Author Topic: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!  (Read 1924 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2019, 03:21:AM »
AE wrote in her notes that she brought the bloody knickers back with her to Oak farm.


"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2019, 03:23:AM »
AE wrote in her notes that she brought the bloody knickers back with her to Oak farm.


Could this by why she didn't want to hand them over?




"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2019, 03:38:AM »
"Which is accentuated by the fact that they both have been interviewed in the kitchen where Ralph Nevill Bamber was killed, a site where they volunteered to be so interviewed"

And that's the exact place were PE also volunteered to be so interviewed for ITV in 2004. Sitting exactly where Nevil was killed. 




That's just creepy.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2019, 04:53:AM »
Yes, it is fake, because it refers to a different silencer than she was presented with, and she didn't have possession of the silencer long enough to give such a detailed analysis - she took a swab from the aperture that's all she did on the 13th August 1985, she couldn't have thought that the silencer she examined on that day, was referred to previously by the different exhibit reference of SBJ/1, because the silencer bearing that configuration was never taken to the Lab', nor could she have known on 13th August 1985, that the next time the silencer would arrive at the Lab' let's say on 30th August 1985 that it would be referred to as exhibit DB/1 (23), and that by November 1985, somebody would be requesting the ballistic expert, to alter lab' item no.23, into no.22..

Information which Glynis Howard could not possibly have known about on 13th August 1985, was added Much later on with deception in mind..

I note that you deliberately did not post the first page of that document, also dated 13th August 1985, where it clearly states on the diagram that red paint particles noticed in knurled pattern of the silencers end cap after the silencer had been returned to the Lab' for fingerprinting of it by the police! This gives a clear indication that the red paint was only noticed on the silencer after it returned to the lab' on a second occasion! I don't believe that it was sent back to the lab' in the ' guise of exhibit DB/1, 23, (or 22) on 30th August 1985, I think the item sent to the lab' on that occasion was the source for the blood group results obtained afterwards, but certainly not prior to 20th September 1985 when a silencer arrived at the Lab' for the second time!

In view of there existing no fingerprint evidence pertaining to any silencer as alluded to by DI Cook on either 15th and 23rd August 1985 at the Sandridge police research and development centre, as confirmed by the COLP investigation, the only reliable information that a silencer did get fingerprinted, was that it got fingerprinted by DS Eastwood and DS Davison (HQ SOCO) on 13th September 1985. This being the now indisputable case, the silencer with the red pain particles upon it could only have been received at the Lab on some occasion after Eastwood and Davison had fingerprinted 'it'..

This fits in snugly with the now known fact that the silencer did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, which was the second time a silencer had been sent / taken to the Lab'. Indeed, when this silencer was eventually examined (26th September 1985), this was the occasion when the paint from the kitchen aga was first noted! Moreover, this wasn't the original silencer which Cook had taken to the Lab' on 13th August 1985, this was a different silencer (DRB/1) found at the scene in September 1985 by the relatives..

So, the document you have sought to rely upon by claiming that there was red paint noted on the first silencer on 13th August 1985, was created much later on by adding information onto it, which could not possibly have been noted until over a month later on a different silencer altogether..



It is the handwriting of Glynnis Howard. She must have realised that there were two silencers and that the one she had examined on August 13th was not the one with paint found on it. The cops must have asked her to help out and she agreed.

It is notable that the exhibit reference on the left has been changed from SBJ/1 to DB/1. I take it that there is proof that the reference which the silencer had at that stage, when sent to Huntingdon laboratory was SJ/1 and not SBJ/1. There you see the dark arts being used, but with a mistake being made. They should have written SJ/1 and crossed that out, if I have understood your point correctly.

The trouble with this case is that even when blatant skulduggery is exposed nothing happens, because there is no attempt to communicate the truth to the public. It's all about people agreeing not to reveal what they know and keeping the truth secret. The mentality goes something like this.

"It doesn't matter what the public think, all that matters is what the CCRC think"

There is now enough evidence to expose the conspirators. If the relatives were openly accused of perverting the course of justice by a national daily and challenged to sue, you would see that they wouldn't dare. But instead, the lawyers have asked the Guardian not to reveal what they have been told about two silencers.

Even worse, we can tell that the lawyers are sticking with outdated assumptions accepted by the Court of Appeal in 2002, like Sheila being shot twice twice in the master bedroom and PC West mistiming his log and PC Collins mistaking Nevill Bamber's body for that of a woman wearing pyjamas.

There WERE two silencers, but the relatives found BOTH of them on August 10th. As the saying goes, always bet on stupid.


« Last Edit: January 31, 2019, 05:07:AM by Harry »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #34 on: January 30, 2019, 07:35:AM »

It is the handwriting of Glynnis Howard. She must have realised that there were two silencers and that the one she had examined on August 13th was not the one with paint found on it. The cops must have asked her to help out and she agreed.

It is notable that the exhibit reference on the left has been changed from SBJ/1 to DB/1. I take it that there is proof that the reference which the silencer had at that stage, when sent to Huntingdon laboratory was SB/1 and not SBJ/1. There you see the dark arts being used, but with a mistake being made. They should have written SB/1 and crossed that out, if I have understood your point correctly.

The trouble with this case is that even when blatant skulduggery is exposed nothing happens, because there is no attempt to communicate the truth to the public. It's all about people agreeing not to reveal what they know and keeping the truth secret. The mentality goes something like this.

"It doesn't matter what the public think, all that matters is what the CCRC think"

There is now enough evidence to expose the conspirators. If the relatives were openly accused of perverting the course of justice by a national daily and challenged to sue, you would see that they wouldn't dare. But instead, the lawyers have asked the Guardian not to reveal what they have been told about two silencers.

Even worse, we can tell that the lawyers are sticking with outdated assumptions accepted by the Court of Appeal in 2002, like Sheila being shot twice twice in the master bedroom and PC West mistiming his log and PC Collins mistaking Nevill Bamber's body for that of a woman wearing pyjamas.

There WERE two silencers, but the relatives found BOTH of them on August 10th. As the saying goes, always bet on stupid.


Harry you are very keen to point out how stupid other people are. Yet have you ever taken a good look at your own arguments?

Like Scipio you exhibit the dunning kruger effect. The stupid are usually cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubts.


https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2019, 08:24:AM »
Yes, it is fake, because it refers to a different silencer than she was presented with, and she didn't have possession of the silencer long enough to give such a detailed analysis - she took a swab from the aperture that's all she did on the 13th August 1985, she couldn't have thought that the silencer she examined on that day, was referred to previously by the different exhibit reference of SBJ/1, because the silencer bearing that configuration was never taken to the Lab', nor could she have known on 13th August 1985, that the next time the silencer would arrive at the Lab' let's say on 30th August 1985 that it would be referred to as exhibit DB/1 (23), and that by November 1985, somebody would be requesting the ballistic expert, to alter lab' item no.23, into no.22..

Information which Glynis Howard could not possibly have known about on 13th August 1985, was added Much later on with deception in mind..

I note that you deliberately did not post the first page of that document, also dated 13th August 1985, where it clearly states on the diagram that red paint particles noticed in knurled pattern of the silencers end cap after the silencer had been returned to the Lab' for fingerprinting of it by the police! This gives a clear indication that the red paint was only noticed on the silencer after it returned to the lab' on a second occasion! I don't believe that it was sent back to the lab' in the ' guise of exhibit DB/1, 23, (or 22) on 30th August 1985, I think the item sent to the lab' on that occasion was the source for the blood group results obtained afterwards, but certainly not prior to 20th September 1985 when a silencer arrived at the Lab' for the second time!

In view of there existing no fingerprint evidence pertaining to any silencer as alluded to by DI Cook on either 15th and 23rd August 1985 at the Sandridge police research and development centre, as confirmed by the COLP investigation, the only reliable information that a silencer did get fingerprinted, was that it got fingerprinted by DS Eastwood and DS Davison (HQ SOCO) on 13th September 1985. This being the now indisputable case, the silencer with the red pain particles upon it could only have been received at the Lab on some occasion after Eastwood and Davison had fingerprinted 'it'..

This fits in snugly with the now known fact that the silencer did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, which was the second time a silencer had been sent / taken to the Lab'. Indeed, when this silencer was eventually examined (26th September 1985), this was the occasion when the paint from the kitchen aga was first noted! Moreover, this wasn't the original silencer which Cook had taken to the Lab' on 13th August 1985, this was a different silencer (DRB/1) found at the scene in September 1985 by the relatives..

So, the document you have sought to rely upon by claiming that there was red paint noted on the first silencer on 13th August 1985, was created much later on by adding information onto it, which could not possibly have been noted until over a month later on a different silencer altogether..


Mike you have been claiming that DS Eastwood and DS Davison fingerprinted a second silencer on 13th September for over 10 years now! Jeremy has never seen any such documents, this is evident from this letter he sent you below in 09. I think its safe to say this simply never happened.  I don't mean to sound like a jerk here but you filling his head with moonshine is probably what ultimatley led him to stop writing to you. It does not do him any favours even when you repeat this now.




« Last Edit: January 30, 2019, 08:32:AM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47363
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #36 on: January 30, 2019, 10:26:AM »

Mike you have been claiming that DS Eastwood and DS Davison fingerprinted a second silencer on 13th September for over 10 years now! Jeremy has never seen any such documents, this is evident from this letter he sent you below in 09. I think its safe to say this simply never happened.  I don't mean to sound like a jerk here but you filling his head with moonshine is probably what ultimatley led him to stop writing to you. It does not do him any favours even when you repeat this now.



It should be somewhat obvious that the silencer was fingerprinted by DS Eastwood and DS Davison on 13th September 1985 by reference to the taking of fingerprints from all the relatives in September of the same year! Cook (Witham SOCO) didn't claim to have fingerprinted anything after 23rd August 1985, so no-one can try to claim that the fingerprinting of the silencer in question had been carried out by him. On the contrary, COLP could not find any fingerprint records for Cooks alleged fingerprinting of the silencer, or any results of such an examination, he said he had carried out on a silencer on 15th and 23rd August 1985, although the fingerprinting of other items like the rifle and a couple of shotguns were! I believe that Cook never fingerprinted the silencer at all. Not only that but if he had done on either of those two occasions, and by David Boutflours own admission, his own fingerprints would have been all over it! Cook did not photograph any marks on any silencer after the fingerprinting session with the shotguns and rifle at Suandridge. But it's also worth pointing out that on these occasions he also allegedly fingerprinted the ammunition magazine of the anshuzt rifle, and the 25 spent bullet cases, and neither did he find any fingerprints that we have been told about on a silencer, the ammunition magazine or any of the original 25 of 26 bullet cases connected with these shootings..

There is probably a good reason for there being such a lack of fingerprints found on a y of these items when Cook claimed he had fingerprinted these in August 1985 - that reason being that it wasn't he who had fingerprinted the silencer, ammunition magazine or the 25 bullet cases, but that DS Eastwood and DS Davison had on 13th September 1985, or thereabouts!

There exists fingerprint records in connection with the fingerprint  examination of items in connection with this case that were undertaken by Eastwood and Davison on 13th September 1985. Proof that they fingerprinted the silencer on that occasion can be found there! Once again, the existence of these fingerprint records and the duties carried out by Eastwood and Davison (HQ SOCO) on 13th September 1985, undermines what Cook claimed he did in August 1985! Cook only fingerprinted two shotguns, a .22 air rifle, and the anschuzt rifle..

It doesn't matter that I no longer have contact with Jeremy Bamber I saw enough of him, and spike more than enough to him, and wrote letters back and forth to him, visited him, took tape recordings of him talking about his family and his case, enough of everything to be able to give an opinion in this case. I have 50,000 documents which belong to me not him, these were due to be destroyed but for my intervention, and I only took possession of them on the proviso that they believe her to me and no-one else! You saying that I am not doing him any favours is your opinion. What I know and what I shall say in response is that neither he nor anybody else will ever be able to prove that Sheila took her own life up there on the parents bedroom floor! Good luck trying to prove that / this. Because she didn't...

Back to the fingerprinting of the silencer by DS Eastwood and DS Davison on 13th of September 1985. It does say on the submission of articles sent to the Lab' by Essex police that the task of fingerprinting was given to Eastwood and Davidson on that date (13th September 1985), it doesn't mean that they fingerprinted everything they were told to fingerprint on that date. The actual fingerprinting of the silencer, ammunition option magazine e and 25 of the 26 spent bullet cases, could have been fingerprinted at any stage between then (13th September 1985) and the date the items were subsequently sent to the lab' for examination. It was HQ SOCO who fingerprinted whf in September 1985 ( not Witham SOCO). Hence, why Basil Cock was complaining about fingerprint dust being on everything when he attended the farmhouse. Cock was there in September and not in August 1985. The silencer found by relatives took place in September 1985, I don't believe that that version of the silencer was used at all in shootings. However, I believe that the Anthony Targeted silencer was, even if it was used to poke and prod a victims body with, or it on the end of a loaded or an unloaded Targeted rifle, and that it struck the kitchen mantelpiece on some other unconnected occasion..

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

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23428
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #37 on: January 30, 2019, 01:11:PM »
"Which is accentuated by the fact that they both have been interviewed in the kitchen where Ralph Nevill Bamber was killed, a site where they volunteered to be so interviewed"

And that's the exact place were PE also volunteered to be so interviewed for ITV in 2004. Sitting exactly where Nevil was killed. 




That's just creepy.

They had moved the body by them and cleaned the house  ::)

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23428
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #38 on: January 30, 2019, 01:14:PM »
AE wrote in her notes that she brought the bloody knickers back with her to Oak farm.




And? She brought them home as part of the rubbish - she said she threw them out in her WS.. She didn't have to admit to taking the rubbish home to search through - but she did. Might be a good idea to try and obtain a closer picture of those buckets!  ;D

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47363
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #39 on: January 30, 2019, 01:44:PM »
And? She brought them home as part of the rubbish - she said she threw them out in her WS.. She didn't have to admit to taking the rubbish home to search through - but she did. Might be a good idea to try and obtain a closer picture of those buckets!  ;D

Why should anyone accept what you say that Ann Eaton did with arguably the source of the holy grail blood grouping results (A, EAP BA, AK1, and HP2-1) identified at the Lab'  not on 13th August 1985, but on 12th,  13th,  18th, and 19th September 1985?

Hang in a minute, we can't go along and accept such a person's word, that although she took Sheila Caffell's originally badly bloodstained knickers away from the crime scene, that she subsequently threw this evidence away!

What?

Why would anyone be interested in taking some bodies heavily bloodstains knickers home away from a crime scene, where all the other bloodstained items of no apparent Inretest to the police, were burnt on a bonfire in the grounds of the farmhouse? It simply doesn't make any sense! All the bloodstained items should have either, (a) been taken by the police to facilitate their investigation, or as the case may be, (b) burnt on the bonfire!

Why (a) would you rinse out Sheila's bloodstained knickers, and then take them home with you as some sort of rubbish for you to simply throw away, when you could have simply allowed the blood stained knickers to be burnt on the crime scene pyre?
« Last Edit: January 30, 2019, 01:48:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47363
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #40 on: January 30, 2019, 01:49:PM »
I'm not buying into that / this nonsense..
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23428
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #41 on: January 30, 2019, 01:54:PM »
Why should anyone accept what you say that Ann Eaton did with arguably the source of the holy grail blood grouping results (A, EAP BA, AK1, and HP2-1) identified at the Lab'  not on 13th August 1985, but on 12th,  13th,  18th, and 19th September 1985?

Hang in a minute, we can't go along and accept such a person's word, that although she took Sheila Caffell's originally badly bloodstained knickers away from the crime scene, that she subsequently threw this evidence away!

What?

Why would anyone be interested in taking some bodies heavily bloodstains knickers home away from a crime scene, where all the other bloodstained items of no apparent Inretest to the police, were burnt on a bonfire in the grounds of the farmhouse? It simply doesn't make any sense! All the bloodstained items should have either, (a) been taken by the police to facilitate their investigation, or as the case may be, (b) burnt on the bonfire!

Why (a) would you rinse out Sheila's bloodstained knickers, and then take them home with you as some sort of rubbish for you to simply throw away, when you could have simply allowed the blood stained knickers to be burnt on the crime scene pyre?

She took them as part of the rubbish - they were in the bin that she removed to look through later. I you don't to buy what I say - David posted her notes, HE is relying on what SHE said. The pair of you need to ask Bamber about the buckets if you want a REAL discrepancy! Or get yourselves a decent picture of them!
« Last Edit: January 30, 2019, 01:54:PM by Caroline »

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47363
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #42 on: January 30, 2019, 06:50:PM »
She took them as part of the rubbish - they were in the bin that she removed to look through later. I you don't to buy what I say - David posted her notes, HE is relying on what SHE said. The pair of you need to ask Bamber about the buckets if you want a REAL discrepancy! Or get yourselves a decent picture of them!

Hang on a minute, I am not interested in what Jeremy might be saying now, or what David believes, I can think for myself. I do not need anyone else to think for me, or adduce, or deduce something on my behalf! I am more than capable of doing all my own thinking, my own deductions and give my own opinions...

xxxxxx xxxx xxx, xxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxx xx xxx - I don't know why I have to put up with the amateurish way that you all are dealing with such a very serious matter...

You have all simply got very little idea of what the cops, its witnesses and the CPS are capable of doing - fabricating a case against anyone is what they do on an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis...

Sheila's heavily bloodstained knickers were soaking in one bucket, and the children's clothes were soaking in the other bucket - work the rest out for yourself. How do you know which of the two bucket contents Ann Eaton actually rinsed out? She doesn't say that she rinsed out the items in both buckets does she? Or does she?

As for Jeremy, if he isn't the killer that he has been convicted of being, then why should anyone think that he knows far more than anybody else about his case?

His arrogant attitude is what has incarcerated him in custody for the past 33 years or more...
« Last Edit: January 31, 2019, 08:23:AM by maggie »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47363
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #43 on: January 30, 2019, 06:55:PM »
He has a total disregard for other peoples feelings, people who have put their necks on the line trying to help him!

To say he uses people, would be an understatement, but then again if you or I were convicted of the types of crime and serving the sentences he is currently serving, how do we know whether or not, we might fall into that same category?

We don't...

Lets not forget, that from a very early stage that the relatives were blaming Jeremy for the shootings in cluding the shooting dead of his own sister, amongst themselves...
« Last Edit: January 30, 2019, 06:58:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23428
Re: The Soiled underwear belonging to Sheila - catalyst for foul play!
« Reply #44 on: January 30, 2019, 07:33:PM »
Hang on a minute, I am not interested in what Jeremy might be saying now, or what David believes, I can think for myself. I do not need anyone else to think for me, or adduce, or deduce something on my behalf! I am more than capable of doing all my own thinking, my own deductions and give my own opinions...


xxxxxx xxxx xxx, xxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxx xx xxx- I don't know why I have to put up with the amateurish way that you all are dealing with such a very serious matter...

You have all simply got very little idea of what the cops, its witnesses and the CPS are capable of doing - fabricating a case against anyone is what they do on an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis...

Sheila's heavily bloodstained knickers were soaking in one bucket, and the children's clothes were soaking in the other bucket - work the rest out for yourself. How do you know which of the two bucket contents Ann Eaton actually rinsed out? She doesn't say that she rinsed out the items in both buckets does she? Or does she?

As for Jeremy, if he isn't the killer that he has been convicted of being, then why should anyone think that he knows far more than anybody else about his case?

His arrogant attitude is what has incarcerated him in custody for the past 33 years or more...

I'm really not interested in your opinion of me or if I xxxx xx xxx or not! You're not important to me and neither is your opinion. I've told you before, if you can't debate without getting personal then your posts aren't worth replying to and if you check back - I wan't addressing YOU in my initial post on the subject anyway. Either clam down and show some intelligent respect for people who have bothered to join your forum or ignore me (and others) who have the audacity to disagree with you and just post what you like!

Bamber knows more about the case because he's guilty - and that's why he doesn't give a xxxx out anyone. Any innocent man would show more gratitude for ANY and ALL help he received from people who didn't have to care or bother in the first place.

By the way, yes, she does say she attended to all of the clothes in the buckets but she doesn't refer to them being 'rinsed', she said she 'washed' them. Page 35 COLP statement!

« Last Edit: January 31, 2019, 08:29:AM by maggie »