Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on December 24, 2018, 03:11:PM
-
Why would RWB tell police that he think's Jeremy was using a tampon to clean the silencer?
This was before the blood was discovered inside it two weeks later.
-
Why would RWB tell police that he think's Jeremy was using a tampon to clean the silencer?
This was before the blood was discovered inside it two weeks later.
Because Pargeter told the Eaton's that the silencer was on the gun the last time her saw it. This was mentioned to police on 9th Aug.
-
David you know Sheila was knocked out after the first shot.
The first shot was going to kill her without the need for a second shot. It was in an extremely damaging location, only an inch away from the instantly fatal second shot.
Sheila was very frail and under sedation. There is no evidence she stood or sat up after the first shot & it is preposturous to believe she was ever concious after it.
Mike & Sherlock agree. Suggesting AP, AE, Jeff Blake, James Bell, a hit man team, the police or Sheila's biological mother committed the massacre.
A jury & Jeremy agreed Sheila was knocked out after the first shot. The jury believe Jeremy fired the second shot while Jeremy said Nevill may have said 'She' on the phone.
The relatives & Julie were never police suspects so had no reason to attempt an impossible frame.
-
are so that was how the blood was planted.
-
Because Pargeter told the Eaton's that the silencer was on the gun the last time her saw it. This was mentioned to police on 9th Aug.
How would that lead RWB to believe there was something inside the silencer that (in his theory) Jeremy tried to remove? and of all things using something that absorbs blood (a tampon)? It doesnt.
I believe RWB knew there was blood inside the silencer to be found. Either becasue he was involved in putting it there or someone else involved (AE or PE?) told him it was there.
Also since June had told his wife over the phone that Sheila had gone to bed. This was also a way for RWB to explain the tampon stuff left out in the lounge. Since they show Sheila had got out of bed later that night and gone downstairs.
-
now why would anybody use a tampon to clean a gun rwb clearly must know what is saying isnt true.
-
How would that lead RWB to believe there was something inside the silencer that (in his theory) Jeremy tried to remove? and of all things using something that absorbs blood (a tampon)? It doesnt.
I believe RWB knew there was blood inside the silencer to be found. Either becasue he was involved in putting it there or someone else involved (AE or PE?) told him it was there.
Also since June had told his wife over the phone that Sheila had gone to bed. This was also a way for RWB to explain the tampon stuff left out in the lounge. Since they show Sheila had got out of bed later that night and gone downstairs.
RWB was a silly old man who tried to make sense of something he couldn't believe. He knew about guns, he didn't know about tampons!
-
now why would anybody use a tampon to clean a gun rwb clearly must know what is saying isnt true.
They wouldn't but I doubt RWB had ever seen a tampons before and only surmised why it would be left laying about.
-
Supporters need to decide who fired the second shot into Sheila. Obviously it was not Jeremy.
Mike believes the police did. Although has several theories over who fired the first shot. Again Jeremy is not included in his list.
The OS believe Sheila committed murder/suicide. Meaning the police fired the second shot after entering WHF. Using the rifle on Sheila.
The OS say Sheila was still alive when the police entered WHF. This means Sheila fired the first shot upon police entrance which knocked her out but did not instantly kill her. The police seeing Sheila was still breathing & firing a second shot.
-
They wouldn't but I doubt RWB had ever seen a tampons before and only surmised why it would be left laying about.
being a farmer he should know a tiny bit about how you clean a gun.
-
The COA said the first shot 'led to haemorrhaging inside the neck'.
Not sure how long Sheila would have remained breathing after the first shot. However as the second shot only an inch higher killed her instantly, suspect the first shot would have killed her very quickly.
-
The COA said the first shot 'led to haemorrhaging inside the neck'.
Not sure how long Sheila would have remained breathing after the first shot. However as the second shot only an inch higher killed her instantly, suspect the first shot would have killed her very quickly.
If we return to the time when there was no clotting factor which could be given to hemophiliacs, wounds frequently bled into muscles and joints. The pain it caused them -and it's well documented in descriptions of episodes suffered by Alexei, Tsarovitch of Russia- is was excruciating. All we can hope for is that the first shot rendered her unconscious enough that she never experienced it.
-
If we return to the time when there was no clotting factor which could be given to hemophiliacs, wounds frequently bled into muscles and joints. The pain it caused them -and it's well documented in descriptions of episodes suffered by Alexei, Tsarovitch of Russia- is was excruciating. All we can hope for is that the first shot rendered her unconscious enough that she never experienced it.
Oh yeah, and this happened when her body was downstairs in the kitchen, as per the timed police radio message log accounts, 7.35am, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am, 7.45am and of course 8.10am - Sheila downstairs in the kitchen, never upstairs at all, any time sooner than 8.10am, unless you believe the witness statement accounts which are at odds to the police radio log accounts, where only one body was present downstairs, and the other four bodies found upstairs?
Nobody should believe anything that Essex police have got to say in this matter, they can't even tell the correct time of day, let alone do simple arithmetic, involving the presence of two bodies downstairs, or four bodies upstairs, two + three = 5, two + four = 6, pathetic cops, full of shit and nonsense, and of their own importance! Many of these blighters were bullied in primary school, and joined the police so that they could bully unwitting members of the public en masse!
-
How would that lead RWB to believe there was something inside the silencer that (in his theory) Jeremy tried to remove? and of all things using something that absorbs blood (a tampon)? It doesnt.
I believe RWB knew there was blood inside the silencer to be found. Either becasue he was involved in putting it there or someone else involved (AE or PE?) told him it was there.
Also since June had told his wife over the phone that Sheila had gone to bed. This was also a way for RWB to explain the tampon stuff left out in the lounge. Since they show Sheila had got out of bed later that night and gone downstairs.
The theory that the relatives deliberately contaminated the silencer after supposedly finding it on August 10th is just laughable nonsense.
Without going into matters further, it is completely wrong psychologically. We are asked to believe that the relatives started thinking about framing Jeremy only a day or two after learning of the massacre and got cracking right away. Even assuming they are a greedy and callous bunch of people which is evidently the case, they would not have starting thinking about stuff like that while still feeling shocked and confused by the incident, even if they rather suspected Jeremy.
They just didn't have enough time or enough information to do anything so clever as to scratch the mantelpiece in a place which was not visible in the crime scene photographs. They allegedly found the silencer on August 10th, before handing it in to the police on August 13th.
It does not seem likely that they would have seen crime scene photographs at that stage. The police wouldn't be so insensitive as to show relatives pictures like that only a day or two after the murders.
-
Saturday, 13 August 2011
"Is this Justice Mr Cameron?"
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-this-justice-mr-cameron.html.
"My cousin’s Ann Eaton, David Boutflour and Anthony Pargeter inherited my family’s estate upon my conviction. And in fact White House Farm, where my family died, has been the rented home of Ann Eaton since the tragedy happened...
...I have statements and police documents showing their direct involvement in fabricating evidence and this is why none of them sued the newspaper for libel over the article. David Boutflour says he found the sound moderator (key evidence) on the 10th of August and we know that was backdated from the 11th September.
Further to this, a moderator was found at the farm on the 7th August and this belonged to Anthony Pargeter. He told the police and court that he took this moderator home with him before the tragedy, but this was not true we have other statements and evidence from him saying clearly that he left his gun and moderator at White House Farm. Police merged the two moderators together and denied there was ever more than one moderator at the farm.
Ann Eaton showed the police where scratch marks were made under the mantle allegedly by the moderator, but these did not appear in the original crime scene photographs taken on the 7th of August only in those taken during September."
Jeremy no longer believes that his relatives found the silencer on August 10th. David1819 is in contact with his present lawyers and represents their position on this forum, so what the hell is going on?
-
DS Jones took possession of a silencer at the scene on the first morning of the police investigation, soon after 11.15am which coincided with his second visit to the farmhouse that particular morning, when he seized a total of 4 exhibits, namely, earmarked, SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2, and SBJ/1. Yet, for some reason, only three of these four exhibits found their way into the original property register, those being SBJ/4, SBJ/3, and SBJ/2..
It stands to reason, that because of the existence of these three exhibits, recorded in the original property register, that a fourth exhibit bearing the unique exhibit reference SBJ/1 must also have existed at around the time the other three items of evidential value were seized from the scene by DS Jones on the first morning of the investigation - it is well documented elsewhere, that cops and the lab' dealt with, handled, or examined a silencer bearing the unique exhibit reference 'SBJ/1' and so we can be certain that DS Jones seized that particular silencer at the farmhouse on 7th August 1985, along with the other three exhibits he also had taken possession of on that occasion...
SBJ/1, therefore, was the very first silencer Essex police had possession of, and it had not been found at the scene by any relative..
This first silencer almost certainly belonged to Anthony Pargeters .22 Brno bolt action rifle..
What we know is that Anthony Pargeter has given two conflicting accounts with regards to the whereabouts of his Brno bolt action rifle, and Parker Hale silencer, at the time of this shooting tragedy. Initially, he made a witness statement to Essex police in which he stated that he kept his rifle and silencer at the farmhouse, and that he used to go shooting on the farmland at week-ends. Adding that although white house farm was the place where his weapon, silencer, and ammunition was kept, he had the habit of removing the bolt from the rifle and taking the bolt home with him to Bourne End in Buckinghamshire so that no-one could use or fire his rifle in his absence! Much later, when he was visited by the COLP investigators, Pargeter made another witness statement to them, stating that his rifle and silencer was not present at the farmhouse at the time of the shootings, he stated that he had taken his gun and silencer home with him to Buckinghamshire on the penultimate week-end before the tragedy...
The contents of these two witness statements contradict one another, which leads me to strongly believe that infact, the Pargeter rifle and silencer were present at the scene at the time of the shootings, and that the rifle fired at least one shot, or more, and that his silencer (SBJ/1) was fitted onto the end of his rifle at the time a shot, or a number of shots had been fired. I do not believe that he removed the bolt from his rifle when he left the weapon at the farmhouse, or that he took the bolt home, on the pretense that no-one could fire his weapon in his absence! Anthony Pargeter was not licensed to take the bolt home with him, since it is a component part of a registered firearm, namely, the Brno bolt action rifle, governed by terms mentioned in his firearms certificate!
Neville Bamber was a magistrate and he wouldn't have permitted Anthony Pargeter to remove the bolt from his rifle, and take the bolt away with him...
Essex police had possession and control of the Pargeter silencer from the first morning of the police investigation into these shootings, that silencer was originally exhibit SBJ/1..
-
What we also know arising out of the COLP enquiry, was that Essex police had not only spoken to Anthony Pargeter about his .22 Brno rifle, but that they had looked at it for signs of it having any noticeable damage upon it! We know that this happened because Anthony Pargeter mentions this in his COLP witness statement, yet there is no corresponding witness statement from any police officers that deals with the examination of Pargeters rifle (or silencer), which strikes me as being odd..
-
What we also know arising out of the COLP enquiry, was that Essex police had not only spoken to Anthony Pargeter about his .22 Brno rifle, but that they had looked at it for signs of it having any noticeable damage upon it! We know that this happened because Anthony Pargeter mentions this in his COLP witness statement, yet there is no corresponding witness statement from any police officers that deals with the examination of Pargeters rifle (or silencer), which strikes me as being odd..
This moves me on to the finding or the recovery of the first silencer by a relative (David Boutflour) - since, if the first silencer had been recovered by DS Jones on the 7th August 1985, which he took away from the scene on that date, how was it possible for David Boutflour to find the same silencer in the so-called gun cupboard in the Den at the Farmhouse 3 days later?
I believe the solution to this particular matter rests with the likelihood that the police had returned Pargeters rifle and silencer back to the farmhouse and that this action almost certainly took place on the evening of Friday the 9th August 1985 when DCI Jones and DS Jones handed back the keys to the farmhouse over to Anne and Peter Eaton. I believe a good case can be made out for the return of the rifle and it's silencer back to the farmhouse on this occasion..
Some evidence exists in the form of handwritten notes made by an Eton in which she makes reference to her husband Peter putting the gun back inside the Farmhouse on the occasion when the police handed them back the keys to the farmhouse, that Friday evening..
With this in mind, I would suggest that between the evening of Friday the 9th of August 1985 and the evening of Monday the 12th of August 1985 that Essex Police did not have possession of any silencer because it had been returned to the family in the circumstances described..
-
With this in mind, I would suggest that between the evening of Friday the 9th of August 1985 and the evening of Monday the 12th of August 1985 that Essex Police did not have possession of any silencer because it had been returned to the family in the circumstances described..
Also, I do not believe for one moment that David Boutflour supposedly 'refound that silencer' (which had originally been SBJ/1) in the Gun cupboard as stated on Saturday 10th of August 1985. What I think actually happened was that when the other relatives including Robert Boutflour learnt about the return of the Pargeter rifle and silencer, that this caused Robert Boutflour to attend Witham police station on the afternoon of Tuesday the 12th of August 1985 and to raise the matter of this rifle and it's silencer with the police! On this occasion he must have told the police that they needed to take back possession of the gun and it's silencer because it could have been used in the shootings. Since without any ballistics tests having been done by that stage how could the police know that none of the bullets fired during the shooting tragedy had been fired via that rifle and it's silencer?
Consequently arrangements were made for Ds Jones to visit Peter Eaton that same evening and to collect the rifle and its silencer and take it back into police possession! These are the circumstances in which I believe that the first silencer ended up back under the control of Essex Police, albeit at such a late stage, without any exhibit reference associated with it or to it..
The silencer then found its way into the possession of DI Cook by the following morning which enabled him to transport it to Huntingdon laboratory so that the silencer could be examined by Glynis Howard on the 13th August 1985. On this occasion because Cook realised there was no exhibit label attached to the silencer at that time he attached one himself and labelled it SJ/1, which became lab item number 22..
This silencer was subsequently returned to Cook that same day by Glynis Howard, enabling Cook to fingerprint it on the 15th of August 1985 using oblique light technique, and again on the 23rd of August 1985 using Super Glue treatment. Furthermore by the 29th of August 1985 Cook had taken it upon himself to dismantle that silencer removing it's baffle plates from it's sleeve separating them and then rebuilding it before screwing the rebuilt silencer directly onto the thread on the end of the anschutz rifle barrel (not the end of the Brno rifles barrel) - a series of exercises which he duly photographed...
-
Any scratch marks which Ann Eaton pointed out to Cook, Miller and Jones, on the kitchen mantelpiece shelf during a visit to the scene on the 14th August 1985, were marks that police already knew about, which had been caused by the end of a guns barrel coming into contact there, not by a silencer (in his COLP interview DS Davidson would outline the case for paint from the mantelpiece having been found on the end of a guns barrel, not on any silencer)...
-
The only silencer found by David Boutflour in the gun cupboard almost certainly occurred on either the 10th or the 11th September 1985...
-
You can tell what the cops, experts at the lab' and the relatives have done, involving these two silencers, effectively both have been merged into a single silencer, brought about because of the mishandling of the first silencer, by the police and relatives and some involvement of Glynis Howard, which had huge question marks around it's credibility - Cook tampering with the internal mechanism of the first silencer which he had dismantled and rebuilt, with the added interference by David Boutflour of scraping a flake of blood from 'it' using a razor blade which was almost certainly the source for the key blood group activity attributed as belonging uniquely to Sheila...
They desperately needed a second silencer, one which had not been exposed to the harmful effects of Superglue treatment, a second silencer untouched by Cook, one which they could say had been found or recovered a month sooner than it actually had been - Ann Eaton handed over this second silencer to DC Oakley on the 11th September 1985, her brother David Boutflour contacted Essex police that very same day to officially inform them that he had found the silencer to the gun! How utterly pathetic and corny is that? You would think that if Boutflour had found the silencer on 10th August 1985, that Essex police would have already known it had been he who had found the silencer a month into the police investigation?
The second silencer ( which we could call it by any of the following exhibit references, AE/1, CAE/1, and DRB/1) not submitted to the lab' until 20th September 1985, too late for anybody to suggest that Sheila's unique blood had been found inside it - I mean how could it have, when the second silencer wasn't even present at the lab' (12th September 1985) when Sheila's blood was supposedly or allegedly found inside it?
Even more bizarrely, why fingerprint the second silencer on 14th September 1985 (Eastwood and Davison), considering that Cook had already fingerprinted the first silencer on 15th and the 23rd August 1985? The cops, experts and the relatives have framed Bamber for these five killings using dodgy silencer, blood and paint evidence, there can be no other solution or explanation for what has been uncovered...
-
Everything is pointing to the deliberate contamination of the second silencer (used to make additional scratch mark on kitchen mantelpiece during September 1985) with the red paint from the kitchen mantelpiece, and false allocation of the blood group results obtained from testing of a flake, during tests performed on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, when the second silencer hadn't even been to the Lab' and would not be sent there until 20th September 1985, with its first examination not taking place until 25th September 1985...
-
Everything is pointing to the deliberate contamination of the second silencer (used to make additional scratch mark on kitchen mantelpiece during September 1985) with the red paint from the kitchen mantelpiece, and false allocation of the blood group results obtained from testing of a flake, during tests performed on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, when the second silencer hadn't even been to the Lab' and would not be sent there until 20th September 1985, with its first examination not taking place until 25th September 1985...
At the heart of this matter rests two silencers, or two sound moderators, or two suppressors, which have been interchangeable between the police, the relatives and experts at the Lab'..
There should never be an item of evidential value which has had, different exhibit references, and different lab' item numbers, at different stages of the proceedings, and in some instances , had two or more different exhibit references at the same time, which reared up later on, even after it had already been altered into the latest one! For example, at one time or another the claim that there has only ever been one silencer involved in the police investigation, one silencer found by the relatives, one silencer handed over to the police by the relatives, one silencer examined at the lab' and red paint from the kitchen aga found upon one silencer, and the unique blood belonging to Sheila Caffell found inside one silencer, there exist far too many inconsistencies and contradictions that remain unexplained, so many different exhibit references introduced for there to have only been one silencer involved, SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, AE/1, CAE/1, and DRB/1. The key to resolving this mystery rests with the fact that one silencer had a lab' item no.22, another alleged silencer lab' item no.23 (which was probably the flake of dried blood which David Boutflour had scraped from the outside of one of the silencers with a razor blade - sent to Lab' on 30th August 1985), and the subsequent submission of the second silencer (AE/1, CAE/1 , DRB/1) to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, under lab' item no.75, which later got vacated and allocated to the handswabs taken from Sheila Caffell which had originally had the lab' item no.17 but had got rejected when originally sent to the lab' by Essex police on 9th August 1985..
In a nutshell the following items of evidential value originally had the following lab' item reference no.'s..
No.17 - original handswabs (Sheila Caffell)
No.22 - (1st) silencer SJ/1
No.23 - flake of dried blood scraped from outside of first silencer DB/1
No.75 - (2nd) silencer DRB/1
The following amendments had to be carried out as part of the plan to merge both silencers together
Item No.17 (hand swabs from Sheila Caffell) amended to lab' item No.75
Item No.23 (flake) amended back to coincide with lab' item No.22 (silencer)
Item No.75 (second silencer), amended to lab' item No.22 (silencer)..
Court Exhibit No.9 - silencer, DRB/1, (22), red paint , and Sheila Caffells blood, linked to it..
-
Orchestrating all these amendments, and alterations which needed to be made in witness statements, reports and Lab' documentation, was 'THE OFFICE MANAGER', none other than Police Inspector 'Bob Miller'...
Bob Miller was at the heart of the silencer deception - he had a hand in ensuring that the two silencers became merged into a solitary one (where any references to SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, AE/1, and CAE/1, were all references to the same silencer bearing the identification mark DRB/1 (22), Court Exhibit No.9)...
But..
It was all a big lie!!!
-
The police, the relatives and the experts at the lab' knew something of a secret which nobody queried during the trial, or later at the 2002 appeal hearing, concerning the conflicting internal designs of the silencer, as of August 1985, and much later, by late September 1985. For example, the first silencer which fell into the possession of Essex police had 17 baffle plates, a top washer, and an end cap which all fitted snugly into a metal sleeve. Whereas, a second silencer examined at the lab' on 25th September 1985 had only got xx internal baffle plates, a top washer, and a metal end cap, which all fitted snugly into its corresponding metal sleeve. This apparent difference unnoticed by the defence, which would have opened up a can of worms had someone asked the all important question - 'to whom did the silencer DRB/1 (22), Court Exhibit No.9, belong to'?
Anthony Pargeter?
The Bambers?
-
This apparent difference unnoticed by the defence, which would have opened up a can of worms had someone asked the all important question - 'to whom did the silencer DRB/1 (22), Court Exhibit No.9, belong to'?
Anthony Pargeter?
The Bambers?
The answer of course we now know to have been the Bamber owned silencer with only xx internal baffle plates! The first silencer which came into the possession of Essex police on the first morning of the police investigation, which was handed back to the family on the evening of Friday the 9th August 1985, and the silencer which David Boutflour had used a razor blade to scrape a flake of dried blood off the sleeve of the first silencer, and the silencer which Peter Eaton handed over to DS Jones on the evening Monday 12th August 1985, which in turn DS Jones had been told by Bob Miller to hand that silencer to Ron Cook because he was due to pay a visit to the Lab' at Huntingdon on the following day (13th August 1985), and the silencer which Glynis Howard provisionally examined at the Lab' on that date, which she returned back to Ron Cook because he wanted to carry out fingerprint examinations of it, which he did do on the 15th and the 23rd August 1985, and the silencer which Cook took it upon himself to dismantle, removing that silencers end cap, top washer and all 17 baffle plates from its metal sleeve, was not the same silencer exhibited during the trial bearing the exhibit reference DRB/1 (22), Court Exhibit No.9 - because that silencer only had xx internal baffle plates..
-
The flake of blood which David Boutflour scraped from the outside of the sleeve of the 17 baffled silencer did not belong to the Bamber rifle, but during the trial this blood group evidence was dishonestly presented as having been found or detected inside and upon the xx baffle plates of the Bamber owned silencer! Local gun dealer RADCLIFFE' based in Colchester High Street, Essex sold the anshuzt rifle and xx baffled silencer to Neville Bamber on 30th November 1984 - the gun and silencer had to be ordered from the manufacturers, and just per chance Parker Hale Silencers Ltd started producing new models with only xx internal baffle plates from the beginning of November 1984. Prior to this and from 1980, onward, they had only manufactured silencers which had 17 internalised baffle plates. By a stroke of luck it transpired that Anthony Pargeter had purchased his Parker Hale silencer in 1980, thereby making it possible to identify the first silencer at the heart of this deception as belonging to him, and his Brno bolt action rifle, yet excluding it as being the silencer exhibited during the trial (DRB/1) which only had xx internal baffle plates!
-
At the heart of the failed 2002 appeal bid was the wrong Parker Hale silencer!
-
At the heart of the failed 2002 appeal bid was the wrong Parker Hale silencer!
The judgement from the failed 2002 appeal could never have imagined how accurate they were when they said that the silencer could have easily been contaminated through mishandling by a variety of different people, including original jury members - imagine how even more easily some form of contamination occurred involving both of the silencers (the 17 baffled silencer, and the xx baffled silencer)..
-
This moves me on directly to (a) the missing piece of a grey hair said to have been stuck on the end of the first silencer which Cook took to the Lab' at Huntingdon on 13th August 1985 , and (b) the 1" long elongated scratch mark said to have been present along the outer sleeve of the same silencer, both of which appear to have vanished into thin air...
These can be directly attributable to the first silencer, the 17 baffled silencer belonging to Anthony Pargeter..
-
This moves me on directly to (a) the missing piece of a grey hair said to have been stuck on the end of the first silencer which Cook took to the Lab' at Huntingdon on 13th August 1985 , and (b) the 1" long elongated scratch mark said to have been present along the outer sleeve of the same silencer, both of which appear to have vanished into thin air...
These can be directly attributable to the first silencer, the 17 baffled silencer belonging to Anthony Pargeter..
OK, grey hair from head of Neville Bamber, and elongated scratch mark along it's outer sleeve possible caused when the Pargeter silencer caught the light fitting hanging from the ceiling in the kitchen at the time of the attack upon Neville Bamber..
-
I have a few things on my mind regarding the silencer issues...
-
I have a few things on my mind regarding the silencer issues...
With this in mind I pose the following question.
(1) - when DS Eastwood and DS Davison fingerprinted the second silencer on the 14th of September 1985, what method or technique of fingerprinting did they adopt? The oblique light test, or the superglue treatment technique?
-
With this in mind I pose the following question.
(1) - when DS Eastwood and DS Davison fingerprinted the second silencer on the 14th of September 1985, what method or technique of fingerprinting did they adopt? The oblique light test, or the superglue treatment technique?
I have a perfectly valid reason for posing this question, which could help to determine the extent to which the police were prepared to go when merging the two silencers into one! For example, if Eastwood and Davison used the Super Glue treatment when fingerprinting the second silencer on the 14th of September 1985, why would this have been necessary on that occasion considering that Ron Cook had fingerprinted the silence in his possession by super glue method on the 23rd of August 1985?
In other words, why would you Super Glue the same silencer on two consecutive occasions? Moreover, if Eastwood and Davison adopted the oblique light test method, why would they have done that, knowing that Cook and already used the oblique light test method (15th August) and the superglue treatment technique (23rd August)?
with this in mind, steps need to be taken to find out the exact method for fingerprinting which was adopted by Eastwood and Davison, on that particular occasion..
-
I would suggest that the fingerprinting of the first silencer by Cook on 15 August, and the 23rd August 1985, is something of a very important turning point in the handling of the case which Essex police brought against Jeremy Bamber! Since, if the purpose was to merge two different silencers together as the same one, surely the cops would have had to try and present the second silencer by replicating the fact that the first silencer had been super glued on 23rd August 1985, by carrying out a copy cat examination using the super glue treatment on the second silencer when Eastwood and Davison fingerprinted it on the 14th September 1985.?
The net result, would surely have been that both silencers at one time or another had been exposed to super glue treatment, in order to be able to pull off such a deception involving two entirely different silencers, which were being presented as one and the same?
-
At the end of the day, nobody appears to have been concerned as to whom the silencer (DRB/1) belonged to? Nobody cares how many internalised baffle plates the silencer had? But, it does matter, in the grand scheme of things, either 17 baffle plates, or xx baffle plates makes a world of difference! Trouble is, the silencer appears to have had two different sets of baffle plates depending upon which side in the case you happen to support!
-
In view of the contradictory nature of the two witness statements made by Anthony Pargeter concerning the whereabouts of his Brno rifle and 17 baffled silencer at the time of the shooting tragedy, a huge cloud of suspicion hangs over the silencer which (a) had Sheila Caffells unique blood upon the outside of it (b) which had a solitary grey coloured hair stuck to the end of it (c) had a 1" elongated scratch mark upon its outer sleeve, and (d) had red paint ingrained into its metal end cap from as long ago as the date and time if the tragedy?
Everything points to it being the 17 baffled silencer owned by Anthony Targeted which had been contaminated by all these evidential features, which if true it begs the question how did his silencer become contaminated with somuch circumstantial evidence if Pargeter had removed his rifle and silencer from the scene, on the penultimate week-end before the shootings took place?
Does this not suggest that Anthony Pargeter himself could have been the shooter?
-
In view of the contradictory nature of the two witness statements made by Anthony Pargeter concerning the whereabouts of his Brno rifle and 17 baffled silencer at the time of the shooting tragedy, a huge cloud of suspicion hangs over the silencer which (a) had Sheila Caffells unique blood upon the outside of it (b) which had a solitary grey coloured hair stuck to the end of it (c) had a 1" elongated scratch mark upon its outer sleeve, and (d) had red paint ingrained into its metal end cap from as long ago as the date and time if the tragedy?
Everything points to it being the 17 baffled silencer owned by Anthony Targeted which had been contaminated by all these evidential features, which if true it begs the question how did his silencer become contaminated with somuch circumstantial evidence if Pargeter had removed his rifle and silencer from the scene, on the penultimate week-end before the shootings took place?
Does this not suggest that Anthony Pargeter himself could have been the shooter?
It would explain why none of the shots missed their target, but not the telephone call Nevill purportedly made to his son naming Sheila as the culprit. Anthony does not seem to me the type of person who would have such a grudge against Nevill-quite the opposite in fact, and then there's the lack of motive to eradicate all occupants of the farmhouse from the picture.
-
being a farmer he should know a tiny bit about how you clean a gun.
But NOT about tampons
-
Saturday, 13 August 2011
"Is this Justice Mr Cameron?"
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-this-justice-mr-cameron.html.
"My cousin’s Ann Eaton, David Boutflour and Anthony Pargeter inherited my family’s estate upon my conviction. And in fact White House Farm, where my family died, has been the rented home of Ann Eaton since the tragedy happened...
...I have statements and police documents showing their direct involvement in fabricating evidence and this is why none of them sued the newspaper for libel over the article. David Boutflour says he found the sound moderator (key evidence) on the 10th of August and we know that was backdated from the 11th September.
Further to this, a moderator was found at the farm on the 7th August and this belonged to Anthony Pargeter. He told the police and court that he took this moderator home with him before the tragedy, but this was not true we have other statements and evidence from him saying clearly that he left his gun and moderator at White House Farm. Police merged the two moderators together and denied there was ever more than one moderator at the farm.
Ann Eaton showed the police where scratch marks were made under the mantle allegedly by the moderator, but these did not appear in the original crime scene photographs taken on the 7th of August only in those taken during September."
Jeremy no longer believes that his relatives found the silencer on August 10th. David1819 is in contact with his present lawyers and represents their position on this forum, so what the hell is going on?
David showed the lawyers his report - he represents no one.
-
It would explain why none of the shots missed their target, but not the telephone call Nevill purportedly made to his son naming Sheila as the culprit. Anthony does not seem to me the type of person who would have such a grudge against Nevill-quite the opposite in fact, and then there's the lack of motive to eradicate all occupants of the farmhouse from the picture.
Anthony Pargeter was considered to be a marksman, a member of the Bisley rifle club...
He inherited Neville Bambers estate, and Neville's mothers estate - at the time of Neville Bambers death Pargeter and his sister owed Neville Bamber £50,000 in debt - how could his silencer have ended up with Sheila Caffell's unique blood on its metal sleeve, a grey hair stuck on its end that arguably came from the head of Neville Bamber, and a 1" elongated scratch mark upon it possibly caused when his silencer came into contact with a ceiling light fitting in the kitchen at the farmhouse, if Pargeter had taken his silencer home with him to Bourne End in Buckinghamshire on the penultimate week-end prior to the shootings occurred?
-
Anthony Pargeter was considered to be a marksman, a member of the Bisley rifle club...
He inherited Neville Bambers estate, and Neville's mothers estate - at the time of Neville Bambers death Pargeter and his sister owed Neville Bamber £50,000 in debt - how could his silencer have ended up with Sheila Caffell's unique blood on its metal sleeve, a grey hair stuck on its end that arguably came from the head of Neville Bamber, and a 1" elongated scratch mark upon it possibly caused when his silencer came into contact with a ceiling light fitting in the kitchen at the farmhouse, if Pargeter had taken his silencer home with him to Bourne End in Buckinghamshire on the penultimate week-end prior to the shootings occurred?
Well it's only your theory that the silencer found by the relatives belonged to Anthony Pargeter. He and his sister Jackie Wood didn't owe their uncle a penny. It was Jeremy who probably became embittered when he realized that Granny Bamber's estate in the form of Clifton House was to be partly hived off to them.
-
Well it's only your theory that the silencer found by the relatives belonged to Anthony Pargeter. He and his sister Jackie Wood didn't owe their uncle a penny. It was Jeremy who probably became embittered when he realized that Granny Bamber's estate in the form of Clifton House was to be partly hived off to them.
And if the blame is going to be shifted to that quarter, the previous manufactured story now becomes obsolete to make way for another of the same ilk.................There was once a programme on the television -Dragnet?- which carried the disclaimer that no living person was involved in any of the crimes depicted. Very unlike this crime in which the finger has been pointed at numerous innocent living in attempt to incriminate them.
-
David showed the lawyers his report - he represents no one.
It's not likely that David would be expressing views here which directly conflict with the position of the lawyers he is in contact with. But he can answer for himself, if he so wishes.
I can gather from what he has been saying in recent posts that the lawyers want to stick with the received view that the relatives really did find a silencer on August 10th 1985 and that ACC Peter Simpson really did make a mistake when he told a press conference on September 17th that the police had found a silencer on August 7th.
This leads me to suspect that in the submission to the CCRC, which is currently being prepared, the evidence of two silencers has been completely separated from the claims in the Allegation document that the finding of a second silencer by David Boutflour took place on September 11th and that it was backdated to August 10th in fraudulent witness statements to merge it together with the one found by the police on the day of the killings and sent to Huntingdon laboratory on August 14th, with the relatives playing no part.
Instead of that, it would appear that the fools are going to claim that the relatives actually found two silencers on August 10th.
It would appear that instead of recognising the truth-that the police led the framing of Bamber and invited the relatives to participate by signing fraudulent witness statements-they are going to claim that the relatives managed to fool the police by contaminating the first silencer themselves, by scratching the aga surround and putting blood from Sheila's knickers in it, before handing in to the police on August 13th.
This theory is just so implausible that I find it hard to understand how David can even take it seriously at all. The only explanation I can think of is that it represents the position of Bamber's current team.
-
Well it's only your theory that the silencer found by the relatives belonged to Anthony Pargeter. it's more than just a theory, it's factual, because the silencer (17 baffle plates) said to have been found by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985, was the same silencer (17 baffle plates) Peter Eaton handed over to DS Jones on evening of 12th August, the same 17 baffled silencer which Cook had taken to the lab' at Huntingdon on 13th August, the same 17 baffled silencer Cook fingerprinted on 15th and 23rd August, and last but not least, it was the self same silencer bearing 17 internalized baffle plates which Cook dismantled on the 29th August 1985 - you can count the 17 baffles of this silencer yourself by examining the photograph which Cook had taken of this activity ( one metal sleeve, one screw threaded end cap, one top washer, and 17 individual baffle plates) this being the same silencer found by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985, the same silencer which Cook attached his SJ/1 exhibit label when he took it to the lab' - if you look carefully enough you can recognise the same staining on the flat end of the silencers end cap, both visible in the lab' examination record that was made out at the lab' on 13th August 1985, and by examining the corresponding stain in the same location in the photograph which Cook himself had taken of it by 29th August 1985. Rather more significantly, you can just about make out the exhibit reference which appears to be stuck onto the metal sleeve of the 17 baffled silencer, 'SJ/1'. The only silencer ever present or kept at whf which had 17 baffles was the one belonging to Anthony Pargeter, a silencer he had purchased in 1980, from Parker Hale, at a time when they only were manufacturing 17 baffled silencers! This is in stark contrast to the other 15 baffled silencer purchased by Neville Bamber on 24th November 1984, which had to be ordered from the manufacturer because Radcliffe the Colchester gun dealer didn't have one in stock. This 15 baffled silencer was delivered to and by Radcliffe's to whf on the 30th November 1984. A 15 baffled silencer which Parker Hale Ltd had been manufacturing since the beginning of November 1984! In a nutshell, the two Parker Hale silencers distinguishable from one another by the different sets of internal baffle plates, the Pargeter silencer with 17 baffle plates, the Bamber silencer only having 15 baffle plates. The silencer which David Boutflour found on 10th August was the 17 baffled silencer as verified, the same silencer taken to the lab' by Cook, the same silencer he subsequently dismantled and rebuilt, which could not have belonged to anyone other than Anthony Pargeter.. He and his sister Jackie Wood didn't owe their uncle a penny.They owed Neville Bamber £50,000 as their share of the cost of refurbishment of granny Bambers five bedroom house, which was turned into flats or apartments, costs which were due to be repaid to Neville when the premises were sold off. It was Jeremy who probably became embittered when he realized that Granny Bamber's estate in the form of Clifton House was to be partly hived off to them. the relatives (Boutflours, and Eaton's, versus the Pargeters) agreed to settle the inheritance issue between themselves by agreeing to the Boutflour/Eaton's taking June Bambers inheritance, leaving Neville Bambers inheritance to the Pargeters, if Jeremy got convicted of the murders. Once this agreement had been settled, the £50,000 debt owed by the Pargeters to the Neville Bamber estate became irrelevant for obvious reasons..
-
It would explain why none of the shots missed their target, but not the telephone call Nevill purportedly made to his son naming Sheila as the culprit. there is a possibility that Jeremy misheard what Neville had told him during that call, for example, he could have used the quotes, ' (HE HAS) got the gun' and (HE HAS) gone crazy', unlikely I must admit but nevertheless still a possibility. For all anybody knows, it could have been Anthony Pargeter who pretended to be Neville making the initial call to Jeremy and then to the police at 3.26am? In this explanation Pargeter may have used the term ' (SHE HAS) got the gun', and '(SHE HAS) gone crazy', as opposed to 'MY DAUGHTER HAS GOT HOLD OF ONE OF MY GUNS' and ' DAUGHTER GONE BERSERK'.. Anthony does not seem to me the type of person who would have such a grudge against Nevill-quite the opposite in fact,You can never tell, what he may have been, or was not capable of. Seems rather coincidental that the first silencer had 17 baffle plates, and that Parker Hale silencer Ltd only produced 17 baffled silencers between 1980 and October 1984, and that Pargeter purchased his Parker Hale silencer in 1980. His was the only Parker Hale silencer containing 17 baffle plates that was ever kept at the farmhouse! It was his silencer (the 17 baffled one) which Glynis Howard examined at the Lab' on 13th August 1985, the only 17 baffled silencer which had a bloodstain on its flat end cap, and what appeared to be human blood nestling in its aperture on that end cap! Pargeter has given conflicting accounts as to the whereabouts of his rifle and silencer at the time of this shooting tragedy, which warrants further investigation, since on his Essex police account his rifle and silencer was kept at whf although he made a habit of removing the bolt from the gun and taking that home with him for the specific purpose of preventing anyone else firing his gun in his absence! As opposed to his COLP account, where he claims that his gun and silencer wasn't present at the scene at the time of the shootings because he claims he had taken his rifle and his silencer home with him on the penultimate week-end before the tragedy. But it seems to me, that in both accounts he appears to be making out a case that his rifle could not have fired a shot during the shooting tragedy, when in fact, cops know, and he found out from them that his rifle had fired at least one shot, the shot across Sheila's neck, the non fatal shot, or the original fragmented bullet which was the original PV/20 exhibit.. and then there's the lack of motive to eradicate all occupants of the farmhouse from the picture. the motive would have been a relatively simple one - inheritance, and the desire not to have to repay Neville or any member of his family any part of the outstanding £50,000 debt he was a party to. Pargeter could easily gave done everything that Jeremy was accused of doing, he could easily have overpowered Neville Bamber in the struggle in the kitchen - and if Jeremy had gone to the farm alone after the phone call which appears to have been made simply to lure him to the farm in the middle of the night, Pargeter was more than capable of taking out Jeremy by shooting him dead too, and then going on to leave Sheila to take the blame!
-
And if the blame is going to be shifted to that quarter, the previous manufactured story now becomes obsolete to make way for another of the same ilk................. yet, you overlook the real possibility that the case brought against Jeremy was itself manufactured. Let's not forget that just because a jury convicted him of these murders, it doesn't mean that he did any of it, in the same way that when somebody gets found ' not guilty', it doesn't really mean they didn't or hadn't done it...There was once a programme on the television -Dragnet?- which carried the disclaimer that no living person was involved in any of the crimes depicted. Very unlike this crime in which the finger has been pointed at numerous innocent living in attempt to incriminate them.At the end of the day, the accounts given by one of more of these relatives, or other characters of interest, was not thoroughly investigated enough, other than trying to make out the case that Jeremy Bamber must have been the killer, and his motive being greed, his desire to get his hands on his parents estate(s) - whereas, it turns out the relatives benefitted most, providing Jeremy was convicted, the various relatives all benefitted from the Bamber parent estate(s), and those that eventually benefitted, were all key prosecution witnesses, all vying for him to be convicted, thus paving the way to them all becoming filthy Rich to boot!..
-
Here's the 17 baffled 'Pargeter' owned Parker Hale silencer ( purchased in 1980) at the centre of this miscarriage of Justice:-
One metal Sleeve
One (bloodstained) threaded metal end cap
One top (flat) washer
17 internalised baffle plates..
The silencer (DRB/1) exhibited during the trial in October 1986, wasn't this silencer, the one at court only had 15 baffle plates...
Radcliffe the gun dealer in Colchester, and Parker Hale Ltd in Birmingham should be forced to resolve this issue, to get one or other, or both of them to confirm that the silencer which Neville Bamber purchased on the 24th November 1984, only had 15 baffle plates, and that the silencer purchased by Anthony Pargeter in 1980 had 17 baffle plates...
-
My research has taken me into the COLP files, and the claim made by Cook that he fingerprinted the first silencer (SJ/1) by superglue technique on the 23rd August 1985, or as the case may be, which he hadn't and he didn't - COLP couldn't find any confirmation at the Sandridge police research facility that Cook had fingerprinted that first silencer by way of superglue treatment on that occasion!
This got me wondering..
Then as if by magic, it suddenly dawned on me, I started to see clearly what must have taken place, and the relevance for how and why one of the two silencers had been exposed to the harmful cyanoacrylate fumes during superglue treatment! It then became clear to me exactly how it becomes possible to identify one of these two silencers, from the other, not only by way of the internal design features of tell tale baffle plates (17 versus 15), but that only one of these two silencers had been exposed to superglue treatment, and it soon became apparent that the silencer Cook had involvement with, the one which David Boutflour found at the scene on 10th August, the one collected by DS Jones from Peter Eaton, the one taken to the lab' by Cook, examined originally by Glynis Howard, the same silencer that Cook had fingerprinted using oblique light technique at Sandridge police research centre on the 15th August 1985, was not exposed to superglue treatment, but the other silencer, the second one (DRB/1) which had found it's way into the possession of DC Oakley from Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985, had been, at least by the time that second silencer was received at Huntingdon Lab' on the 20th September, for example, the second silencer was fingerprinted by DS Eastwood and DS Davison (he not to be mistaken for DS Davidson, SOCO) on the 14th September 1985...
It was the second silencer (DRB/1) which was coated in the white residue of cynoacrylate fume exposure, from that occasion..
This can be proven and established beyond reasonable doubt by a reliance upon the following facts, and indisputable information..
-
My research has taken me into the COLP files, and the claim made by Cook that he fingerprinted the first silencer (SJ/1) by superglue technique on the 23rd August 1985, or as the case may be, which he hadn't and he didn't - COLP couldn't find any confirmation at the Sandridge police research facility that Cook had fingerprinted that first silencer by way of superglue treatment on that occasion!
This got me wondering..
Then as if by magic, it suddenly dawned on me, I started to see clearly what must have taken place, and the relevance for how and why one of the two silencers had been exposed to the harmful cyanoacrylate fumes during superglue treatment! It then became clear to me exactly how it becomes possible to identify one of these two silencers, from the other, not only by way of the internal design features of tell tale baffle plates (17 versus 15), but that only one of these two silencers had been exposed to superglue treatment, and it soon became apparent that the silencer Cook had involvement with, the one which David Boutflour found at the scene on 10th August, the one collected by DS Jones from Peter Eaton, the one taken to the lab' by Cook, examined originally by Glynis Howard, the same silencer that Cook had fingerprinted using oblique light technique at Sandridge police research centre on the 15th August 1985, was not exposed to superglue treatment, but the other silencer, the second one (DRB/1) which had found it's way into the possession of DC Oakley from Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985, had been, at least by the time that second silencer was received at Huntingdon Lab' on the 20th September, for example, the second silencer was fingerprinted by DS Eastwood and DS Davison (he not to be mistaken for DS Davidson, SOCO) on the 14th September 1985...
It was the second silencer (DRB/1) which was coated in the white residue of cynoacrylate fume exposure, from that occasion..
This can be proven and established beyond reasonable doubt by a reliance upon the following facts, and indisputable information..
The second silencer was examined at the Lab' at Huntingdon on the 25th September 1985, as confirmed by the existence of the following general examination record and diagram. The sticky tape which had been used to seal the top end of the silencer when Eastwood and Davison fingerprinted the second silencer on 14th September 1985, was included on the general examination record, linking the super glue treatment to this version of the silencer, not the other one..
more significantly, it suddenly dawned on me, that it was on this second silencer that particles of crushed red paint from the kitchen mantelpiece were found to be present in the knurled pattern around the silencers metal end cap! I then realised something which is probably and arguably something of great significance, which of course, I will now share with all of you!
-
What I have discovered is that..
the particles of crushed red paint from the scratched kitchen aga at the scene, couldn't have been present on top of the super glue fumes, unless the scratch marks that are present on the kitchen mantelpiece were made after the occasion that the silencer was superglued?
-
What I have discovered is that..
the particles of crushed red paint from the scratched kitchen aga at the scene, couldn't have been present on top of the super glue fumes, unless the scratch marks that are present on the kitchen mantelpiece were made after the occasion that the silencer was superglued?
What we know was that on or around the 14th September 1985, a number of remarkable coincidences occurred, (a) DS Eastwood and DS Davison fingerprinted the second silencer on 13th September, (b) DC Oakley took the first photographs of the scratch marks on the kitchen mantelpiece, on the following day, and (c) David Boutflour made a handwritten report to DC Oakley about finding a silencer, in two different locations inside the same gun cupboard, on 14th September 1985..
-
What we know was that on or around the 14th September 1985, a number of remarkable coincidences occurred, (a) DS Eastwood and DS Davison fingerprinted the second silencer, on 13th September, (b) DC Oakley took the first photographs of the scratch marks on the kitchen mantelpiece, on the following day, and (c) David Boutflour made a handwritten report to DC Oakley about finding a silencer, in two different locations inside the same gun cupboard, on 14th September 1985..
the question is - was the second silencer upon which these particles of red paint had been found, used to scratch the kitchen mantelpiece, before or after DS Eastwood and DS Davison had fingerprinted it using the superglue technique?
-
the question is - was the second silencer upon which these particles of red paint had been found, used to scratch the kitchen mantelpiece, before or after DS Eastwood and DS Davison had fingerprinted it using the superglue technique?
If the red particles of paint had got onto the end of the second silencer prior to DS Eastwood and DS Oakley had exposed the silencer to super glue treatment on the 13th September 1985, it would have been scientifically impossible to match the paint particles to a sample of red paint taken from the same mantelpiece at the scene because the particles of paint would have become encapsulated beneath the layers of super glue or be trapped underneath it...
-
On the other hand, if the particles of red paint found on the end of the second silencer overlaid upon the layer of superglue residue, it would mean that the silencer had been used to scratch the kitchen mantelpiece after the silencer had been super glued!
-
On the other hand, if the particles of red paint found on the end of the second silencer overlaid upon the layer of superglue residue, it would mean that the silencer had been used to scratch the kitchen mantelpiece after the silencer had been super glued!
After delving into the COLP files I can find no evidence that Cook had used the superglue technique to fingerprint the first silencer on the 23rd August 1985, whilst on the other hand, reference to the silencer being fingerprinted by DS Eastwood and DS Davison on 13th September 1985, looms large as life, by reference to the following documentation...
I agree with the 'Justice for All' view that the general examination record and diagram to the first silencer, dated, 13th August 1985, has to be treated as a forgery, by virtue of the fact that it contains additional entries referring to the resubmission of the silencer after fingerprinting, which is covered in the later general examination record and diagram, dated, 25th September 1985 - nevertheless, the added Information which has been inserted in an attempt to authenticate the claim that there was only ever just the one silencer, provides a clue concerning at what stage the red paint particles got crushed into the knurl of the second silencer, or if you like, the first silencer too..
-
I agree with the 'Justice for All' view that the general examination record and diagram to the first silencer, dated, 13th August 1985, has to be treated as a forgery, by virtue of the fact that it contains additional entries referring to the resubmission of the silencer after fingerprinting, which is covered in the later general examination record and diagram, dated, 25th September 1985 - nevertheless, the added Information which has been inserted in an attempt to authenticate the claim that there was only ever just the one silencer, provides a clue concerning at what stage the red paint particles got crushed into the knurl of the second silencer, or if you like, the first silencer too..
The key information to which I am referring to, concerns the following added contents...
'After return of silencer after fingerprinting (End of barrel sealed with tape) possible to examine properly. Large amount of blood found inside baffles when dismantled by MDF'..
And
'Red paint on pattern on end, also on tape which was used to seal end whilst fingerprinted'...
-
It's not likely that David would be expressing views here which directly conflict with the position of the lawyers he is in contact with. But he can answer for himself, if he so wishes.
I can gather from what he has been saying in recent posts that the lawyers want to stick with the received view that the relatives really did find a silencer on August 10th 1985 and that ACC Peter Simpson really did make a mistake when he told a press conference on September 17th that the police had found a silencer on August 7th.
This leads me to suspect that in the submission to the CCRC, which is currently being prepared, the evidence of two silencers has been completely separated from the claims in the Allegation document that the finding of a second silencer by David Boutflour took place on September 11th and that it was backdated to August 10th in fraudulent witness statements to merge it together with the one found by the police on the day of the killings and sent to Huntingdon laboratory on August 14th, with the relatives playing no part.
Instead of that, it would appear that the fools are going to claim that the relatives actually found two silencers on August 10th.
It would appear that instead of recognising the truth-that the police led the framing of Bamber and invited the relatives to participate by signing fraudulent witness statements-they are going to claim that the relatives managed to fool the police by contaminating the first silencer themselves, by scratching the aga surround and putting blood from Sheila's knickers in it, before handing in to the police on August 13th.
This theory is just so implausible that I find it hard to understand how David can even take it seriously at all. The only explanation I can think of is that it represents the position of Bamber's current team.
It represents David's position. Do you honestly think Bambers legal team are going to confide in someone such as David and then allow him to boast about his 'connections' on this forum? The theory above is David's - he has expressed it here and on the red forum.
-
The key information to which I am referring to, concerns the following added contents...
'After return of silencer after fingerprinting (End of barrel sealed with tape) possible to examine properly. Large amount of blood found inside baffles when dismantled by MDF'..
And
'Red paint on pattern on end, also on tape which was used to seal end whilst fingerprinted'...
Note, that the first mention of there being any red paint on the pattern of the first silencers end cap, was after the silencer had been fingerprinted, paint wasn't noticed or recorded as being present there on the 13th August 1985, when that silencer was examined by Glynis Howard on that date...
-
Note, that the first mention of there being any red paint on the pattern of the first silencers end cap, was after the silencer had been fingerprinted, paint wasn't noticed or recorded as being present there on the 13th August 1985, when that silencer was examined by Glynis Howard on that date...
So, with this in Mind, we have to deal with when the silencer was supposedly fingerprinted, and by whom?
Cook claims that he fingerprinted the first silencer by superglue technique on the 23rd August 1975, but according to the COLP investigation no records exist at Sandwiches police research facility to confirm that such an examination took place at all...
On the other hand, documentation exists to confirm that DS Eastwood and DS Oakley fingerprinted amongst other things, the second silencer at 1800 hrs, on the 13th September 1985..
-
The tape was associated to the second silencer, and the fingerprinting of it by DS Eastwood and DC Oakley at 1800 hrs on 13th September 1985, a silencer which wasn't submitted to the Lab' at Huntingdon until 20th September, and not examined by MDF until 25th September 1985..
The information and evidence of the red paint particles and the sticky tape associated to the second silencer, was also subsequently linked to the first silencer by way of inserting the same information which was not present on the first record until on or after the 25th September 1985 ( in other words, there exists evidence of a forgery having taken place, introduced for the purpose of trying to merge the two different silencers together, as one)!
-
I can also say with a degree of certainty, the the knurled pattern around the circumference of a silencers end cap cannot be perfectly sealed by one small piece of sticky tape. The tape was placed over the 1/4" aperture on the flat surface of the end cap to prevent the harmful superglue fumes from damaging any blood that might have been present on inner baffle plates!
-
Because of the evenly placed ridges and troughs of the knurled pattern design, any paint particles that got crushed into the pattern on any occasion prior to the silencer being exposed to the harmful properties of super glue fumes, would ordinarily get coated (with super glue) and make it nigh on impossible to extract the paint particles and successfully test them for comparison purposes!
-
Because of the evenly placed ridges and troughs of the knurled pattern design, any paint particles that got crushed into the pattern on any occasion prior to the silencer being exposed to the harmful properties of super glue fumes, would ordinarily get coated (with super glue) and make it nigh on impossible to extract the paint particles and successfully test them for comparison purposes!
what we can learn from this, must surely mean that the paint particles must have been added to the knurled pattern around the circumference of the silencers end cap on some occasion after the silencer had been exposed to super glue treatment - in other words, the super glue fumes would be underneath the paint particles. With the paint particles resting on top of a super glue primed surface or surfaces, they can be extracted, and tested or compared against paint samples, say which were taken from the kitchen mantelpiece at the scene, which is what appears to have been done in this case. This suggests the probability that paint particles found their way into and into the knurled pattern around the circumference of the silencers end cap, on an occasion after the silencer was exposed to the harmful cyanoacrylate fumes, and not that it got there any time sooner..
Verdict - Silencer was deliberately contaminated with paint particles, possibly introduced when the silencer in question was used to make scratch marks on the kitchen mantelpiece at the scene, after 23rd August 1985 (date, Cook claims he fingerprinted the first silencer using superglue treatment) or 13th September 1985, when Eastwood and Oakey fingerprinted the second silencer! Of course, it should be a relatively simple exercise to get confirmation that Eastwood and Oakey used the superglue technique when they fingerprinted the second silencer, on that date..
-
Two silencers, therefore, at the heart of this prosecution of Jeremy Bamber - a 17 baffled one, and a 15 baffled silencer! One belonging to Anthony Pargeters Brno bolt action rifle, the other belonging to the Bamber owned anshuzt rifle. One exposed to super glue treatment, the other not, one with a solitary grey coloured hair stuck to its end, and which had a 1" elongated scratch on its sleeve, only one of these two silencers had red paint particles crushed into the knurled pattern around the circumference of its metal end cap (to suggest that both silencers had red paint particles crushed into the same parts of each end cap, beggars belief) - everything points to the silencer / paint particle evidence being fabricated for the purpose of trying to make out a false case that the silencer was fitted to the rifle during the attack against Neville Bamber in the kitchen. The sudden materialisation of scratch marks on the kitchen mantelpiece in September, were almost certainly designed to lend some credence to this deception...
-
Two silencers, therefore, at the heart of this prosecution of Jeremy Bamber - a 17 baffled one, and a 15 baffled silencer! One belonging to Anthony Pargeters Brno bolt action rifle, the other belonging to the Bamber owned anshuzt rifle. One exposed to super glue treatment, the other not, one with a solitary grey coloured hair stuck to its end, and which had a 1" elongated scratch on its sleeve, only one of these two silencers had red paint particles crushed into the knurled pattern around the circumference of its metal end cap (to suggest that both silencers had red paint particles crushed into the same parts of each end cap, beggars belief) - everything points to the silencer / paint particle evidence being fabricated for the purpose of trying to make out a false case that the silencer was fitted to the rifle during the attack against Neville Bamber in the kitchen. The sudden materialisation of scratch marks on the kitchen mantelpiece in September, were almost certainly designed to lend some credence to this deception...
There then arises the claim that the unique blood belonging to Sheila Caffell, was found inside the silencer (DRB/1) exhibited during the October 1986 Chelmsford Crown Court trial, but that would have been impossible because that particular silencer wasn't sent to the Lab' at Huntingdon until the 20th September, and therefore, Sheila's blood could not have been discovered inside that silencer at the lab' on 12th September 1985, Which fell earlier on..
-
Everything is pointing to no silencer being present at the Lab' by 12th September 1985, this has to be taken seriously, because no general examination record exists confirming that MDF dismantled a silencer at the lab' on that date! There only exist two different general examination records pertaining to the submission and examination of a silencer, one dated 13th August 1985, the other, dated 25th September 1985...
-
Everything is pointing to no silencer being present at the Lab' by 12th September 1985, this has to be taken seriously, because no general examination record exists confirming that MDF dismantled a silencer at the lab' on that date! There only exist two different general examination records pertaining to the submission and examination of a silencer, one dated 13th August 1985, the other, dated 25th September 1985...
Exhibit DB/1 (23) is nothing but a 'red herrin', there was no silencer sent or taken to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, everything indictates that the item bearing that exhibit reference and which was either sent or taken to the lab' on that date, was the small dried flake of blood which David Boutflour admitted to COLP that he had scraped off the outside of one of the silencers, using a razor blade! He told COLP that he took the flake of blood off the silencer because it fascinated him! He also confirmed to COLP that Essex police knew that he had scraped the flake off the silencer!
-
Exhibit DB/1 (23) is nothing but a 'red herrin', there was no silencer sent or taken to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, everything indictates that the item bearing that exhibit reference and which was either sent or taken to the lab' on that date, was the small dried flake of blood which David Boutflour admitted to COLP that he had scraped off the outside of one of the silencers, using a razor blade! He told COLP that he took the flake of blood off the silencer because it fascinated him! He also confirmed to COLP that Essex police knew that he had scraped the flake off the silencer!
The existence of this flake in the described circumstances, serves to make a great deal of sense out of the confused state of play surrounding the circumstances around the blood attributed as Sheila's supposedly found inside a silencer at the lab' on 12th September when MDF supposedly dismantled the silencer in his possession on that occasion - more than likely, he received the flake from Cook, and he handed that flake to the blood expert. At the same time he received the flake of blood from Cook, he also received the photographs of the first silencer Cook had dismantled and rebuilt. Of particular relevance to these photographs is the fact that Cook had separated several baffle plates as part of this exercise, and that these had gaps in-between one another, and that this ended up being the same baffle plates upon which was supposedly found Sheila's unique blood by MDF! But, why didn't Cook see the same blood on the same baffle plates, beforehand?
-
Then there's the silencer which was examined for DNA as part of the failed 2002 appeal bid!
I mean, which silencer got sent away to be examined? Surely not the silencer (DRB/1) which had been exposed to the harmful Superglue fumes as part of any fingerprint exercise, beforehand?
-
Then there's the silencer which was examined for DNA as part of the failed 2002 appeal bid!
I mean, which silencer got sent away to be examined? Surely not the silencer (DRB/1) which had been exposed to the harmful Superglue fumes as part of any fingerprint exercise, beforehand?
The silencer which had been exposed to the harmful superglue fumes during the fingerprint process (be that on the 23rd August, or the 13th September 1985), is somewhat problematic, in view of the fact that there is a hole ateach end of the silencer, yet only one piece of sticky tape was used to protect the inner baffle plates and any blood, therein?
Was there really any blood at all inside the second silencer (DRB/1) which Eastwood and Oakey fingerprinted on 13th September 1985? Or, was it just a case that any blood that could have been there in However small in quantity, had this been masked through exposure to the harmful cyanoacrylate fumes which almost certainly entered the silencer via the unprotected hole on the opposite side of the silencer which had got sticky tape over it to supposedly protect it, and any blood inside it?
-
Was there really any blood at all inside the second silencer (DRB/1) which Eastwood and Oakey fingerprinted on 13th September 1985? Or, was it just a case that any blood that could have been there in However small in quantity, had this been masked through exposure to the harmful cyanoacrylate fumes which almost certainly entered the silencer via the unprotected hole on the opposite side of the silencer which had got sticky tape over it to supposedly protect it, and any blood inside it?
It must be possible to identify the silencer which had a 1" elongated scratch mark along the outside of its metal sleeve, beneath the layer of cyanoacrylate fumes which completely (almost) coated the entire outside of the silencer in question, except for a small area on the flat surface of the silencers end cap which had a small piece of sticky tape protecting the 1/4" aperture?
-
It must be possible to identify the silencer which had a 1" elongated scratch mark along the outside of its metal sleeve, beneath the layer of cyanoacrylate fumes which completely (almost) coated the entire outside of the silencer in question, except for a small area on the flat surface of the silencers end cap which had a small piece of sticky tape protecting the 1/4" aperture?
I believe that scientific tests could be carried out of the super glue riddled silencer (DRB/1), to establish one way or another, that either there does or did exist this 1" elongated scratch mark on its outer metal sleeve, or not?
It's absence would certainly open up a can of worms which could send a huge shuddering of fear in the rank and file of Essex police and the Crown prosecution Service, and one or other of the relatives who have been party to this despicable silencer, blood and paint de hackle, for over the past 33 years or more!?
-
Yes, I suggest the second silencer, DRB/1, was the only silencer that got exposed to super glue treatment, and that this exercise took place on 13th September 1985, a task or action allocated to DS Eastwood and DS Davison, at 1800 hrs, that date..
-
There exists no evidence, and none was found by the COLP investigators, to suggest that a silencer which has supposedly been sent to the lab ' at Huntingdon on 30th August 1985, under an exhibit reference of DB/1 (23), had somehow and in somewhat mysterious circumstances, been transferred back to Essex police in good time, to enable Eastwood and Oakey to fingerprint it on 13th September 1985, at 1800hrs, and then sent back to the lab' for an unprecedented third occasion (20th September)?
For such nonsense to be true, we would end up with a silencer handed back to police on two occasions, by the lab' so that police could fingerprint the same silencer, once in 13th August 1985 when Glynis Howard gave the first silencer (SJ/1) back to Cook for that purpose, and an as yet unknown second occasion, if the silencer was handed back on an unprecedented second occasion, by some unknown person, so that hypothetically Eastwood and Oakey could carry out their fingerprint examination!
-
I reiterate that Anthony Pargeter and Jackie did not owe Nevill Bamber any sum of money. There was a family discussion in which various options to deal with the inheritance of Clifton House were discussed, but Nevill ultimately decided to borrow the necessary finance to convert the property into flats from the bank, and this process at no stage involved Anthony and Jackie Pargeter.
-
I reiterate that Anthony Pargeter and Jackie did not owe Nevill Bamber any sum of money. There was a family discussion in which various options to deal with the inheritance of Clifton House were discussed, but Nevill ultimately decided to borrow the necessary finance to convert the property into flats from the bank, and this process at no stage involved Anthony and Jackie Pargeter.
Thanks for that, Steve. I thought, when I read what Mike has -wrongly- claimed, that I must have the generations muddled. I couldn't fathom how Nevill's late sister's offspring could possibly have owed Nevill -their uncle- such a vast sum entailed to property he'd inherited from his mother and their grandmother.
-
I reiterate that Anthony Pargeter and Jackie did not owe Nevill Bamber any sum of money. There was a family discussion in which various options to deal with the inheritance of Clifton House were discussed, but Nevill ultimately decided to borrow the necessary finance to convert the property into flats from the bank, and this process at no stage involved Anthony and Jackie Pargeter.
Unfortunately, you are wrong, it was true that Neville took out a bank loan totalling about £100,000 to pay for the refurbishment of the 5 bedroomed house, but there was a gentleman's agreement between Neville and the Pargeters, that Neville would recoup their share of the costs once the flats were put on the market and sold on..
-
It was Neville Bambers personal decision to share the inheritance of his mother's Guildford property, with the Pargeters - she left the house solely to Neville..
-
Unfortunately, you are wrong, it was true that Neville took out a bank loan totalling about £100,000 to pay for the refurbishment of the 5 bedroomed house, but there was a gentleman's agreement between Neville and the Pargeters, that Neville would recoup their share of the costs once the flats were put on the market and sold on..
I'm not sure what you mean by "their share of the costs" since they were not involved upfront monetarily. Nevill had already sold two of the flats and one was sold subject to contract, upon which the bank overdraft of £120k would be cleared. The remaining two flats were on a 99-year lease, after which time they would revert to the progeny of Nevill in the ratio 50:50, with Jeremy receiving half and Anthony and Jackie the other half.
Why would Anthony Pargeter take the risk of killing the golden goose when in effect the whole of Nevill's estate would go to Jeremy apart from the 25% he probably would have to sue for anyway if there was only a gentleman's agreement and nothing written down in law that he and his sister Jackie were entitled to it?
-
It was Neville Bambers personal decision to share the inheritance of his mother's Guildford property, with the Pargeters - she left the house solely to Neville..
So what? That gives more of a motive to Jeremy to overturn the will in its entirety.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "their share of the costs" since they were not involved upfront monetarily. Nevill had already sold two of the flats and one was sold subject to contract, upon which the bank overdraft of £120k would be cleared. The remaining two flats were on a 99-year lease, after which time they would revert to the progeny of Nevill in the ratio 50:50, with Jeremy receiving half and Anthony and Jackie the other half.
Why would Anthony Pargeter take the risk of killing the golden goose when in effect the whole of Nevill's estate would go to Jeremy apart from the 25% he probably would have to sue for anyway if there was only a gentleman's agreement and nothing written down in law that he and his sister Jackie were entitled to it?
And why, if Nevill had been so magnanimous, did they suddenly 'owe' him vast sums of money? Surely it would have been grossly unfair -and quite unlike Nevill- to lend his family money to enhance property he owned and was beneficiary of. I could see, perfectly, had he loaned a sum to them formally, that he might deduct such from the sum he gave them from his mother's estate. However, as the alleged loan was only on a gentleman's agreement terms, IF such a loan existed, he was probably in no hurry to have it returned.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "their share of the costs" since they were not involved upfront monetarily. Nevill had already sold two of the flats and one was sold subject to contract, upon which the bank overdraft of £120k would be cleared. The remaining two flats were on a 99-year lease, after which time they would revert to the progeny of Nevill in the ratio 50:50, with Jeremy receiving half and Anthony and Jackie the other half.
Why would Anthony Pargeter take the risk of killing the golden goose when in effect the whole of Nevill's estate would go to Jeremy apart from the 25% he probably would have to sue for anyway if there was only a gentleman's agreement and nothing written down in law that he and his sister Jackie were entitled to it? an agreement does not have to be written in law, a gentleman's agreement would, and does suffice - stop for one moment and ask yourself why when Jeremy took his relatives to court in a civil action, why didn't Jeremy set out a case for his full entitlement to grandma Bambers estate? He only sought a judgement favouring himself with respect to his parents estate(s), and his share of Mabel Speakmans estate, , and a piece of land which Neville Bamber paid for in relation to acreage that Peter and Ann Eaton showed interest in purchasing! The thing is, although provisionally, Neville agreed to purchase that piece of land, as part of a gentleman's agreement, with a view to the Eaton's later buying it off him, Neville rewarded Jeremy for showing more of an interest in the farming business by telling Jeremy that he would be getting the acreage! Now, before you start getting on your high horse, listen up, the Eaton's never raised enough monies to purchase the aforementioned acreage prior to the tragedy! Therefore, Sonny, the acreage belonged to Jeremy, and as I understand it, that was all that Jeremy benefitted from, arising out if this tragedy, oh and a nominal payout for being a shareholder in Osea Road Camp site...
-
And why, if Nevill had been so magnanimous, did they suddenly 'owe' him vast sums of money? this was for the executor of Neville Bambers estate needed to deal with lawfully..Surely it would have been grossly unfair No, not unfair at all.. -and quite unlike Nevill- to lend his family money to enhance property he owned and was beneficiary of Neville's mother left her residence to Neville, not for it to be shared with anyone else! I have the civil papers, you don't, Neville offered the Pargeter brother and sister 50% share in his mother's estate, on the proviso that both would have to stand 50% of the cost of refurbishment of granny Bambers five bedroom Guildford house, which were transformed into separate flats, or bedsits, or whatever, their share of their 50% cost of those refurbishments to be recuperated by Neville Bamber upon the sale of one flat, or apartment... I could see, perfectly, had he loaned a sum to them formally, why would anyone make such a thing up? that he might deduct such from the sum he gave them from his mother's estate. it is what it is, and what it was, once Neville died, the debt should have e become part of his estate! I have a very strong feeling that the executor of Neville Bambers estate cooked the books so to speak, because once Jeremy was convicted the relatives came to a gentleman's agreement t between themselves, where the Boutflours and Eaton's were happy to take June Bambers estate, and let the Pargeter brother and sister to take Neville's estate!However, as the alleged loan was only on a gentleman's agreement terms, (legally binding) IF such a loan existed, he was probably in no hurry to have it returned. Yes, because he didn't know that he would die in the kitchen downstairs on the 7th August 1985, or who would shoot him, subdue him, and finish him off...
The same gentleman's agreement that Neville originally set into motion involving the acreage which Peter and Ann Eaton were very interested in, turned out to be land which Neville gave to Jeremy, and Neville had a similar gentleman's agreement concerning the 5 bedrooms Guildford house that his own Mother left entirely to him, when he told the Pargeter pair that between them they stood to benefit by 50% from the development and transformation of the house into flats, and or appartments, but that they would have to stand 50% of the cost of the refurbishments! As things stand, no monies ever exchanged hands, or were paid from bank account to another - but, had not Neville died, the Pargeters would have had 50% of the cost of the refurbishments deducted from any income arising out of the sale of the premises! Neville Bamber borrowed £100,000 from the bank to cover the cost of the refurbishments, that makes it £50,000 they owed to Neville Bambers estate, at the time of Neville Bambers death - a hefty amount by anyone's standards, people have been known to kill people for less!
Add into this scenario that Anthony Pargeters Brno rifle and his Parker hake silencer fired at least one shot during this shooting tragedy, what more needs to be said?
-
The same gentleman's agreement that Neville originally set into motion involving the acreage which Peter and Ann Eaton were very interested in, turned out to be land which Neville gave to Jeremy, and Neville had a similar gentleman's agreement concerning the 5 bedrooms Guildford house that his own. Mother left entirely to him, when he told the Pargeter pair that between them they stood to benefit by 50% from the development and transformation of the house into flats, and or appartments, but that they would have to stand 50% of the cost of the refurbishments! As things stand, no monies ever exchanged hands, or were paid from bank account to another - but, had not Neville died, the Pargeters would have had 50% of the cost of the refurbishments deducted from any income arising out of the sale of the premises! Neville Bamber borrowed £100,000 from the bank to cover the cost of the refurbishments, that makes it £50,000 they owed to Neville Bambers estate, at the time of Neville Bambers death - a hefty amount by anyone's standards, people have been known to kill people for less!
Add into this scenario that Anthony Pargeters Brno rifle and his Parker hake silencer fired at least one shot during this shooting tragedy, what more needs to be said?
Oh! NOW I understand. Nevill gets the lot, in it's entirety, from his mother, and then tells his niece and nephew, her grandchildren, that providing they stump up 50% of the refurbishment costs, they'd get 50% of the sale of the development.................the catch being that they'd have to contribute an enormous sum to make this possible which would have severely reduced that 50%. I've heard of speculating to accumulate. So had Jeremy!!! He gained rather more than 50%.
-
Everything is pointing to no silencer being present at the Lab' by 12th September 1985, this has to be taken seriously, because no general examination record exists confirming that MDF dismantled a silencer at the lab' on that date! There only exist two different general examination records pertaining to the submission and examination of a silencer, one dated 13th August 1985, the other, dated 25th September 1985...
Lab records show the silencer threads and flake found within were tested for blood groups on the 12th of September thus it must have been taken apart by then.
-
Oh! NOW I understand. Nevill gets the lot, in it's entirety, from his mother, and then tells his niece and nephew, her grandchildren, that providing they stump up 50% of the refurbishment costs, they'd get 50% of the sale of the development.................the catch being that they'd have to contribute an enormous sum to make this possible which would have severely reduced that 50%. I've heard of speculating to accumulate. So had Jeremy!!! He gained rather more than 50%.
Grandma Boutflour didn't leave the Pargeter kids any share at all of the 5 bedroom property in Guildford, Neville agreed to them taking a 50% share in its refurbishment and resale! Part of the gentleman's agreement was that 50% of the refurbishment costs would be recovered by Neville when all the flats were sold off. He invested £100,000 in the refurbishments, and told them that he would recoup their 50% share of the costs from the sale of the flats, in addition to his 50% share of the profits! You work that out as you like,. They never physically paid any of the costs back because Neville died, and his entire estate went to the Pargeters, after an agreement between them and the Boutflours / Eaton's was subsequent finalised - in effect, once Jeremy was convicted, Neville Bambers Estate became their own, but between the time of Neville's death and the date of Jeremy's conviction they owed £50,000 to Neville Bambers estate! A similar situation arose in connection with June Bambers estate involving the other relatives, in particular, Peter Eaton who was selling off farm machinery belonging to and (N & J Bamber Ltd) prior to Jeremy becoming convicted!
-
Grandma Boutflour didn't leave the Pargeter kids any share at all of the 5 bedroom property in Guildford, Neville agreed to them taking a 50% share in its refurbishment and resale! Part of the gentleman's agreement was that 50% of the refurbishment costs would be recovered by Neville when all the flats were sold off. He invested £100,000 in the refurbishments, and told them that he would recoup their 50% share of the costs from the sale of the flats, in addition to his 50% share of the profits! You work that out as you like,. They never physically paid any of the costs back because Neville died, and his entire estate went to the Pargeters, after an agreement between them and the Boutflours / Eaton's was subsequent finalised - in effect, once Jeremy was convicted, Neville Bambers Estate became their own, but between the time of Neville's death and the date of Jeremy's conviction they owed £50,000 to Neville Bambers estate! A similar situation arose in connection with June Bambers estate involving the other relatives, in particular, Peter Eaton who was selling off farm machinery belonging to and (N & J Bamber Ltd) prior to Jeremy becoming convicted!
But under the conditions you claim, unless/until such time the properties were sold off (do we know if this had occurred prior to Nevill's demise or during the interim till Jeremy's conviction?) the Pargeters were in receipt of zilch -their gains dependent on the completion and sale of such- therefore there would have been no outstanding debt on their part.
-
Lab records show the silencer threads and flake found within were tested for blood groups on the 12th of September thus it must have been taken apart by then.
There was no silencer present at the lab' on the 12th September 1985, the flake mentioned in these lab records was the flake which David Boutflour scraped from the outside of one of the silencers previously using a razor blade! The swab from the threads was taken from the first silencer SJ\1 (22) on the 13th August 1985, when Glynis Howard examined that silencer at the Lab' on that day. Howard returned that silencer (22) to Cook at the lab' on that same day! As I say, no silencer at the lab' bearing a lab' item number 22 by the 12th September, only a lab' item number 23, bearing the exhibit reference, DB/1, submitted or taken to the lab' on the 30th August 1985. This item (23) was almost certainly the flake of dried blood that David Boutflour had scraped off silencer SJ\1 (22) earlier, which he took from the outside of (22) prior to Peter Eaton having handed over that particular silencer to DS Jones on evening 12th August 1985. The documentation you seek to rely upon to try and suggest there must have been a silencer which had been dismantled at the Lab' by that date (12th September 1985), clearly refers to a flake from silencer (22), and thread - yes, the loose flake that young Boutflour scraped from the outside of (22), and a swab taken from the thread of (22) by Glynis Howard a month earlier. ..
Boutflour states he scraped a flake off the outside of the silencers found in the gun cupboard, that he used a razor blade to carry out this exercise! He kept the flake because he told COLP it fascinated him! He told the COLP investigators that Essex police knew what he had done! So, if Essex police, and then COLP knew what David Boutflour had done in removing a flake of dried blood from the outside of the silencer he found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, which was not handed over to the police when Peter Eaton handed over the first silencer to DS Jones, on Evening of 12th August 1985, ask yourselves at what point did Essex Police get told that David Boutflour had tampered with the first silencer? Who told them? What did they tell the police? What did the police do once they found out that David Boutflour had scraped a flake of dried blood from the outside of the silencer (22)? Did the police let David Boutflour keep the flake all to himself? Or, did Essex police seize it from him? If they seized it from him, what did the police do with that flake of dried blood? Why didn't Essex police tell the CPS what David Boutflour had done? If the CPS knew, why didn't they disclose this information to the defence? Did the police not only seize this crucial flake of dried blood, but did they submit the flake to the Lab' so that it could be analysed? Was this flake exhibit DB/1 (23) that was sent or taken to the lab' on 30th August 1985, a flake of dried blood scraped off the first silencer (22)? Everything points to this being the case, the flake which young Boutflour had scraped from the outside of the first silencer (22) was at the lab' in time for it to analysed from the 12th September 1985, in fact, a total of 4 blood groups were obtained during tests carried out on a solution made of the flake, on 12th, 13th, 18th, and the 19th September 1985. Identifying what David Boutflour did officially with that flake of dried blood, who took possession of it, where it was provisionally stored, when was it submitted to the lab', who took it there, and who examined it, and what results were obtained once it was analysed, remain at the heart of the matter - I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the blood group activity which has been identified as belonging exclusively to Sheila Caffell, supposedly found on the baffle plates inside 'the' silencer, DRB/1 (22), was in fact the same flake of dried blood which young Boutflour had scraped from the outside of the silencer! A fact known about by all the parties concerned, except the defence. Steps should be taken to discover what happened to the Boutflour flake?
-
But under the conditions you claim, unless/until such time the properties were sold off (do we know if this had occurred prior to Nevill's demise or during the interim till Jeremy's conviction?) the Pargeters were in receipt of zilch -their gains dependent on the completion and sale of such- therefore there would have been no outstanding debt on their part.
Yes, there would be and was. The Pargeters were fully aware of the ramifications of entering into such an arrangement. It is irrelevant whether or not any of their share of the refurbishment cost had been recouped by Neville Bamber or not, what mattered was that it was due to be repaid into Neville Bambers estate, since had Jeremy not been convicted of Neville's murder, that £50,000 would ordinarily have gone to Jeremy. You can't say that they weren't in debt to Neville at the time of his death, because they were in debt to his estate. The fact that they later benefitted entirely from His estate (and not by only 50% of grandma Bambers house) only came into play when Jeremy got convicted, and all the relatives who had all been queing up to give evidence trying to paint Jeremy in a poor light, all got their heads together to divvy up the loot amongst themselves!
-
And then of course, there is the matter of the paint on the guns barrel as mentioned by DS Davidson to the COLP investigators? Davidson told them that on the 8th of August 1985 whilst he was present at the scene, that Cook had given him a paint sample exhibit reference RC/1 from the kitchen Aga because some paint has been found ingrained onto the end of a guns barrel, a gun which had been found down stairs it had paint on the end of its barrel which must have got there from having come into contact with the kitchen Aga! The true identity of this gun and it's paint contaminated barrel has remained a Complete Mystery over the past 33 years or more, however, there can be little doubt that the existence of the paint on this guns barrel must be linked to one or other of the scratch marks which were present on the kitchen AGA mantelpiece!
Did a silencer scratch the kitchen mantelpiece, or the barrel of a gun?
Seems like there's something odd if the barrel of a gun scratched the kitchen mantelpiece and a silencer also scratched the same mantelpiece?
If these shootings were a 1 gun crime, how did paint from the mantelpiece get on to the end of the guns barrel, and the muzzle end of one of the silencers, during the shooting of Neville Bamber?
-
If these shootings were a 1 gun crime, how did paint from the mantelpiece get on to the end of the guns barrel, and the muzzle end of one of the silencers, during the shooting of Neville Bamber?
Were two guns used?
One gun with a silencer fitted on the end of its barrel, another without a silencer altogether?
-
Were two guns used?
One gun with a silencer fitted on the end of its barrel, another without a silencer altogether?
Did the same person handle and fire both guns (a gun with a silencer, and another gun without a silencer) during the shootings?
Why was this issue kept from the defence, and the jury?
Why hide the evidence of the paint that had been found ingrained onto the end of a guns barrel, a gun which had been found downstairs?
A rifle which had been captured in one of the kitchen crime scene photographs was not to be referred to or mentioned by any police officer when making up their notes, reports and witness statements - was this the gun which had got paint ingrained onto the end of its barrel which Essex police have been so secretive about?
-
Who's gun was it?
-
Who's gun was it?
What if?
-
What if?
Say, the defence get hold of the said photograph, the one which has captured the rifle in a crime scene photograph taken in the kitchen, and it's discovered that...
-
Say, the defence get hold of the said photograph, the one which has captured the rifle in a crime scene photograph taken in the kitchen, and it's discovered that...
That the gun in question is the Bamber family owned anshuzt rifle?
-
Imagine the effect it's presence there, downstairs in the kitchen before a single photograph had been taken anywhere at all upstairs?
-
Imagine the effect it's presence there, downstairs in the kitchen before a single photograph had been taken anywhere at all upstairs?
All of a sudden that photograph becomes high on the agenda, everybody wants to know which gun was there, which gun didn't senior officers want any police officer who had been in the house who had seen this rifle, downstairs in the kitchen, to refer to, or make any mention of?
What if, the rifle in question was the Anthony Pargeter Brno bolt action rifle with its silencer fitted to the end of its barrel?
-
What if, it was the BSA .22 air rifle?
-
What if it was a police issue weapon?
-
Yes, there would be and was. The Pargeters were fully aware of the ramifications of entering into such an arrangement. It is irrelevant whether or not any of their share of the refurbishment cost had been recouped by Neville Bamber or not, what mattered was that it was due to be repaid into Neville Bambers estate, since had Jeremy not been convicted of Neville's murder, that £50,000 would ordinarily have gone to Jeremy. You can't say that they weren't in debt to Neville at the time of his death, because they were in debt to his estate. The fact that they later benefitted entirely from His estate (and not by only 50% of grandma Bambers house) only came into play when Jeremy got convicted, and all the relatives who had all been queing up to give evidence trying to paint Jeremy in a poor light, all got their heads together to divvy up the loot amongst themselves!
If they hadn't received what Nevill -in the form of a gentleman's agreement- had promised them, there was no call on them to repay anything to his estate. In plain English, if Nevill hadn't paid them what was promised them, prior to his death, without taking out a loan, they had nothing to repay it with. They can hardly be blamed for benefitting from receipt of the whole estate. They weren't responsible for those behaviours of Jeremy's which caused him to be convicted.
-
If they hadn't received what Nevill -in the form of a gentleman's agreement- had promised them, there was no call on them to repay anything to his estate. In plain English, if Nevill hadn't paid them what was promised them, prior to his death, without taking out a loan, they had nothing to repay it with. They can hardly be blamed for benefitting from receipt of the whole estate. They weren't responsible for those behaviours of Jeremy's which caused him to be convicted.
Read the contents of Neville Bambers estate, all will become clear!
-
Read the contents of Neville Bambers estate, all will become clear!
Could you provide a link, please?
-
Could you provide a link, please?
I will have to locate the wills amongst the case file, it is with June Bambers will, and the civil action that Jeremy brought against his relatives!
-
I will have to locate the wills amongst the case file, it is with June Bambers will, and the civil action that Jeremy brought against his relatives!
Thank you, that would be good, but it's Nevill's Will which will show how generous -or, perhaps down right cavalier- he'd been to his late sister's children