How to believe in AE's phantom september silencer.

[David1819]

Step One: Misinterpret action report 88 and give yourself the false impression that the silencer in this box is refered to in the present tense rather than the past tense.




Step Two: Once you have made the same slip-up as the simpleton who put this action report into the excel spreadsheet below (step one). Believe this excel spreadsheet to be a primary source of evidence.




Step Three: Read the following extract of Robert Boutflours recollection of events 6 years after the event. Dont whatever you do consider the fact that he was in his seventies at this point and was later diagnoised with alzheimer's.

"I can't actually remember her actually being there. I do remember Basil Cock complaining about the fingerprint dust and that he didn't seem to have any interest in the silencer."

Step Four: Fail to read Hammersley's pocket notes below properly. If you read it properly you will realise he took possession of AE/1 and AE/2 and ALSO the silencer thus distinguishing them apart. He also mentions HGO/1a that being a blood stain on one of the AE boxes. We don't want to know this if we are to protend a box is a silencer.



Step five: Ignore the fact that AE/1 is DRB/2



Step Six: Ignore the fact that what Ann Eaton handed over to Oakley was the box that contained the silencer found on August 10th by DRB. If you don't ignore this, you will run the risk of working out the entire notion here is based on a false premise.



So yes Ann Eaton did hand over the box containing the silencer in September. But it was empty at that point since PE had already taken it out the box and given it to the Stan Jones the month prior. DUH! 
 

[mike tesko]

Step One: Misinterpret action report 88 and give yourself the false impression that the silencer in this box is refered to in the present tense rather than the past tense.




Step Two: Once you have made the same slip-up as the simpleton who put this action report into the excel spreadsheet below (step one). Believe this excel spreadsheet to be a primary source of evidence.




Step Three: Read the following extract of Robert Boutflours recollection of events 6 years after the event. Dont whatever you do consider the fact that he was in his seventies at this point and was later diagnoised with alzheimer's.

"I can't actually remember her actually being there. I do remember Basil Cock complaining about the fingerprint dust and that he didn't seem to have any interest in the silencer."

Step Four: Fail to read Hammersley's pocket notes below properly. If you read it properly you will realise he took possession of AE/1 and AE/2 and ALSO the silencer thus distinguishing them apart. He also mentions HGO/1a that being a blood stain on one of the AE boxes. We don't want to know this if we are to protend a box is a silencer.



Step five: Ignore the fact that AE/1 is DRB/2



Step Six: Ignore the fact that what Ann Eaton handed over to Oakley was the box that contained the silencer found on August 10th by DRB. If you don't ignore this, you will run the risk of working out the entire notion here is based on a false premise.



So yes Ann Eaton did hand over the box containing the silencer in September. But it was empty at that point since PE had already taken it out the box and given it to the Stan Jones the month prior. DUH! 

AE/1 was the silencer, (it then became CAE/1, then DRB/1), AE/2 was the telescopic sight - which subsequently became a HGO exhibit! Of Course the relatives handed over the second silencer to police in September 1985. You and Jeremy can pretend all you like that Eastwood and Davidson (HQ SOCO), didn't examine the silencer either on, or after 13th September 1985, but you would be wrong. There is no way that HQ SOCO fingerprinted the farmhouse in August 1985, by the same token Basil Cock could not have been present at the scene in August 1985 at the purported find of the silencer by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985, when there was fingerprint dust all over the place on everything! The fingerprinting at the scene took place in September 1985, and HQ SOCO, not Witham SOCO did the fingerprinting on that / this occasion...

The relatives, Basil Cock and the police have moved the recovery of the silencer by relatives forward by one month, from September 1985 to August 1985. This being the case, then how could the silencer have been sent to the Lab' at Huntingdon as exhibit DB/1(23) on 30th August 1985, that it be the silencer which relatives had found two weeks previously?

So, where is the proof that any police fingerprinted whf any time sooner than 8th - 10th September 1985?

Please supply me with the specific information so that I can check it out against the diocumentation in my possession and at my disposal...

You, and people like you are not doing the case or the prospects of Jeremy Bamber winning an appeal any good - You are helping to keep him incarcerated! Don't blame me, blame yourself and others like you, who do not know the truth (Something which I do). Sheila did not shoot herself dead there on the bedroom floor, she was shot by another person whilst she was unconscious..

[mike tesko]

PROVIDE ME WITH THE DETAILS OF ANY SOCO WHO FINGERPRINTED THE SCENE AT ANY STAGE IN AUGUST 1985? Otherwise stop introducing crap...

Neither you, Jeremy Bamber, his Campaign team, or any other body which currently claims to represent his interests can show any of us that SOCO fingerprinted the crime scene prior to September 1985...

BASIL COCK..
FINGERPRINT DUST COVERING EVERYTHING AT THE SCENE..
SILENCER RECOVERED BY DAVID BOUTFLOUR
ANN EATON PRESENT..
ROBERT BOUTFLOUR PRESENT..

Nah, the relatives took possession of the silencer in September 1985, it couldn't possibly have occurred in August of the same year...

[David1819]

Mike, the police conspiracy argument is so labyrinthian and removed from reality that neither you or Harry can actually explain how its supposed to have happened. We have Essex police planting the silencer then instructing David Boutflour on the 11th of September where and how to find It and that he must pretend he found it August. Only for him to ring up later to say he just found it after receiving the these instructions? Why backdate it? Why get all the relatives and labstaff involved? Would it not have dawned on the masterminds at EP that they could simply say they found the silencer themselves stashed away at Jeremys house or WHF? Yes it would, so why didn't they? because they never done a conspiracy. The ideas makes no sense because you are trying to make the theory fit that facts and thus you end up with lunacy.


Not only do the police have no motive. They would also be privy to Vanezis and Fletcher describing the marks on Nevils arm and back as being from the barrel end of the rifle. Moreover they would know of the three contact wounds to Nicholas Caffell's head and would surely have planted a corresponding blood group also if they were behind it.

You also seem to have forgotten that the police suspected the relatives of contaminating the silencer with their own blood and took samples to compare.



Then we have Hayward saying the blood could have been from Robert Boutflour.



These are not the actions of an organisation trying to railroad the guy. They had their suspicions and they simply processed the evidence and assumed JB would get a fair hearing. Then came Rivlin with his fatal defence strategy of Sheila screwing the silencer on the rifle before shooting everyone then putting it away before shooting herself.

I often wonder, Rivlin typically being a prosecutor. Was he simply in the wrong state of mind or did he not have the audacity to say what needed to be said? I personally go with the latter.

[Harry]

As an alternative to the view that the police told the relatives they would find a silencer when they visited the farm on September 11th 1985, I have considered the possibility that they didn't tell them of the plan to backdate finding to August 10th, until after they had found it. The reason I originally favoured the view that the plot must have been explained to them before September 11th is that the statements by David Boutflour and Ann Eaton in which they describe the alleged finding on August 10th are dated September 12th.

It strikes me as unrealistic that the police would have sprung on the relatives the invitation to take part in the framing of Bamber  and rushed them into making statements only the day after they had innocently found the silencer.

But this case is rife with false documentation. The statements of DB and AE could conceivably have been backdated, if only by a few days. There is some evidence to support the theory that the relatives didn't know about the plan of Stan Jones and Ron Cook until after they found the silencer and other items on September 11th.

It would seem that the relatives had reported the finding of the silencer to the press, but the police intervened, before the story could be published. It appears that the relatives told the press without the permission of the police on the same day that David Boutflour called the police reporting the finding of a silencer. The date on Mike Ainsley's letter is September 11th.



http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,415.msg216758.html#msg216758
"Please convey the following to Kieron Saunders who is on a Witham Phone no. 521222.  I refer to the story you intend to print tomorrow relating to the shootings at white house farm on 6th/7th Aug 1985.  I do not have evidence to support your theory but it would appear from the nature of your article that you are in possession of information which would assist police with their enquiries.  I would be grateful therefore if you pass this on to the incident room at Witham Police Station."

Here is Mike Tesko's thread on the subject
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1716.msg52997.html#msg52997

It may be said that the silencer is not actually mentioned specifically, but the date is September 11th and that is surely no coincidence. If we consider the dates September 11th and September 12th, there is a threefold coincidence.

September 12th is the date when David Boutflour and Ann Eaton made statements describing the finding of a silencer on August 10th.

September 12th is the date when Malcolm Fletcher allegedly dismantled the silencer and found blood in it.

September 11th is the date when Mike Ainsley contacted the journalist Kieron Saunders.

Everything starts happening from September 11th.

It looks as if the relatives phoned both the police and the newspaper. The police didn't want it reported that a silencer was found on September 11th. If the intention was to backdate the finding to August 10th, such a story would have scuppered the plan.

[Harry]

Mike, the police conspiracy argument is so labyrinthian and removed from reality that neither you or Harry can actually explain how its supposed to have happened. We have Essex police planting the silencer then instructing David Boutflour on the 11th of September where and how to find It and that he must pretend he found it August. Only for him to ring up later to say he just found it after receiving the these instructions? Why backdate it? Why get all the relatives and labstaff involved? Would it not have dawned on the masterminds at EP that they could simply say they found the silencer themselves stashed away at Jeremys house or WHF? Yes it would, so why didn't they? because they never done a conspiracy. The ideas makes no sense because you are trying to make the theory fit that facts and thus you end up with lunacy.


Not only do the police have no motive. They would also be privy to Vanezis and Fletcher describing the marks on Nevils arm and back as being from the barrel end of the rifle. Moreover they would know of the three contact wounds to Nicholas Caffell's head and would surely have planted a corresponding blood group also if they were behind it.

You also seem to have forgotten that the police suspected the relatives of contaminating the silencer with their own blood and took samples to compare.



Then we have Hayward saying the blood could have been from Robert Boutflour.



These are not the actions of an organisation trying to railroad the guy. They had their suspicions and they simply processed the evidence and assumed JB would get a fair hearing. Then came Rivlin with his fatal defence strategy of Sheila screwing the silencer on the rifle before shooting everyone then putting it away before shooting herself.

I often wonder, Rivlin typically being a prosecutor. Was he simply in the wrong state of mind or did he not have the audacity to say what needed to be said? I personally go with the latter.

"These are not the actions of an organisation trying to railroad the guy. They had their suspicions and they simply processed the evidence and assumed JB would get a fair hearing." What a joke!

There seems to have been a shift in your basic position since you made contact with Bamber's lawyers. You previously accepted that the crime scene photographs show that Sheila died later than 07:00am and that a group of policemen all know that. But now you are claiming that the police acted in good faith in bringing about the prosecution of Bamber.

How could that be if they found her just after she had shot herself at a time several hours later than when she shot the others.

It may not be information you would want to disclose, but it looks like the lawyers are going the whole hog and are sticking with the view that Sheila shot herself at around 03:30am, or possibly have chosen to remain neutral on that question, maybe to keep their distance from Giovanni di Stefano.

I would not be in the least surprised if they still want to push the notion that Nevill Bamber called Jeremy after he was shot. Maybe they have some new theory to explain why there was no blood on the phone.

 

[Caroline]

Mike, the police conspiracy argument is so labyrinthian and removed from reality that neither you or Harry can actually explain how its supposed to have happened. We have Essex police planting the silencer then instructing David Boutflour on the 11th of September where and how to find It and that he must pretend he found it August. Only for him to ring up later to say he just found it after receiving the these instructions? Why backdate it? Why get all the relatives and labstaff involved? Would it not have dawned on the masterminds at EP that they could simply say they found the silencer themselves stashed away at Jeremys house or WHF? Yes it would, so why didn't they? because they never done a conspiracy. The ideas makes no sense because you are trying to make the theory fit that facts and thus you end up with lunacy.


Not only do the police have no motive. They would also be privy to Vanezis and Fletcher describing the marks on Nevils arm and back as being from the barrel end of the rifle. Moreover they would know of the three contact wounds to Nicholas Caffell's head and would surely have planted a corresponding blood group also if they were behind it.

You also seem to have forgotten that the police suspected the relatives of contaminating the silencer with their own blood and took samples to compare.



Then we have Hayward saying the blood could have been from Robert Boutflour.



These are not the actions of an organisation trying to railroad the guy. They had their suspicions and they simply processed the evidence and assumed JB would get a fair hearing. Then came Rivlin with his fatal defence strategy of Sheila screwing the silencer on the rifle before shooting everyone then putting it away before shooting herself.

I often wonder, Rivlin typically being a prosecutor. Was he simply in the wrong state of mind or did he not have the audacity to say what needed to be said? I personally go with the latter.

It's not as stupid as saying the relatives engineered it with no experience of forensics whatsoever! 

[David1819]

It's not as stupid as saying the relatives engineered it with no experience of forensics whatsoever! 

What "experience of forensics" did you need in order to put your own blood on the end of that metal torch?
 


Having said that I think you know full well that the people who reported it cant have found it in such condition as they described. And I think you know exactly what that means.


 

[Caroline]

What "experience of forensics" did you need in order to put your own blood on the end of that metal torch?
 


Having said that I think you know full well that the people who reported it cant have found it in such condition as they described. And I think you know exactly what that means.


 

Think you try and think your way into other people's thoughts - not mine though! They would need enough knowledge to fool forensic experts and have the confidence to do so. I know who I think faked the silencer and it wasn't AE nor was it the entire EP force!

[David1819]

Think you try and think your way into other people's thoughts - not mine though! They would need enough knowledge to fool forensic experts and have the confidence to do so. I know who I think faked the silencer and it wasn't AE nor was it the entire EP force!

That may be the case should someone do this in this day and age but not back in 1985. Criminals take risks and the person who contaminated the silencer knew full well they were taking a risk.

AE is my prime suspect for a range of reasons. One being the fact that the red paint on the knurled end consisted of minuscule pieces ranging from 0.1mm to 0.6mm. AE in her statements wants us to believe she worked out were they came from based on looking at fragments the size of sand. She then pointed this out to the police but never mentions this in her statements. Come trial she couldn't remember if she noticed any red on the silencer.

If she didnt do it. Then she is someone with microscopic vision that also has a very stange case of amnesia.

[Caroline]

That may be the case should someone do this in this day and age but not back in 1985. Criminals take risks and the person who contaminated the silencer knew full well they were taking a risk.

AE is my prime suspect for a range of reasons. One being the fact that the red paint on the knurled end consisted of minuscule pieces ranging from 0.1mm to 0.6mm. AE in her statements wants us to believe she worked out were they came from based on looking at fragments the size of sand. She then pointed this out to the police but never mentions this in her statements. Come trial she couldn't remember if she noticed any red on the silencer.

If she didnt do it. Then she is someone with microscopic vision that also has a very stange case of amnesia.

So did Bamber!

AE may not have mentioned the paint in her statements, but it was clearly discussed with Jones!

[Caroline]

Step One: Misinterpret action report 88 and give yourself the false impression that the silencer in this box is refered to in the present tense rather than the past tense.




Step Two: Once you have made the same slip-up as the simpleton who put this action report into the excel spreadsheet below (step one). Believe this excel spreadsheet to be a primary source of evidence.




Step Three: Read the following extract of Robert Boutflours recollection of events 6 years after the event. Dont whatever you do consider the fact that he was in his seventies at this point and was later diagnoised with alzheimer's.

"I can't actually remember her actually being there. I do remember Basil Cock complaining about the fingerprint dust and that he didn't seem to have any interest in the silencer."

Step Four: Fail to read Hammersley's pocket notes below properly. If you read it properly you will realise he took possession of AE/1 and AE/2 and ALSO the silencer thus distinguishing them apart. He also mentions HGO/1a that being a blood stain on one of the AE boxes. We don't want to know this if we are to protend a box is a silencer.



Step five: Ignore the fact that AE/1 is DRB/2



Step Six: Ignore the fact that what Ann Eaton handed over to Oakley was the box that contained the silencer found on August 10th by DRB. If you don't ignore this, you will run the risk of working out the entire notion here is based on a false premise.



So yes Ann Eaton did hand over the box containing the silencer in September. But it was empty at that point since PE had already taken it out the box and given it to the Stan Jones the month prior. DUH! 

You mean they didn't have excel in 1985? 

[David1819]

You mean they didn't have excel in 1985? 

Considering it was released in 1987, no they didn't.

[Caroline]

Considering it was released in 1987, no they didn't.

I was being sarcastic! 

There is another Excel document (I think) - the one that mentions DB finding the silencer and goes on to say something like "point being, he didn't". I've just searched for it, but can't find it.

[David1819]

So did Bamber!

AE may not have mentioned the paint in her statements, but it was clearly discussed with Jones!

As for Jones considering the fact that AE and PE told Jones on the 12th of August that he should take the silencer for testing because they had found blood on it. Thus It was already fabricated before it was handed to him. We are not really spoiled for suspects here are we.