedly found by his son David, Robert Boutflour exclaims "The buggers aren't looking! He relates that when he told Jones about finding the silencer, Jones responded with "What silencer? Taking this in context, I believe that if Jones made such an exclamation, as he purports to have made, it was because he didn't or hadn't known about the existence of a second silencer by that stage, and that this exchange took place in September 1985, not a month or so earlier.It was all play acting with Uncle Bobby the leading man and his daughter Ann Eaton best supporting actress. They switched the events which had unfolded in September 1985, as though they had occurred a month earlier..

[mike tesko]

If the police found the silencer in the gun cupboard on August 7th 1985, they must have also found the other items which were in the same location and which were given related exhibit references. SBJ/1 was the silencer, SBJ/2 was the telescopic sight and so on. So how could the relatives have found those things on the August 10th? I believe that DS Jones took possession of the first silencer from the vicinity of the downstairs toilet / bathroom where Anthony Pargeter kept it. If true, then DS Jones might not have looked in the cupboard in the den?

Sometimes it is the attempt to cover up a deception which gives it away that there was a deception. The official version of events reveals the strategy of the conspirators. that's one way of looking at it..

The relatives did not really find a silencer on August 10th. Nor did they find the telescopic sight and the bag of .22 ammunition and those other things which David Boutflour allegedly found on that date. You are right, they took possession of them later, a month later to be accurate...If the police found the silencer on August 7th as stated by ACC Peter Simpson in a press conference on September 17th, they must have also found the other stuff that was in the same box. I don't think the silencer that DS Jones took possession of on 7th August 1985, was in the gun cupboard, I think it was with Pargeters gun in the downstairs toilet / bathroom, or the kitchen. Pargeters rifle could have been the one which was captured in a crime scene photograph taken in the kitchen which was problematic to the police case...

So what should we make of the strange sounding story that the relatives found all of those things on August 10th and took them back to the home of Ann and Peter Eaton, where the silencer was collected by DS Stan Jones on August 12th, but not the other items which remained there for a month afterwards, before being collected by DC Oakey on September 11th? 'Officialdom Dementia'..

It was all an elaborate hoax. Yes.. What really happened was this. After Julie Mugford came forward on September 6th the police, I juyst find it such a fantastic coincidence that Julie Mugford, and Robert Boutflour should both come forward and effectively make the police alter the course of the investigation - with DS Jones at the heart of them both having come forward together at the same time... namely Stan Jones, Who had a disliking for Jeremy, because he had told him to mkake sure that nothing went missing from the farmhouse... thought up a plot to frame Jeremy Bamber by faking the silencer evidence. If true, DS Jones had to be in on such a plot along with the relatives, and to a certain extent the relatives who handled a different silencer on different occasions..This was the plan.

The items which the police found in the gun cupboard on the day of the killings August 7th were returned to Whitehouse Farm or simply left there, which the reltives took to mean that those items were considered not to be of any interest to the police at that time..and the relatives were told by the police to go there on September 11th to make an arranged finding of the things which the police had already found and put back, but with a difference. I think the introduction of the second silencer in September 1985, came about after the realization that police had got Anthony Pargeters silencer, a fact established by the taking of the Pargeter rifle / silencer on 7th August 1985, realized by the relatives when on evening of 9th August 1985, DCI Jones / DS Jones had returned the Pargeter Rifle to them at the scene - Ann Eaton makes a hand written note to the effect that on that date (9th August 1985) that her husband Peter put the gun back! He put the gun back, but not the silencer. Obviously, neither Peter or Ann Eaton knew that there had been a silencer fitted to the end of that guns barrel when Jones and Jones handed it back to them. But later on, they found out about the identity of the Pargeter silencer which police had kept, from Anthony Pargeter who was asking where his parker hale silencer was? This almost certainly came about during the first month of the original police investigation, and Anthony Pargeter had brought the matter to the relatives attention. By that stage, the relatives had found out that police were saying that they shootings had been a one gun crime, with Pargeters rifle having already been excluded and back in his possession. So, if the only rifle used in the shootings was the anshuzt rifle, why were the police holding onto the Pargeter silencer / sound moderator?

Instead of the silencer which they had sent to Huntingdon laboratory and which was examined by Glynnis Howard, they planted an identical  silencer which had been deliberately contaminated with Sheila's blood and with paint from the fire surround, which it would be alleged was used by Bamber when he committed the murders. I think they had to switch the silencers - the one in police possession (the Pargeter one), from 7th August 1985, with the one still in the cupboard along with the telescopic sight and everything else until early September 1985 (The Bamber rifle silencer). Because unless that was done, questions and eyebrows would be raised concerning why the Pargeter silencer / moderator had been used (if it had) on the Bamber anshuzt rifle, when it had a silencer all of its own? Surely, had the switch over not taken place, that Jeremy Bamber would surely have cottoned on to the discrepancy by the time the matter eventually came to trial..

It's possible the relatives  weren't told what they would find, but were expected by the police to find the silencer, guns and ammunition. Things may have been left lying around as if to catch their attention. But if that happened the plot must have been explained to the relatives soon afterwards, otherwise the backdating of the finding in statements would make no sense to them. There must have been a meeting of sorts where the relatives thrashed out the problem concerning the police having possession of the wrong silencer to the gun...

After the items were found by David Boutflour and transported to the house of Ann and Peter Eaton on September 11th they were all, including the silencer, collected by DC Oakey on the same day or shortly after, but Oakey was told to leave out any mention of the silencer in his statement of October 25th 1985. Yes, but he would have had to make a note of the items he deposited in a property store register, which is known as 'THE PROPERTY OTHER THAN FOUND REGISTER' (POTFR) the entries for which these matters related have never been disclosed by Essex police. All that is known, is that according to the COLP investigation there was / is no record at all of any silencer which the relatives handed over to police on 12th August 1985, was ever stored at all in any property store throughout August 1985... The official version was to be that the relatives found those items on August 10th, but that Jones had for some reason only collected the silencer.

[mike tesko]

The fact that no mention of finding a silencer on August 10th is made in Ann Eaton's statement of August 14th strongly suggests that the event never really took place, which is what Jeremy now alleges. Relatives didn't find a silencer on that date, but police already had one in their possession, but alas it was the wrong silencer to the Anschutz rifle Consider what Mrs Eaton says in her statement of September 8th to 13th.

"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Stated after the find of the second silencer (belonging to the Anschutz rifle) in September 1985.. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead". Yes, exactly what the prosecutions case turned out to be - the relatives were doing the work of the police and the CPS long before they got their own house in order and agreed with the relatives view point..

Yet she did not consider it to be important enough to mention in her first statement. She couldn't mention something that did not become an issue until a month later on...Mrs Eaton gave a somewhat half hearted explanation of the anomaly in her later statement to City of London Police on August 14th 1991.

"I have been asked why in my statement dated 14.8.85 is there no mention of the finding of the silencer. The only reason I can think of is that DS Jones was not convinced of our observations DS Jones, again) hence it was a nothing statement. It was her original statement, it was an everything statement.. I don't even think we spoke about it". Well, she would hardly mention anything about finding the silencer, telescopic sight and other things in her 14th August 1985 statement, if she had not found the silencer in question, or handed it over to the police until 11th September 1985...

The last sentence from her COLP interview blatantly contradicts her claim in her second statement of September 8th that she and her relatives figured out the essential argument of the prosecution before the police had even thought of it. It shows that the relatives, police and CPS were all in cahoots with one another regarding the best approach to try and get Jeremy Bamber convicted... If that were really true, then the finding would surely have been referred to in her August statement.

If Ann Eaton had contaminated the silencer herself, then the relatives would have had an even stronger motives to tell what they had allegedly found as soon as they could. This is precisely what the relatives did, they took possession of the Bamber silencer in September 1985, handed it over to the police, made witness statements about finding it, police arranged for it to be taken or sent to the lab' at Huntingdon on 20th September 1985, and the blood group evidence which had already been obtained beforehand was associated with the second silencer (DRB/1). I will have more to say on this matter below..

If the relatives had fabricated the silencer evidence before supposedly handing it in to the police on August 12th, why would Ann Eaton leave it out of her statement of August 14th. Worse yet, How could relatives still be in possession of the silencer as late as 11th September 1985, if they had found it a month earlier, how did it get back into their possession, considering that it had been resubmitted back to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and that the ballistic expert, Fletcher had possession of it at the lab' from that date, and that he had dismantled it (silencer) under the 'guise of DB/1(23), and that Essex police should still have possession of it so that DS Eastwood and DS Davison could fingerprint it on 13th September 1985, and then the police submit the silencer again to the lab' on and by 20th September 1985, without any records proving or establishing such movements and possession from one known about, or alleged event of another?

The truth is that the relatives didn't find it, so they couldn't have put the blood on it or scratched the mantelpiece with it. The police seized the silencer from the scene on 7th August 1985, no doubts about it...They were told to say they had found it. I think they genuinely found the second silencer (DRB/1) in September 1985. The problem was that the evidence that got associated with and to it was problematic, because by the time the second silencer arrived at the Lab' on 20th September 1985, blood group results had already been identified at the lab' and there was no way either the police, or the relatives could argue that these blood groups could in any way be attributed or associated with the second silencer (DRB/1), because the blood from which the results had been obtained had been present at the Lab' from 30th August 1985 which was a couple of weeks before the relatives took possession of the second silencer from the scene in September 1985. First things first, how could the blood group evidence which had been identified betwee12th to 19th September 1985, have been found inside a silencer (DRB/1) which had not even been present at the Lab' until after the aforementioned results had been obtained? The blood group evidence (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) came from some other source, other than the silencer (DRB/1) which the relatives introduced in September 1985The plan to frame Bamber was thought up by the police. Maybe so, but all parties had to agree in one way or another..