Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
 061 (continued '2')

Whilst examining this silencer, David Boutflour noticed what he described as being a 'sticky substance' on the end of the silencer in question which he described as having the consistency of a 'blob of jam'! He scraped this substance off the silencers end cap, and retained it, because he says 'it' fascinated him!
061 (continued '1')

Amongst other things, the said silencer was placed in the boot of Ann Eaton's car and taken to her home! In the kitchen of her home address, David Boutflour and Peter Eaton examined the aforementioned silencer..


On 10th August 1985, the relatives, including Ann Eaton, David Boutflour (her brother), and Robert Boutflour (their dad) attended whf and collected items which were considered valuable, and firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunitions! Included in this hoard was the silencer which had been fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle during the shooting of the other four victims of Sheila's..
060 (continued '3')

Whilst Jones and Jones took the 'Eatons' around the rooms of the farmhouse, downstairs and upstairs, explaining what had been discovered in each room regarding the finding of the five bodies, 'Stan' Jones slipped the silencer (SBJ/1) into the cupboard situated in the downstairs office!!
060 (continued '2')

'Taff' Jones kept the aforementioned silencer (SBJ/1) on his desk in his office and used it as a 'paper weight', but decided to hand 'it' back to the family discretely, on evening of 9th August 1985, when Jones and Jones returned the keys of the farmhouse back to Ann Eaton and her husband (Peter Eaton) at the scene!
060 (continued '1')

This silencer was given to DCI 'Taff' Jones, by 'Stan' Jones later that same date, and kept on 'Taff' Jones desk at Witham police station, until 9th August 1985!

On the first morning of the police investigation into the whf tragedy, whilst a second team of SOCO had control of the farmhouse and its various components of its crime scenes, DS 'Stan' Jones returned there (from Jeremy's cottage) and seized four exhibits, including a Parker hale silencer (SBJ/1) which had been fitted to the end of the barrel of the family owned anshuzt rifle during the shootings of the other four victims!
You will never accept that Sheila was under sedation, & physically/mentally uncordinated due to the Haloperidol. If you did you would have to admit Bamber is guilty.

This is fine as a small amount of people will never believe Bamber is guilty. Which is strange as there are over 50 pieces of forensic evidence showing it wasn't Sheila.
I have believed JB was guilty and still believe he may be but that doesn't stop me from questioning what I see as inaccurate or questionable facts being posted as proof.
You are projecting Adam, unlike you I don't see this forum as a competition.
I actually hope JB is guilty because the absolute tragedy of him being innocent and having had his whole life stolen from him is too horrendous to contemplate imo.
I am interested in the truth not scoring points.
Here is what Drake said about striking workers

Drake also prosecuted in all three of the so-called “terror pickets” trials at Shrewsbury Crown Court in 1973. The defendants were the ringleaders of 300 flying pickets who had swarmed on to a Shropshire housing site in 1972 “like a hoard of Apache Indians”, according to Drake, chanting: “Kill, kill, kill, capitalist bastards. This is not a strike, it is a revolution.”

A famous face there !
Very interesting Jon2.
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Timeline
« Last post by David1819 on Yesterday at 10:45 PM »
Why, then, did Pc West's statement of 13 September 1985 include the sentence, "Since the 7 August 1985 I have made no written record of the above information and the conversation above is made from my memory of the occasion." Five weeks earlier, he had made another statement that also gave details of the call he received from Jeremy, including the conversation he had with him. What did Pc West have to hide that caused him to put that sentence in his later statement that was clearly intended to mislead?

He had nothing to hide. The statement from the 13th is intended to mislead, the statement from the 9th is accurate.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10