Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on April 03, 2011, 07:06:PM

Title: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on April 03, 2011, 07:06:PM
COLP interview of Robert Woodwis Boutflour, dated, 4th September 1991, consisting of 45 pages:-
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on April 03, 2011, 07:46:PM
Boutflour speaks about Basil Cock, complaining about the fingerprint dust, at the time the silencer was found in the gun cupboard at whf - what this means is that the silencer to which he is referring to, could not have been found in the gun cupboard at whf on 10th August 1985, because no fingerprint examination took place at the scene as part of the SC/688/85 investigation, such a fingerprint examination was not undertaken at whf until the investigation changed on 6th September 1985, under SC/786/85...

The date when the silencer that was found in the gun cupboard has been changed from 11th September 1985, and back dated to 10th August 1985, and confirmed by reference to the fingerprint dust which was all over the place at whf, from 6th September 1985, onwards...

Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Roch on April 04, 2011, 10:07:PM
Boutflour speaks about Basil Cock, complaining about the fingerprint dust, at the time the silencer was found in the gun cupboard at whf - what this means is that the silencer to which he is referring to, could not have been found in the gun cupboard at whf on 10th August 1985, because no fingerprint examination took place at the scene as part of the SC/688/85 investigation, such a fingerprint examination was not undertaken at whf until the investigation changed on 6th September 1985, under SC/786/85...

The date when the silencer that was found in the gun cupboard has been changed from 11th September 1985, and back dated to 10th August 1985, and confirmed by reference to the fingerprint dust which was all over the place at whf, from 6th September 1985, onwards...

That's quite a gaffe isn't it?  Still, they've got away with it anyway.  And nobody seems to want to comment on this anomaly.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Kaldin on April 05, 2011, 07:59:AM
Boutflour speaks about Basil Cock, complaining about the fingerprint dust, at the time the silencer was found in the gun cupboard at whf - what this means is that the silencer to which he is referring to, could not have been found in the gun cupboard at whf on 10th August 1985, because no fingerprint examination took place at the scene as part of the SC/688/85 investigation, such a fingerprint examination was not undertaken at whf until the investigation changed on 6th September 1985, under SC/786/85...

The date when the silencer that was found in the gun cupboard has been changed from 11th September 1985, and back dated to 10th August 1985, and confirmed by reference to the fingerprint dust which was all over the place at whf, from 6th September 1985, onwards...

That's quite a gaffe isn't it?  Still, they've got away with it anyway.  And nobody seems to want to comment on this anomaly.

It's not that I'm ignoring it, it's just that I don't have time to read the whole statement and Mike has refused to say which page that bit is on.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Kaldin on April 23, 2011, 06:08:PM
If Robert Boutflour made a statement on 10th September describing how the silencer was found, it couldn't have been found on 11th September.  ???
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Kaldin on April 23, 2011, 06:31:PM
He seems to be saying (p39) that the statement took several days

Surely it would be dated at the time he finished the statement though.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: smiffy on April 24, 2011, 03:39:AM
Having looked through some of it there is considerable deception displayed in the statement.
Particularly significant in regards to the silencer finding claim.
A lot of the character assassination stories show strong elements of deception.

Much more as well as that

page 35 (image 36)...is highly interesting.
Robert claiming that he believed at first that Neville died on the kitchen floor and later learning that Neville had died in his chair....seems like a police officer  must have informed him of some of the truth about when the firearms team entered the house.

Someone it seems let the cat out of the bag there !!!!

Oh and when it came to his denial when asked if he and others were trying to frame Jeremy it screams out........ LIE.  no doubt on that....LIE
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Harry on November 22, 2018, 04:07:AM
Boutflour speaks about Basil Cock, complaining about the fingerprint dust, at the time the silencer was found in the gun cupboard at whf - what this means is that the silencer to which he is referring to, could not have been found in the gun cupboard at whf on 10th August 1985, because no fingerprint examination took place at the scene as part of the SC/688/85 investigation, such a fingerprint examination was not undertaken at whf until the investigation changed on 6th September 1985, under SC/786/85...

The date when the silencer that was found in the gun cupboard has been changed from 11th September 1985, and back dated to 10th August 1985, and confirmed by reference to the fingerprint dust which was all over the place at whf, from 6th September 1985, onwards...

Here is the passage from Robert Boutflour's statement to City of London Police.

COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991

"I have been asked if Peter Eaton, Ann's husband was at any time at White House Farm that afternoon or Barbara Wilson, I have no recollection of Peter being there at all, but Barbara Wilson may have been, I can't actually remember her actually being there. I do remember Basil Cock complaining about the fingerprint dust and that he didn't seem to have any interest in the silencer. He may have been talking to someone else, but I cannot visualise who that was.

I have been asked to describe how the silencer was handled after it was found. I remember that I was shocked by its finding and said I thinking aloud "the buggers aren't looking“, meaning the police. I had a clear view of it, a maximum of 6 feet away, but I didn't try and touch it, and I don't recall David and Ann having a close look at it either. I recall the box, and also a green plastic bag with .22 ammunition in it. The bag may have been green all over, or it may have had print on it. I cannot remember. I believe it was me that suggested to David that he put it into the bag. As I have already indicated I never had my glasses with me so I never looked at it closely to see the blood. I can only picture seeing the silencer sideways on, not the ends of it."

Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Harry on November 22, 2018, 04:18:AM
It has been suggested that Robert Boutflour's recollection of the occasion may have been faulty given that the interview took place in 1991, six years after the murders. But Ann Eaton's statement of September 12th 1985 is consistent with her father's statement of 1991, although she does not mention fingerprint dust.

She also mentions a bag of ammunition found along with the silencer and Basil Cock being present when the silencer was allegedly found on August 10th.

From the Statement of Ann Eaton, September 8th to 12th.

 "Mr. COCK decided that he would need to speak to the farm secretary Barbara WILSON. He telephoned her and she agreed to come to the farm.
On arrival at the farm Barbara WILSON was very emotional and she conferred with Mr. COCK.

My father. David and I started to have a look around the house.

My brother David collected all the guns around the house so that we could take possession of them for safe keeping. This was on the authority of Mr Cock

My brother, DAVID. then went into the downstairs office and I stood in the doorway and saw David open the gun cupboard. He got onto his knees and he then checked the cupboard.

David then took out a silencer and a telescopic sight and a carrier bag of ammunition. David said to me that the silencer and telescopic sight belonged to the rifle which had killed the BAMBERS and the CAFFELL twins."
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Harry on November 22, 2018, 04:40:AM
It is interesting to focus on this bag of ammunition because Robert Boutflour and Ann Eaton both say it was found by David Boutflour at the same time he found the silencer.

It should seem clear that father and daughter are talking about the same day when a silencer was found along with other items at Whitehouse Farm. So what day was this? Was it August 10th of was it September 11th?

It has been suggested that David Boutflour found a silencer on two occasions. He found one on August 10th and another on September 11th. So it is presumably maintained that fingerprint dust was there when the second silencer was found on September 11, but not when the first one was found on August 10th. The trouble with that theory is that it requires us to believe that duplicate items were found on two occasions and both with Basil Cock present.

Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 22, 2018, 09:09:AM
If Robert Boutflour made a statement on 10th September describing how the silencer was found, it couldn't have been found on 11th September.  ???

Ann Eaton handed over the silencer to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, it's not stated on which day it had been found, therefore, Robert Boutflour could have known about the find of the silencer from as early as the day before (10th September 1985) before his daughter handed it over to police, which would then account for why his witness statement which makes mention of the silencer was dated the 10th September 1985..
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on November 22, 2018, 07:36:PM
It is interesting to focus on this bag of ammunition because Robert Boutflour and Ann Eaton both say it was found by David Boutflour at the same time he found the silencer.

It should seem clear that father and daughter are talking about the same day when a silencer was found along with other items at Whitehouse Farm. So what day was this? Was it August 10th of was it September 11th?

It has been suggested that David Boutflour found a silencer on two occasions. He found one on August 10th and another on September 11th. So it is presumably maintained that fingerprint dust was there when the second silencer was found on September 11, but not when the first one was found on August 10th. The trouble with that theory is that it requires us to believe that duplicate items were found on two occasions and both with Basil Cock present.

The only logical answer is that RWB was incorrect in his recollection of the event.

Are we really going to think that thousands of statements and lab documents are all false on the basis of RWBs recollection six years after?  Occam's razor dictates that RWB remembers the event incorrectly.

In my humble opinion both silencers were found at the same time on the 10th of August. The second silencer is the Pargeter silencer and it was taken from WHF along with the Pargeter rifle. Pargeter and the other relatives then claimed this was never at the farm for convenience reasons.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Harry on November 23, 2018, 02:58:AM
The only logical answer is that RWB was incorrect in his recollection of the event.

Are we really going to think that thousands of statements and lab documents are all false on the basis of RWBs recollection six years after?  Occam's razor dictates that RWB remembers the event incorrectly.

In my humble opinion both silencers were found at the same time on the 10th of August. The second silencer is the Pargeter silencer and it was taken from WHF along with the Pargeter rifle. Pargeter and the other relatives then claimed this was never at the farm for convenience reasons.

You know very well that Robert Boutflour's recollection of the fingerprint dust when the silencer was found is not the only evidence that a silencer was found by David Boutflour at some date later than August 10th 1985.

Several police documents recording the finding of a silencer have been posted on this forum. You are going to have to claim that David Boutflour found a second silencer to escape the conclusion that the alleged finding on August 10th is a fiction.

Even if Robert Boutflour just invented the observation of fingerprint dust out of thin air, there is other compelling evidence that DB found a silencer on or just before September 11th. It's recorded in the telephone message log.

(Doc P31) Telephone Message Log 38, 11th September 1985 reads:
‘David Boutflour has found a silencer with blood on it’


(https://i0.wp.com/scenephotographs.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/boutflour-silencer.jpg?ssl=1&w=450)

You would need to claim that this entry is mistaken and also the other documents produced by several officers, but how likely is that?

Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Harry on November 23, 2018, 03:47:AM
There are several reports referring to a silencer collected by DC Oakey from Ann Eaton on September 11th 1985. Suggesting that all of these are mistakes is merely absurd. This silencer is referred to by DS Davidson on September 13th.

(Doc P34) Action Report 181 allocated to DS Davidson, 13th September 1985: “Examine the following for blood fibres and finger prints. 2/ cardboard box containing silencer and ammunition. 3/ Check silencer for fibres”

(https://i1.wp.com/scenephotographs.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/davidson-ds-davidson-silencer.png?ssl=1&w=450)

In this post from a while back you edited what Davidson wrote to try to make out that he was only talking about an empty box. You removed the sentence (3) "Check silencer for fibres."

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9536.msg442721.html#msg442721
Quote
Read it Action 181 carefully. "Cardboard box containing silencer & ammunition"

Its not a box containing a silencer. Its the now empty box that David Boutflour found the silencer in back in August.

Poorly written paperwork indeed.

I am reading it carefully.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 23, 2018, 07:23:AM
It has been suggested that Robert Boutflour's recollection of the occasion may have been faulty given that the interview took place in 1991, six years after the murders. and yet, in his own typed notes, his recollection of the date of the find of the silencer is dated Sunday 11th August 1985, as opposed to the alleged find of 'it' falling on Saturday 10th August 1985 - these typed notes were what Robert Boutflour made up after the silencer had been found and handed over to police! The mix up with the date, for example, where he puts the 11th, as opposed to the 10th, was probably slipped in after his daughter Ann Eaton had already handed over the silencer to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, as opposed to the finding of the silencer by David Boutflour on the 10th August 1985, which supposedly led to that silencer being handed over to DS Jones by Peter Eaton on the 12th August 1985. I think I am correct in saying that Basil Cock was not present at the farmhouse (whf) on Saturday 10th August 1985, but he was present there on the (Tuesday)11th September 1985 which dramatically coincides with the date Ann Eaton gave the silencer (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) to DC Oakey!But Ann Eaton's statement of September 12th 1985 is consistent with her father's statement of 1991, although she does not mention fingerprint dust. but, the police did not fingerprint whf back in August 1985, during the three days they had control of the crime scene, on 7th, 8th, and 9th August 1985, which fell on a Wednesday, Thursday and a Friday - fingerprinting took place not only at Jeremy's cottage, and the premises where Mathew McDonalds girlfriend was living, but also at whf and to vehicles belonging to the farm, and of course Jeremy's astra motor vehicle, exercises not undertaken and  which coincided with the time of Jeremy's first arrest on or about Sunday the 8th September 1985

She also mentions a bag of ammunition found along with the silencer and Basil Cock being present when the silencer was allegedly found on August 10th.Yes, it's somewhat revealing that both Robert Boutflour, and his daughter Ann Eaton made the exact same mistake claiming that Basil Cock was present at the scene (WHF) on Saturday 10th August 1985, when there was supposed to have been fingerprint dust everywhere, when no fingerprinting had been done at the scene by that date, and would not be undertaken there until the following month!

From the Statement of Ann Eaton, September 8th to 12th.

 "Mr. COCK decided that he would need to speak to the farm secretary Barbara WILSON. He telephoned her and she agreed to come to the farm.
On arrival at the farm Barbara WILSON was very emotional and she conferred with Mr. COCK.

My father. David and I started to have a look around the house. I am convinced that these activities occurred in September 1985, but that they were backdated to Saturday 10th August 1985, and that this could only have been arranged with an eliment of collusion involving Robert Boutflour, Ann Eaton, David Boutflour, Peter Eaton, Basil Cock, DS Jones, DC Oakey, DC Davison, PI Miller, DI Cook, Glynis Howard, and other fringe co - conspirators involved in presenting the recovery of the silencer as having taken place a month sooner (10th August 1985), than it had been (11th September 1985). What appears as though what did happen, is that a small flake of dried blood which David Boutflour claims he had scraped off the silencer using a razor blade was probably noticed to be stuck on the end of it after the silencer had been taken away from the farmhouse in the boot of Ann Eaton's car, along with firearms, accessories and ammunitions, and amongst other things a plastic bucket containing a pair of heavily bloodstained knickers which could only have belonged to Sheila Caffell, on or about 10th August 1985. To cut to the chase, in one of his witness statements, David Boutflour talks rather candidly about him having used a razor blade to scrape the blood from the silencer once they had got the silencer back to Ann Eaton's kitchen. He said that he retained 'it' (the flake of dried blood) because he said 'it fascinated him'! Well, I believe that at some point prior to the 30th August 1985, that the piece of dried blood to which David Boutflour has alluded to was actually exhibit 'DB/1'(Lab' item number 23) sent by Essex police to the Lab' on that particular day, rather than the police having sent the silencer upon which David Boutflour claimed he'd scraped the blood from, and it was this flake of blood 'DB/1'(23) which subsequently got analysed at the Lab' on the 12th, 13th, 18th and the 19th September 1985, in accordance with the four obtained blood group results discovered at the Lab' on each of those dates. I don't believe that a second silencer had been submitted to the Lab' any time sooner than 20th September 1985, and the reason why it was only then decided to submit to the Lab' on that particular date, is because of the blood group results obtained from the flake of blood which David Boutflour claimed he had scraped from 'it' (the second silencer). It really is an astonishing sequence of events, with the benefit of hindsight, to be able to reconstruct what must have taken place, involving the crucial flake of blood which David Boutflour had scraped from one of the silencers (or so he says), which ended up at the Lab' ( in my opinion) well in advance of the silencer upon which Boutflour claimed he had found it upon! So, in a nutshell, the flake ends up at the Lab' by 30th August 1985, exhibit DB/1(23), blood group activity ( A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP2-1) obtained on 12th, 13th, 18th, and 19th September 1985. Essex police submit the silencer in question (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) to the Lab' on the following day for the silencer to be checked for blood and fibers (20th September 1985), a silencer which Ann Eaton had handed over to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, which in turn had been fingerprinted by DS Eastwood and DS Davison on the 13th September 1985, and not examined until the 25th September 1985, at which time it was noted for the very first time, that red paint particles had been found crushed into the knurled pattern of the silencers metal end cap!

Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on November 23, 2018, 12:08:PM
(Doc P31) Telephone Message Log 38, 11th September 1985 reads:
‘David Boutflour has found a silencer with blood on it’


You would need to claim that this entry is mistaken and also the other documents produced by several officers, but how likely is that?


A message is dated 11th September 1985. It does not state explicitly that the silencer was found on that particular day.

If I found something in January then I tell someone in February about this. That does not mean I found the item in February.

There are several reports referring to a silencer collected by DC Oakey from Ann Eaton on September 11th 1985. Suggesting that all of these are mistakes is merely absurd. This silencer is referred to by DS Davidson on September 13th.

(Doc P34) Action Report 181 allocated to DS Davidson, 13th September 1985: “Examine the following for blood fibres and finger prints. 2/ cardboard box containing silencer and ammunition. 3/ Check silencer for fibres”



Once agiain this is a gross misinterpretation. This was the cardboard box that contained the silencer that David Boutflour found it in the month before. The silencer being checked for fibers is the one found in August.

Robert Boutflour tells Barlow on the 30th of August that he thinks Jeremy had used Sheila's tampons to clean blood out of the silencer. Thus the police already knew and had the silencer before the date of this alleged discovery on september the 11th. Robert Boutflours tampon theory is the reason why they are checkig it for fibers in the first place.

Also what is very important about this is that Robert Boutflour is insinuating to Barlow that there is blood to be discovered inside the silencer, BEFORE the lab disovered this blood inside. I will let you draw your own clonclusions of how he was so clairvoyant about this.


Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on November 23, 2018, 12:39:PM

In this post from a while back you edited what Davidson wrote to try to make out that he was only talking about an empty box. You removed the sentence (3) "Check silencer for fibres."

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9536.msg442721.html#msg442721
I am reading it carefully.


I did not edit anything. I quoted point 2 from that action report verbatim. I did not quote point 3 for the same reason I did not quote point 1. Are you going to accuse me of "editing" because I didnt quote point 1 also?

All those points are numbered and sepereated by blank spaces. As for point one are you saying this ammo by the phone was not found until september also?
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 23, 2018, 12:46:PM
The silencer (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) which Ann Eaton gave to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985, wasn't reference to the silencer (DB/1) supposedly sent to the Lab' by Essex police on 30th August 1985 - how could it have been if Ann Eaton and the relatives still had possession of 'it' some 13 days after they had no right to be in possession of 'it? Moreover, if it had been reference to the same silencer (where DB/1 and AE/1, CAE/1 and DRB/1) were in fact one and the same silencer, how could DS Eastwood and DS Davison still have possession of 'it' on 13th September 1985 to fingerprint 'it', and then how could Essex police then submit 'it' to the Lab' at Huntingdon on the 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibers, if the silencer was already at the Lab' where 'it' had been deposited as long ago as the 30th August 1985? It would be impossible to fit in all the now known facts regarding the handing over of the second silencer by Ann Eaton to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985, the fingerprinting of 'it' by DS Eastwood and DS Davison on 13th September 1985, it's submission to the Lab' on 20th September 1985 to be checked amongst other things for blood, when on the other version of the so called truth, the silencer had already been checked for blood by the 12th September 1985, the finding of the key blood group evidence over a 4 day period between 12th, 13th, 18th and the 19th September 1985 when the second silencer didn't even get examined and checked for the presence of blood until (25th September 1985) long after blood had supposedly already been found itside it at the Lab' by 12th September 1985, by which stage the second silencer wasn't even present at the Lab', and therefore no blood whatsoever could have been found either upon it or inside it at the Lab' by that date, unless by means of futuristic teleportation methods not yet fathomed out by ordinary members of the public, but to which the likes of Essex police, the relatives, and experts working at Huntingdon Laboratory appear to have a working Command of the processes required to pull off such an astonishing magicians trick..
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on November 23, 2018, 12:53:PM
The silencer (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) which Ann Eaton gave to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985, wasn't reference to the silencer (DB/1) supposedly sent to the Lab' by Essex police on 30th August 1985 - how could it have been if Ann Eaton and the relatives still had possession of 'it' some 13 days after they had no right to be in possession of 'it? Moreover, if it had been reference to the same silencer (where DB/1 and AE/1, CAE/1 and DRB/1) were in fact one and the same silencer, how could DS Eastwood and DS Davison still have possession of 'it' on 13th September 1985 to fingerprint 'it', and then how could Essex police then submit 'it' to the Lab' at Huntingdon on the 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibers, if the silencer was already at the Lab' where 'it' had been deposited as long ago as the 30th August 1985? It would be impossible to fit in all the now known facts regarding the handing over of the second silencer by Ann Eaton to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985, the fingerprinting of 'it' by DS Eastwood and DS Davison on 13th September 1985, it's submission to the Lab' on 20th September 1985 to be checked amongst other things for blood, when on the other version of the so called truth, the silencer had already been checked for blood by the 12th September 1985, the finding of the key blood group evidence over a 4 day period between 12th, 13th, 18th and the 19th September 1985 when the second silencer didn't even get examined and checked for the presence of blood until (25th September 1985) long after blood had supposedly already been found itside it at the Lab' by 12th September 1985, by which stage the second silencer wasn't even present at the Lab', and therefore no blood whatsoever could have been found either upon it or inside it at the Lab' by that date, unless by means of futuristic teleportation methods not yet fathomed out by ordinary members of the public, but to which the likes of Essex police, the relatives, and experts working at Huntingdon Laboratory appear to have a working Command of the processes required to pull off such an astonishing magicians trick..


AE/1 is the cardboard box DRB/2
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 23, 2018, 06:56:PM

AE/1 is the cardboard box DRB/2

No, AE/1, is CAE/1, is DRB/1..

Matters get complicated when cops make exhibit AE/1 into exhibit  DRB/2, when if the truth be known , Ann Eaton handed over exhibits, AE/1, CAE/1 DRB/1, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4 to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985.

The Silencer was DRB/1, found in the box DRB/2, AE/1 was the silencer from the box DRB/2, your document doesn't say that exhibit AE/1 was the box you reference to as exhibit DRB/2, what you have posted up, are handwritten notes compiled by PI Miller where he is asking DC Oakey to alter all references to AE/1 in his witness statement to DRB/2, because Essex police are trying to conceal the fact that Ann Eaton handed over the silencer DRB/1 to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, AE/1 being an alternative exhibit reference from that silencer, in the same way that exhibit reference CAE/1 was (to the same silencer)!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on November 23, 2018, 07:12:PM
No, AE/1, is CAE/1, is DRB/1..

Matters get complicated when cops make exhibit AE/1 into exhibit  DRB/2, when if the truth be known , Ann Eaton handed over exhibits, AE/1, CAE/1 DRB/1, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4 to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985.


AE/1 is a cardboard box!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on November 23, 2018, 07:28:PM
No, AE/1, is CAE/1, is DRB/1..

Matters get complicated when cops make exhibit AE/1 into exhibit  DRB/2, when if the truth be known , Ann Eaton handed over exhibits, AE/1, CAE/1 DRB/1, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4 to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985.


Mike. With all due respect.

1. AE and RWB knew the silencer scratched the mantle, before the lab confirmed it. RWB is insinuating that there is blood to be found inside it before it is actually discovered. They knew this because they had created this "evidence"

2. Three ballistic experts from the states have expressed the view that no silencer was attached on the gun when Sheila was shot. These expert reports remain unchallenegd.

3. There are no debris of paint under the AGA in the origional crime scene photos.

4. Nicholas suffered two contact wounds yet none of his blood was inside the silencer.

5. Jeremy claims to have left the gun in the house with no silencer attached, the above four points corroborate his statement.


So what more do you need? It is not necessary to nit pick the lab paperwork to try and establish something that can and has already been established.

There is nothing left to do.

Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Steve_uk on November 23, 2018, 08:18:PM

Mike. With all due respect.

1. AE and RWB knew the silencer scratched the mantle, before the lab confirmed it. RWB is insinuating that there is blood to be found inside it before it is actually discovered. They knew this because they had created this "evidence"

2. Three ballistic experts from the states have expressed the view that no silencer was attached on the gun when Sheila was shot. These expert reports remain unchallenegd.

3. There are no debris of paint under the AGA in the origional crime scene photos.

4. Nicholas suffered two contact wounds yet none of his blood was inside the silencer.

5. Jeremy claims to have left the gun in the house with no silencer attached, the above four points corroborate his statement.


So what more do you need? It is not necessary to nit pick the lab paperwork to try and establish something that can and has already been established.

There is nothing left to do.

1) Maybe AE and RWB were the two surviving people who knew the layout of White House Farm the best.

2) This has been dismissed as speculation by the CCRC. I also bow to the superior knowledge expressed by a former member here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6658.0

3) Given that the carpets were trampled on by 43 police officers the evidence may well have been destroyed.

4) This is false because the AK1 enzyme was found inside the silencer, ruling out June Bamber only.

5) Silencers can be screwed on and unscrewed, and even if the evidence pertaining to the silencer is false this does not automatically exculpate Jeremy Bamber from the heinous crimes.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 23, 2018, 10:23:PM
No, AE/1, is CAE/1, is DRB/1..

Matters get complicated when cops make exhibit AE/1 into exhibit  DRB/2, when if the truth be known , Ann Eaton handed over exhibits, AE/1, CAE/1 DRB/1, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4 to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985.

Things got even more complicated when DC Oakey, made one or more of the exhibits which had been DRB2, DRB/3 or DRB/4, into exhibits HGO/1(a) and or HGO/1(b)...

All the DRB exhibits (1, 2, 3 and 4) came into the evidence on the 11th September 1985, when Ann Eaton handed them over to DC Oakey at whf, because by that point her husband Peter Eaton had be given the role of farm manager, and the Eaton's and Boutflours had the run of the mill insofar as access to the contents of whf. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the relatives in the form of Dave Boutflour may have found the silencers ( including DRB/1) in the cupboard in the den at the scene in August 1985, but for one reason or another they held on to one of these, which Ann Eaton did not hand over to DC Oakey until the 11th September 1985!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Caroline on November 23, 2018, 11:33:PM
You know very well that Robert Boutflour's recollection of the fingerprint dust when the silencer was found is not the only evidence that a silencer was found by David Boutflour at some date later than August 10th 1985.

Several police documents recording the finding of a silencer have been posted on this forum. You are going to have to claim that David Boutflour found a second silencer to escape the conclusion that the alleged finding on August 10th is a fiction.

Even if Robert Boutflour just invented the observation of fingerprint dust out of thin air, there is other compelling evidence that DB found a silencer on or just before September 11th. It's recorded in the telephone message log.

(Doc P31) Telephone Message Log 38, 11th September 1985 reads:
‘David Boutflour has found a silencer with blood on it’


(https://i0.wp.com/scenephotographs.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/boutflour-silencer.jpg?ssl=1&w=450)

You would need to claim that this entry is mistaken and also the other documents produced by several officers, but how likely is that?

You're suggesting that the log entry means that the silencer wasn't found with blood on it - however, read it again, it could also mean that it wasn't double packed in polythene.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 24, 2018, 12:01:AM

Mike. With all due respect.

1. AE and RWB knew the silencer scratched the mantle, before the lab confirmed it. you forgot to make mention of the red paint which had been found ingrained onto the end of a guns barrel, as alluded to by DS Davidson in his COLP interview which resulted on and handed to Davidson at the scene on the second morning of the police investigation (8th August 1985) Cook handing Davidson a paint sample ( RC/1) which Cook took from the kitchen mantlepiece! So, any original scratch marks may have been made by the barrel end of a gun scratching the kitchen mantlepiece, and not a silencer at all, at least not until the 14th September 1985, when David Boutflour, Ann Eaton and DC Oakey attended the kitchen at the scene and took the first photographs of the scratched mantlepiece...RWB is insinuating that there is blood to be found inside it before it is actually discovered. Similarly, blood was supposedly found inside silencer DRB/1 at the Lab' on 12 September 1985, blood which went on to be analysed and which produced the four blood groups (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) despite the fact that the silencer (DRB/1) had't even been taken to the Lab' by that stage, and which remain firmly under the control of the police until the 20th September 1985, and even then this particular silencer did not actually get examined until the 25 the September 1985, and so it must be obvious that the blood group activity which was said to belong uniquely to Sheila Caffell could not have been found inside the silencer at all!They knew this because they had created this "evidence" I would seek to make the distinction between someone deliberately putting Sheila's blood inside the silencer, as opposed to what really did happen, insofar as the experts at the Lab' saying that Sheila's blood was found to be present inside the silencer!, When it could not possibly have been true for all the reasons given!

2. Three ballistic experts from the states have expressed the view that no silencer was attached on the gun when Sheila was shot. Smith and Mallinson 2003/2004, expressed an opinion that a silencer may have been fitted to the end of the guns barrel which fired the first shot across Sheila's neck. They relied upon an abrasion impression around the non fatal bullet entry wound to Sheila's neck which had the dimensions / diameter as the muzzle end of a silencer, and they also relied on a series of range patterns where a duplicate semi automatic anshuzt rifle had bullets fired from it onto target paper at different distances from the target paper, when enabled the using a microscope to look at the residue upon and around the bullet entry holes, both with and without a 17 baffled Parker Hale silencer fitted at the time of the test firing experiment, and they concluded that a silencer had been used on the barrel of the weapon which had inflicted the first shot, but not the second shot! I remember them visiting Ewen Smith with me and giving him their professional opinion regarding this, and Ewen reacting to what he was being told by shrugging his shoulders and saying something along the lines, well, that puts paid to any notion Jeremy had got saying if the silencer was on the gun when she had been shot, there was a good chance her blood had got into the silencer at that point after all... These expert reports remain unchallenegd. I think the Smith / Mallinson analysis got forwarded to the CCRC by Ewen Smith who was applying to become a CCRC Commissioner at that time, so I doubt that the opinions of the two American Ballistic experts remains unchallenged! What I also remember at the time, was that the circular abrasion mark that you can just about see if you look closely enough at the lower entry wound on Sheila's neck was not replicated on any other bullet entry wounds inflicted on the other victims. In other words, it appeared to be a unique mark to the first wound in Sheila's neck.As far as I was led to believe a silencer had been on the gun at the time of the first shot, but not at the time of the second shot! I remember being struck by this anomaly as potentially working in Jeremy's favour at the time, solely on it providing an explanation for how Sheila's blood could have got into the silencer, and I toyed with the idea that at some point in-between both shots having been fired, the silencer had been or got removed from the gun altogether, or that there was another rifle with a silencer on which had been used to inflict the first non fatal shot across her neck, and the unsilencered anshuzt rifle which had fired the fatal shot which had actually killed her! Not surprisingly, Jeremy wasn't as enthusiastic with regard to suggesting that the silencer was used in one of the two shots inflicted to Sheila's throat. But to me, I realised that if it was true, then it would put paid to the suggestion that Sheila had taken her own life. How could she have, and the two shots had been fired in quick succession to one another, and she fall back clutching the unsilencered anshuzt rifle, with no silencer to be found anywhere near her body on the main bedroom floor? Not even a second rifle there or thereabouts with a silencer fitted onto the end of its barrel..

3. There are no debris of paint under the AGA in the origional crime scene photos. Yes, I am aware of the work that Mr Sutherst has done..

4. Nicholas suffered two contact wounds yet none of his blood was inside the silencer. don't overlook the fact either, that Nicholas was shot in the head a total of three times, but that only Two bullets were recovered during autopsy, a third bullet remained unrecovered, a fact which impacts upon the total number of shots fired (26), bullets (26) but only 25 recovered and spent cartridge cases(25) with no concern show by the police to locate the 26th spent cartridge case that must have been known about...

5. Jeremy claims to have left the gun in the house with no silencer attached, yes, but by the same token, Jeremy also claimed that Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle with its silencer screwed onto the end of its barrel was also present at the scene at the time of the tragedy. Whereas, Pargeter denies this, claiming that he had taken his .22 rifle home on the penultimate week-end beforehand! I believe Jeremy's explanation regarding the state and condition of both of these .22 rifles, the one he had handled he left on a settle which was located just outside an inner kitchen doorway and that Anthony Pargeters rifle and silencer were kept in storage in the downstairs bathroom.. the above four points corroborate his statement.


So what more do you need? It is not necessary to nit pick the lab paperwork to try and establish something that can and has already been established. I disagree, and I don't put it down to nit picking, since everything has to be documented before it is even taken to a Lab', and everything is documented once an item arrives at the lab, evidence of this nature is necessary to try and ensure the integrity and the continuity of each piece of evidence, but in this particular case, it becomes clear that somebody has gone to a lot of trouble to try and hide the truth not only that there appears to have been widespread tampering with key exhibits, but that between themselves they have referred to key exhibits like the silencer using a multitude of different and conflicting exhibit references and then merged all of them, as one and the same silencer, here, there, and everywhere!!

There is nothing left to do.I disagree, there's still plenty to do..
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on November 24, 2018, 12:12:AM
1) Maybe AE and RWB were the two surviving people who knew the layout of White House Farm the best.

That does not explain how they knew things that could only later be established in with laboratory apparatus.

2) This has been dismissed as speculation by the CCRC.

No it has not. Stop making things up.


3) Given that the carpets were trampled on by 43 police officers the evidence may well have been destroyed.

Since when does trampling a carpet clean it?


4) This is false because the AK1 enzyme was found inside the silencer, ruling out June Bamber only.


The blood in silencer was: A, PGM+1, EAP BA, AK 1, Hp 2-1

The twins have blood group 0 not A 
The twins have PGM 2+1+ not PGM+1
The twins have Hp 2 not HP 2-1

5) Silencers can be screwed on and unscrewed, and even if the evidence pertaining to the silencer is false this does not automatically exculpate Jeremy Bamber from the heinous crimes.

His conviction rests purely on it.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Harry on November 24, 2018, 06:56:AM

A message is dated 11th September 1985. It does not state explicitly that the silencer was found on that particular day.

If I found something in January then I tell someone in February about this. That does not mean I found the item in February.

Any old excuse will do! You avoid the conclusion that David Boutflour found a silencer in September by suggesting that he made the call a month or so after finding it.

You seem to have forgotten that the relatives are supposed to have made such a call straight after the alleged finding on August 10. There is no record of any such call. When asked who made it, Ann Eaton said "It was probably me." 


(Doc P31) Telephone Message Log 38, 11th September 1985 reads:
‘David Boutflour states he found a silencer with blood on it’

(https://i0.wp.com/scenephotographs.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/boutflour-silencer.jpg?ssl=1&w=450[b][/b])

Two questions.

1 Why would there be such a reference in the telephone message log made on September 11th of a call which had been made a month before, assuming Ann Eaton was mistaken about who made it?

 2 Or, alternatively why would David Boutflour phone on September 11th to report finding a silencer after it had already been reported by Ann Eaton on August 10th and supposedly had already been collected by Stan Jones as early as August 12th?
 
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Harry on November 24, 2018, 08:11:AM

Mike. With all due respect.

1. AE and RWB knew the silencer scratched the mantle, before the lab confirmed it. RWB is insinuating that there is blood to be found inside it before it is actually discovered. They knew this because they had created this "evidence"

That reasoning is based on not having figured out the nature of the conspiracy. It was the police who decided to frame Bamber by faking the silencer evidence, but they wanted it to look like the relatives found the evidence and to look like the relatives were trying to get the police to listen to their theories.

So all of those anecdotes with the relatives noticing things first are phoney. Stan Jones was not only getting them to sign fraudulent statements, but even to do things like make fake diary entries.

So what you get are fake stories like Robert Boutflour telling us that Stan Jones was surprised to hear that the relatives had found a silencer and that he exclaimed "What silencer?".

The truth is that the police had already found a silencer on August 7th. The relatives knew that, but were told to suppress that knowledge and to pretend that they found the silencer on August 10.

I believe Mike has a document which has been posted before showing that the police found a silencer in the gun cupboard and that this is dated August 7th.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 24, 2018, 09:42:AM
That reasoning is based on not having figured of the nature of the conspiracy. It was the police who decided to frame Bamber by faking the silencer evidence, but they wanted it to look like the relatives found the evidence and to look like the relatives were trying to get the police to listen to their theories.

So all of those anecdotes with the relatives noticing things first are phoney. Stan Jones was not only getting them to sign fraudulent statements, but even to do things like make fake diary entries.

So what you get are fake stories like Robert Boutflour telling us that Stan Jones was surprised to hear that the relatives had found a silencer and that he exclaimed "What silencer?".

The truth is that the police had already found a silencer on August 7th. The relatives knew that, but were told to suppress that knowledge and to pretend that they found the silencer on August 10.

I believe Mike has a document which has been posted before showing that the police found a silencer in the gun cupboard and that this is dated August 7th.

Yes, the police originally had one of the two silencers from the first day of the police investigation, which was returned to the scene by the evening of 9th August 1985, because police were satisfied by that stage that there had been no silencer attached to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle, a fact confirmed by Jones and Jones who stated that Jeremy had confirmed that there wasn't a silencer fitted on to the end of the anshuzt rifles barrel when Jeremy had last handled the gun which he told them had been on the evening before the shooting tragedy occurred. I think that Jones handed the Pargeter rifle and it's silencer over to Peter Eaton at the scene on that Friday evening (9th August 1985) because Ann Eaton makes mention in one of her scribbled notes that her husband had put the gun back at the scene on that particular evening! On the following day (10th August 1985) David Boutflour must have recovered two silencers from inside the gun cupboard, namely the one belonging to Anthony Pargeters bolt action rifle, and the other belonging to the Bamber owned anshuzt rifle. Peter Eaton wasn't present at whf on the day David Boutflour found the two silencers, but he was present in his own kitchen when his wife Ann and David Boutflour returned to the Eaton's residence and by that stage I feel sure that his sister Ann Eaton would already have told David Boutflour that police had already taken possession of one of the silencers, and that they had returned it back to the farm on the previous day and given it to Peter her husband to put back inside the gun cupboard. Hence why on the afternoon of 12th August 1985 Robert Boutflour had spoken to PI Miller and DS Jones at Witham police station and told them that his son had found the silencer to the other gun (the one belonging to the anshuzt rifle), and why DS Jones had commented by saying 'What silencer'? He made that exclamation because he hadn't known of the existence of a second silencer, hence why later that evening DS Jones paid Peter Eaton a visit to collect the second silencer! Jones wanted to make sure that it wasn't the same silencer he had seized earlier, and given back to the family. The other silencer was kept by the Eaton's and Boutflours, and eventually handed it over to police again on the 11th September 1985, when Ann Eaton handed it to DC Oakey! On that same date, David Boutflour contacted police by telephone to tell them that he had found the silencer to the anshuzt rifle, and he subsequently made a statement saying how he had originally found both silencers a month previously inside the same gun cupboard!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Steve_uk on November 24, 2018, 01:54:PM
That does not explain how they knew things that could only later be established in with laboratory apparatus.

No it has not. Stop making things up.

Since when does trampling a carpet clean it?

The blood in silencer was: A, PGM+1, EAP BA, AK 1, Hp 2-1

The twins have blood group 0 not A 
The twins have PGM 2+1+ not PGM+1
The twins have Hp 2 not HP 2-1

His conviction rests purely on it.
There was a lot of blood in the silencer, as John Hayward admitted to Mark Webster. Some blood was swabbed which was exclusive to Sheila Caffell. I know that Nevill Bamber and Daniel and Nicholas Caffell were Blood Type O but all victims save June had the AK 1 enzyme in common. The paint flakes which had fallen from the mantelpiece were dried and could easily have been trampled on underfoot by the Raid Team. Bamber's conviction does not rest solely on the silencer, though should the evidence be discredited after 33 years he would probably be released on a technicality.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on November 24, 2018, 04:33:PM
There was a lot of blood in the silencer, as John Hayward admitted to Mark Webster. Some blood was swabbed which was exclusive to Sheila Caffell. I know that Nevill Bamber and Daniel and Nicholas Caffell were Blood Type O but all victims save June had the AK 1 enzyme in common. The paint flakes which had fallen from the mantelpiece were dried and could easily have been trampled on underfoot by the Raid Team. Bamber's conviction does not rest solely on the silencer, though should the evidence be discredited after 33 years he would probably be released on a technicality.


You are just going round in circles with the same nonsense. Why bother explaining things to you for the 500th time.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 24, 2018, 05:39:PM
Bamber's conviction does not rest solely on the silencer, though should the evidence be discredited after 33 years he would probably be released on a technicality.

Bambers convictions will be quashed because he didn't shoot his sister dead, or stage her death scene as a suicide on the main bedroom floor, the police themselves are responsible for doing these things, and they would have got away with it if DS Jones and DC Clark hadn't confided in Ann Eaton and the other relatives that June and Sheila's bodies had been laid on top of the bed, that there was a bible resting on Sheila's chest, and that she had been shot once by a gun that was resting on the bed in-between both bodies and that Jones and Clark had just visited the crime scene and had both seen that which they had described to all within earshot...

Essex police have got to be brought to task regarding the false narrative they presented in the immediate aftermath of the shooting tragedies, which sought to deliberately cover up the circumstances surrounding Sheila Caffell's death in different parts of the farmhouse. There exists two entirely contradictive accounts regarding how the bodies of victims had been distributed in different parts of the farmhouse, downstairs and upstairs, during a 35 minute period between 7.35am and 8.10am, as opposed to witness statement accounts which mysteriously placed the body of a female upstairs on the main bedroom floor, shot twice by use of a gun she was clutching against her own body...
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on November 24, 2018, 06:58:PM
Any old excuse will do! You avoid the conclusion that David Boutflour found a silencer in September by suggesting that he made the call a month or so after finding it.

You seem to have forgotten that the relatives are supposed to have made such a call straight after the alleged finding on August 10. There is no record of any such call. When asked who made it, Ann Eaton said "It was probably me." 


(Doc P31) Telephone Message Log 38, 11th September 1985 reads:
‘David Boutflour states he found a silencer with blood on it’

(https://i0.wp.com/scenephotographs.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/boutflour-silencer.jpg?ssl=1&w=450[b][/b])

Two questions.

1 Why would there be such a reference in the telephone message log made on September 11th of a call which had been made a month before, assuming Ann Eaton was mistaken about who made it?

 2 Or, alternatively why would David Boutflour phone on September 11th to report finding a silencer after it had already been reported by Ann Eaton on August 10th and supposedly had already been collected by Stan Jones as early as August 12th?

Having taken a closer look at this document. Its become apparent to me that this is a photocopy of an excel spread sheet created in 2002. This is not a police log as some have suggested.

Furthermore the same document also mentions DC Bird finding a hand grenade at White house farm then calling the bomb squad. So what in the actual xxxx is this document supposed to be? and who wrote it?

Until we know who typed this and where they got this from it is of no evidentiary value.

Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Caroline on November 24, 2018, 10:18:PM
That does not explain how they knew things that could only later be established in with laboratory apparatus.

No it has not. Stop making things up.

Since when does trampling a carpet clean it?

The blood in silencer was: A, PGM+1, EAP BA, AK 1, Hp 2-1

The twins have blood group 0 not A 
The twins have PGM 2+1+ not PGM+1
The twins have Hp 2 not HP 2-1

His conviction rests purely on it.

And yet you said that it has been accepted that the silencer wasn't used?  ::)
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on November 24, 2018, 11:15:PM
And yet you said that it has been accepted that the silencer wasn't used?  ::)


Wasn't used in what respect? Not used on the fatal shots inflicted on Sheila. Or not used all together?

The CCRC never disputed the new ballistic evidence. Instead they decided to argue that it being used in the kitchen was good enough. So I can safely deduce from this that they realised it wasn't used in the way that matters (Involving Sheila's death). 









Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Caroline on November 25, 2018, 12:58:AM

Wasn't used in what respect? Not used on the fatal shots inflicted on Sheila. Or not used all together?

The CCRC never disputed the new ballistic evidence. Instead they decided to argue that it being used in the kitchen was good enough. So I can safely deduce from this that they realised it wasn't used in the way that matters (Involving Sheila's death).

I don't know David, it's what you have claimed. You have taken what was said incorrectly and your deductions mean SFA!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Harry on November 25, 2018, 06:13:AM

AE/1 is the cardboard box DRB/2

(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=606.0;attach=54556;image)


Sometimes it is the attempt to cover up a deception which exposes it. The police wanted to cover up the fact that a silencer was collected from Ann Eaton by DC Oakey on September 11th. So they tell DC Oakey to leave it out of his statement dated October 25th 1985.

The other items such as the telescopic sight are mentioned, but not the silencer. David1819 accepts it as genuine and gives us his empty box theory. We are meant to believe Oakey collected the items which had been left at the Eatons' house for a whole month after the silencer had been handed in.

But the deceivers go further and try to tell us that AE/1 refers to an empty box and David accepts that also. But sometimes another piece of evidence gives the lie to what is being claimed and we seem to have that here in a pocket book entry by DC Hammersley.

Mike Tesko writes
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9299.msg435668.html#msg435668

Ref' 00032
This is an 'extract' from the pocketbook entry, dated the 16th November 1985, belonging to DC Hammersley (SOCO), in it he makes reference to himself taking possession of exhibits 'AE/1'(being the silencer), 'AE/2' (being the telescopic site), 'DRH/15' (being the rifle), the 'Silencer' and ' the telescopic site', for 'Fingerprinting'...

This is the very first time the silencer was being referred to in Ann Eaton's exhibit reference ('AE/1'), confirming that she handed it over to Essex police on 11th September 1985, along with the telescopic site ('AE/2')..

We have a unique crime reference to aid the new investigation...

'C 601 / 85'..


(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9299.0;attach=52235;image)

AE/1 is the silencer, not an empty box

Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Harry on November 25, 2018, 06:21:AM

(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=606.0;attach=54556;image)

(https://cdn.itv.com/uploads/editor/medium_BoB6yiYUM1xXYuy_4MoXMkFuXjYN9ncEkHRYk2wl3kE.jpg)
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Harry on November 25, 2018, 07:19:AM
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9299.0;attach=52235;image)

It would be useful if someone could type this out verbatim. I can make out most of it. Hammersley says that he took possession of a silencer AE/1 and a telescopic sight AE/2, If I'm not mistaken.


Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 25, 2018, 11:04:AM
And yet you said that it has been accepted that the silencer wasn't used?  ::)

According to information recieved from contact with Smith and Mallinson (2003 / 2004) a silencer came into contact with Sheila's neck, in particular, at the time the lower neck wound was inflicted ...
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 25, 2018, 12:03:PM
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9299.0;attach=52235;image)

It would be useful if someone could type this out verbatim. I can make out most of it. Hammersley says that he took possession of a silencer AE/1 and a telescopic sight AE/2, If I'm not mistaken.

I have been telling everyone for decades now, that the silencer relied upon during the trial (DRB/1, Court Exhibit no.9) was originally handed over to DC Oakey by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985, which originally had the exhibit reference of AE/1, and that the other exhibits she handed over to police on this occasion were AE/2, AE/3 and AE/4, which subsequently had their exhibit reference altered into CAE/1, CAE/2, CAE/3 and CAE/4, then altered again when the police interfered with these and changed them into exhibits DRB/1, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4. As if all of this wasn't confusing enough, police then changed some of them into exhibit references HGO/1(a), HGO/1(b) and HGO/2, etc, etc, etc (leaving the silencer as DRB/1)..

These alterations were deliberately introduced to try and prevent anyone finding out about the true historical background about where the silencer marked by the exhibit reference 'DRB/1' came from, who found it, who handed it over to the police, when it was first fingerprinted, when it was first submitted to Huntingdon Laboratory, and when it was first examined by experts at the Lab'...

What I have been able to do, is to trace it's (DRB/1) history, all the way back to the time of the shooting tragedy at whf, and to prove that Sheila Caffell's blood was found to have been present inside a silencer (DB/1 - 23) which was present at the Lab' on the 12th September 1985 ( a silencer which had been present at Huntingdon Lab' from 30th August 1985), could not possibly have been a present inside this (DRB/1) silencer at the Lab' on that particular date, by virtue of the fact that the silencer bearing the exhibit reference DRB/1 ( previously also referred to by the exhibit references CAE/1, AE/1) was not at the Lab' any time sooner than the 20th September 1985, and that 'it' did not get examined by any expert there until the 25th September 1985! This means in the clearest terms imaginable that the court which tried Jeremy Bamber for the murders of five members of his family were dishonestly decieved, in particular, Bambers legal team, and the jury were led down the garden path, by the antics of Essex police and the prosecution services, because the key exhibit (DRB/1) in the entire proceedings was nothing but a red herrin' - you can't possibly use 'a prop' (which was what 'this' silencer was) in the prosecution of somebody, facing counts of multiple murders, and claim that the convictions can be justified and are legitimate, once it has been exposed as 'faked' evidence! I have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that 'this' silencer (DRB/1, Court Exhibit No.9) relied upon during the trial of Jeremy Bamber could 'not possibly have been the silencer' inside which it was falsely (as it turns out) claimed had been found the unique blood of Sheila Caffell, a false flag piece of evidence, purporting to prove that Sheila Caffell could not possibly have killed herself with 'this' silencer attached to the end of the guns barrel, fell down dead on the bedroom floor, and at sometime thereafter, she had taken off 'this' silencer in question (that silencer being DRB/1, Court Exhibit no.9), walked all the way downstairs to the den, concealed 'it' (DRB/1) in a box in the gun cupboard, and then gone back upstairs to the main bedroom, only to lay down dead again on the floor in possession of the rifle, now minus the (DRB/1) aforementioned silencer! The fact is that she hadn't done this with that (DRB/1) silencer, and the fact is that neither Jeremy Bamber, nor any third party involved in Sheila's death, had done this with that (DRB/1) silencer!

This deception was something which Essex police and other interested parties deliberately sought to pull off, and there must have been a reason for them having all pulled their own weight toward fooling everyone into relying upon this (DRB/1) silencers existence, as some sort of proof that (a) Sheila hadn't killed herself, and (b) that Jeremy Bamber, was the killer, because as the trial judge said in his summing up, (c) there was 'no evidence of any third party involvement in these murders', it had to have been either Sheila, or Jeremy!

The absolute truth in this matter, was that the police were the third party involvement in Sheila Caffell's death!

Not only do the various contents recorded in the individually timed police radio message logs cast doubt on the witness statement version of the events regarding where Sheila Caffell's body had originally been seen, found, and pronounced (wrongly) dead, but the police got themselves into this pickle because a silencer which they had seized (SBJ/1) originally from the scene on the first morning of the shooting tragedy was subsequently returned back to the farmhouse on the evening of Friday, 9th August 1985, only for 'it' (SBJ/1) to be re-seized along with a second silencer (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) by David Boutflour from the gun cupboard on the following day (10th August 1985). On the evening of 12th August 1985, Peter Eaton had handed over one (SBJ/1) of these two silencers (the one believed to have been owned by Anthony Pargeter) to DS Jones, the second silencer (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) which was not handed over by Ann Eaton until 11th September 1985, was owned by the Bambers and was purchased in November 1985 - the unique blood belonging to Sheila Caffell could not have been found inside the silencer (DRB/1) belonging to the anshuzt rifle, if it was found inside any silencer at all, it could only have been found inside the other silencer (SBJ/1), the one belonging to Anthony Pargeters bolt action rifle!!!

please note, that any reference to the first silencer bearing the exhibit reference of SBJ/1, should also be treated as reference to the same silencer, mentioned at different times in the police file, as SJ/1 and DB/1. Similarly, any reference to the other silencer DRB/1, should also be referred to as CAE/1, and AE/1...
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on November 25, 2018, 05:34:PM
AE/1 is the cardboard box the silencer was found in.

All the documents (both typed and handwritten) and the testimony of those involved, show the silencer was handed to the police on the 13th of August. The idea that all this was made up is a theory that cannot be substantiated. If one wants to believe in a giant conspiracy because they cant read two or three pieces of paper properly, that is their problem.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 25, 2018, 06:10:PM
AE/1 is the cardboard box the silencer was found in. Exhibit AE/1 was the silencer found in the ammunition box..

All the documents (both typed and handwritten) and the testimony of those involved, a shallow investigation on your part, does not prove that the original AE/1 exhibit was the ammunition box! In fact the original exhibit AE/1 was in fact one of the two silencers which David Boutflour recovered from the gun cupboard arguably on the 10th August 1985..show the silencer was handed to the police on the 13th of August. No, it wasn't, the first time one of the two silencers was handed back to police was on the evening of 12th August 1985, handed 'back' to DS Jones on this date, at this time, by Peter Eaton!The idea that all this was made up is a theory that cannot be substantiated. You have got to be kidding! Of course what I am saying can be substantiated, the reason your saying all this nonsense on your part is because you are lazy and don't even take into account the relevance of the details recorded, and known about! If one wants to believe in a giant conspiracy because they cant read two or three pieces of paper properly, that is their problem. By the same token, those that believe everything wholeheartedly what Jeremy is expecting his supporters to believe, and those same supporters who shout from the rooftops the lies which Jeremy is relying upon all of them to buy into his explanation, then all I can say is that you are all sad bastards! If Jeremy wasn't involved in this tragedy, any part of it, how come he knows everything that took place, when he has no greater right to anybody else (like me) to know 100% what did take place?  You all might be his friend now as we speak but sooner or later he will dump you, just like he has dumped everybody else who has tried to help him! He isn't bothered about anybody but himself!

All that being said, I still wholeheartedly believe that he hadn't, and he didn't shoot dead his sister, and after he had killed her, he didn't"t, and he hadn't staged her death as a suicide there on the main bedroom floor!

Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Harry on November 26, 2018, 05:57:AM
AE/1 is the cardboard box the silencer was found in.

All the documents (both typed and handwritten) and the testimony of those involved, show the silencer was handed to the police on the 13th of August. The idea that all this was made up is a theory that cannot be substantiated. If one wants to believe in a giant conspiracy because they cant read two or three pieces of paper properly, that is their problem.

You have not given any explanation why DC Hammersley refers to the silencer and the telescopic sight as AE/1 and AE/2. The simple explanation of this is that the silencer and the telescopic sight were collected by DC Oakey from Ann Eaton on September 11th.

Oakey leaves the collection of the silencer out of his statement, but Hammersley mentions taking it into his possession along with the telescopic sight. The fact is, in such a conspiracy there are likely to be such mistakes, but they tend to be brushed aside.   

The plan, evidently, was to claim that the telescopic sight and other items were left at the Eatons' house for a whole month after the silencer was allegedly handed in on August 13th. But Hammersley has given it away that he took possession of it along with the silencer AE/1, after they both had been collected on September 11th by DC Oakey.

(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9299.0;attach=52235;image)
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 26, 2018, 09:13:AM

Wasn't used in what respect? Not used on the fatal shots inflicted on Sheila. Or not used all together? Sheila was shot twice, the first shot across her neck by a weapon fitted with a silencer (which left an impression upon the surface of her skin), and a second shot which entered under the point of her chin up to the roof of the mouth and deposited itself inside her brain! The first shot inflicted was not immediately fatal and according to professor knight she could have survived for up to 30 minutes afterwards! However, the second shot which was immediately fatal was inflicted by a gun that did not have a silencer fitted (anshuzt rifle). Whoever staged Sheila Caffells death scene as a suicide, found themselves trapped between a rock and hard ground, because they couldn't stage her suicide with both of the weapons used to shoot her!


Whichever gun the killers used to stage Sheila Caffell's death scene there on the main bedroom floor, they wouldn't have been able to get away with it, because the ballistics would never stack up in favour of the claim that Sheila had died as a result of being shot twice by use of the same gun, unless of course it was the police themselves who were intending to get away with something very naughty involving the actual manner with which Sheila had died there on the main bedroom floor, almost an hour and 45 minutes after police had set foot into the farmhouse premises! Well, let's put it this way, if the police weren't responsible for shooting Sheila dead at 9.13am, with use of the silencerless anshuzt rifle, there on the bedroom floor, then who must be responsible, because somebody was and is!

And, that somebody couldn't have been poor Jeremy Bamber, how could he have got into the farmhouse at such a late stage, and shot dead his sister there on the main bedroom floor without being seen, oh and no-one heard any shots, and he somehow managed to stage his sister's death scene as a suicide, then get outside to be with the police, and not one of them saw him approaching the farmhouse, let alone him gan entry by fair means or foul play, and fool around 30 police officers into thinking that his sister had taken her own life? I mean, long before the occasion when the raid team is claiming in their witness statement version of the events, rather than the timed police radio message log account, that they had found Sheila already dead there on the main bedroom floor, shot twice, and she already in possession of the anshuzt rifle, and then they are asking us to believe that after that moment the Jeremy Bamber had snook into the farmhouse to murder his sister, shoot herctwice and place the anshuzt rifle in her possession there on the floor, considering that according to themselves she had already been shot twice by the time they allegedly found Sheila's body, she already had two bullet entry wounds to her neck by the time the cops found her, and she was already clutching the anshuzt rifle to her body as if she had taken her own life!

Ok, so how could Jeremy have shot Sheila again twice after cops had already found her shot twice?

Bamber couldn't have got anywhere near the main farmhouse after the firearm officers went in, and even if he had done without nobody seeing him, or wondering whereabouts he was, he couldn't have done anything which was not already done, before he could have even got into the farmhouse to try and do it himself!

The cops have been found out to be lying, Bamber doesn't deserve to spend another day or night in custody because he has been wrongly convicted because the cops, the relatives and experts from Huntingdon Lab' couldn't be bothered to tell the basic truth concerning the whereabouts of Sheila,' body in several key locations inside the farmhouse, long before she ended up dead on the main bedroom floor!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 26, 2018, 05:59:PM
I think David Boutflour and Ann Eaton should volunteer to take separate lie detector tests, regarding the find of the two silencers at the scene on the 10th August 1985, and how and why they managed to retain one of these silencers until the 11th September 1985, without the police showing any concern that the relatives might be using the introduction of the second silencer later on to try and implicate Jeremy in the murders?

Now that we know that the relatives themselves are responsible for maintaining that there was only e error just the one silencer, not two different ones, it beggars belief that David Boutflour should provide a detailed account to Essex police on the 14th September 1985, regarding the two different locations he had found a silencer inside the gun cupboard! How come the defence were not made aware of the finding of a second silencer? How come this evidence was kept from the court and the jury! It beggars belief that there had existed one silencer which had been used during the shootings, but now that two such silencers existed, it's mind blowing stuff...
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 26, 2018, 06:06:PM
So when each of the relatives had said there was only ever just the one silencer, they didn't tell us individually which of the two silencers they were talking about, or testifying about, it just so happened to be one or other of both silencers, without them acknowledging that there existed another second silencer, or not...

Oh, I get it now, 'there was only one silencer that I am aware of', but don't ask me if the silencer that I am talking about, is the same silencer that he or she is talking about! We could both be talking about a completely different silencer to one another, but we are both right because each of us is only referring to one silencer each, neither of us accept that there were in fact two different ones!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 26, 2018, 06:37:PM
All the nonsense that Essex police, and its witnesses in various occupations and from different backgrounds, claiming falsely that the exhibit reference to 'the' silencer, had to be altered from it originally having been given the exhibit reference of SBJ/1 to DB/1, and then subsequently altered again to exhibit reference DRB/1, because of imaginary clashes involving different exhibits presented by other witnesses is preposterous! What a load of old codswallop..

During the trial, the silencer was only referred to by the exhibit reference of DRB/1, there was no disclosure that it had previously been referred to as exhibit reference DB/1? If it had been believe me that Jeremy's QC, Rivlin would have been all over the police, and the prosecution like a nasty rash! As if this flaw wasn't sufficient enough to cast doubt upon the integrity of the silencer evidence, an exhibit to which was deliberately associated the unique blood group evidence belonging to Sheila Caffell, and of course, the link to the scratched kitchen aga mantlepiece. Where the silencer (DRB/1) itself could not possibly have already been present at the Lab' on the 12th September 1985, to supposedly enable the prosecution's ballistic expert to discover the blood on that date when he had dismantled that silencer at the Lab' - well, he didn't, and he couldn't have, because that particular silencer (DRB/1) was still in police possession on that date, and in fact, it didn't get sent to the Lab' until the 20th September 1985..

And, so..

This brings us around to the faked exhibit reference of DB/1 (23) purporting to relate to 'the' silencer as of the 30th August 1985, when the cops had to make out a false case for a silencer to have been present at the Lab' at Huntingdon, from a date before the ballistic expert said he had dismantled it! But, he hadn't and he didn't, because there was no silencer present at Huntingdon Lab' at any stage between 30th August 1985 and the 20th September 1985. Exhibit DB/1 (23) was in fact a razor blade and a dried flake of blood which David Boutflour had scraped off one of the two silencers he had found in the gun cupboard of the farmhouse, on Saturday 10th August 1985! This is what enabled the blood expert, John Hayward, to analyse a flake of blood which turned out to match the unique blood group activity belonging to Sheila Caffell..

A part from there not being a silencer at the Lab' by the 12th September 1985, which was provisionally problematic, there was also the fact that the flake of blood in question had been scraped from the outside of the silencer, by David Boutflour, not the inside! You see he admitted to the COLP investigators that he had tried to unscrew the top off one of the silencers but he couldn't do it because it was too tightly screwed on - so we know he didn't get inside at least one of the silencers! Then he brags to COLP that he deliberately tampered with the integrity of one of the silencers by telling all about the flake of dried blood he had taken off it!

That flake of blood, that he scraped from the outside of the silencer, had the potential to alter the course of the trial, since it's presence there on the outside of the silencer, and not in the inside, was a piece of valuable evidence which might have been used during the course of the trial, by the defence putting it to David Boutflour, the police, and experts at the Lab' that there had been a deliberate attempt to displace the presence of the blood from the outside of the silencer, to the inside of the silencer, so as to lend some credence to the ballistic experts conclusion that Sheila's blood could only have got into the silencer at the time she was shot and killed..
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 26, 2018, 06:48:PM
There was no silencer at the Lab' on the 12th September 1985..

Fletcher couldn't have discovered a flake of blood inside a silencer he had dismantled at the Lab' on that date!

There existed a flake of blood and a razor blades which David Boutflour used to scrape dried blood from the outside of a silencer he found, not from the inside!

Exhibit DB/1 (23) was the flake of blood and a razor blade, not a silencer!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 26, 2018, 06:59:PM
There was no silencer at the Lab' on the 12th September 1985..

Fletcher couldn't have discovered a flake of blood inside a silencer he had dismantled at the Lab' on that date!

There existed a flake of blood and a razor blades which David Boutflour used to scrape dried blood from the outside of a silencer he found, not from the inside!

Exhibit DB/1 (23) was the flake of blood and a razor blade, not a silencer!

The correct interpretation of the exhibit reference SJ/1 (22) taken to Lab' by Cook and the other exhibit DB/(23) sent to the Lab' on 30th August 1985, is as follows:-

SJ/1 (22) - to Lab' on 13th August 1985 was a silencer

DB/1 (23) - to Lab' on 30th August 1985, was a flake of blood taken from outside of one of the two silencers, with use of a razor blade, by David Boutflour

The blood expert, tested the flake from DB/1 (23) on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, producing the blood group activity of A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1

On the 20th September 1985, Essex police submitted the second silencer to the Lab' to be checked for blood and fibers, but how could this be true, if this silencer was already at the Lab', and had been there already on the 12th September 1985, and 'it' had already been checked for blood, and blood had already been found inside itself? How utterly astonishing that it wasn't just anybodies blood, it just so happened to be blood that originated from Sheila Caffell, fancy that, her unique blood found inside a silencer at the Lab' on a date when the silencer in question wasn't even present at the Lab'?


Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 27, 2018, 08:12:AM

DB/1 (23) - to Lab' on 30th August 1985, was a flake of blood taken from outside of one of the two silencers, with use of a razor blade, by David Boutflour

The blood expert, tested the flake from DB/1 (23) on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, producing the blood group activity of A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1

David Boutflour handed over the flake of dried blood to the police prior to, or on the 30th August 1985. This information / evidence is contained somewhere in the police file, and is findable...
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 28, 2018, 03:30:PM
David Boutflour handed over the flake of dried blood to the police prior to, or on the 30th August 1985. This information / evidence is contained somewhere in the police file, and is findable...

I have got lots of handwritten notes which supposedly refers to examinations and tests done by a variety of experts at the Lab'...

One such note, relates to a request from DI Cook to Malcolm Fletcher, to amend the silencer reference from DB/1 to DRB/1, dated November 1985 - so, there we have it, by November 1985, the cops, the relatives, and Lab' experts had got their heads together in a circle of lies, and decided to present the silencer bearing the identifying mark of DRB/1, by November 1985, and steps were then taken to alter any exhibit reference to a silencer, be it SBJ/1, or SJ/1, or DB/1, they tampered with the exhibit references to place DRB/1 in their possession or under their control on all dates before Ann Eaton had introduced it for the first time on the 11th September 1985! Cops, Experts, and relatives suddenly remembered that a silencer handed to police by Peter Eaton on 12th August 1985, had the exhibit reference DRB/1 ( even though his wife didn't hand that silencer over until a month later), Glynis Howard examined the silencer on the 13th August 1985, when it had the exhibit reference DRB/1, despite Cook telling the COLP investigators in 1991 that when he took the silencer for Glynis Howard to examine on that particular date, that the silencer didn't have an exhibit label at all attached to it, so he attached one himself and both he and Glynis Howard had signed it! He had given the silencer at that time the exhibit reference of SJ/1, because he had recieved it from DS Jones earlier that morning and he knew him as Stan Jones, he didn't know that DS Jones had a middle name so he labelled it SJ/1 - yet Howard refers to this silencer as DRB/1, but how can it have been, because that particular silencer hadn't yet even been handed to DC Oakey yet, and would not be until about another month afterwards! One thing is certain, the silencer that Peter Eaton handed to DS Jones on 12th August 1985, could not possibly have had the exhibit reference of DRB/1! Similarly, when Glynis Howard examined a silencer which Cook had brought for her to examine on 13th August 1985 could not possibly have had the exhibit reference of DRB/1, and rather more significantly, the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, could not have dismantled the DRB/1 silencer to enable him to find the blood evidence deposited inside it, because the silencer which turned out to be DRB/1 (after it had been given the other exhibit references of AE/1, and CAE/1) did not arrive at the Lab' for the very first time, until 20th September 1985, and not checked for blood until the 25th September 1985, and so the lot of 'em are all involved in perverting the course of justice, the lot of 'em involved in a circle of lies, where each of them have dishonestly sought to make the silencer wherever it surfaced in the police investigation as having had the exhibit reference DRB/1, which cannot possibly be true, and is not true!

There was no need for the cops to change any exhibit reference, and the excuse they have tried to explain, for why they changed the exhibit reference, because it clashed with another witnesses exhibits is codswallop, because even where that can happen, for example, two different items of evidential value, although an exhibit reference may be identical, each item has a property store reference no., And a Lab' item no., And a court exhibit no. Items that fall into this category, were usually found by a different witness, in a different location, in a different date, and at a different time! You can't go tampering with exhibit references because when somebody does that, it has to be looked at as though the integrity of the item, or the piece of evidence is called into question...

Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 28, 2018, 08:54:PM
The 'Bastards' tampered with the exhibit reference of the silencer, yes the lot of them are vile, fucking evil bastards!! They tampered with the exhibit reference of a silencer, so that they could paint Jeremy Bamber in a poor light! No, Sheila Caffell's unique blood group activity, was not found in the silencer which beared the exhibit reference DRB/1, no sorry but that possibility was an impossibility!

Only a mug would trust in the official presentation of the facts - all those who believe that the cops, relatives, and favoured Lab' experts, did not conspire together to get a dishonest conviction, hold your breath because more evidence is coming to prove beyond doubt that the cops, the relatives and certain Lab' experts, are the real criminals!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 10:41:AM
The 'Bastards' tampered with the exhibit reference of the silencer, yes the lot of them are vile, fucking evil bastards!! They tampered with the exhibit reference of a silencer, so that they could paint Jeremy Bamber in a poor light! No, Sheila Caffell's unique blood group activity, was not found in the silencer which beared the exhibit reference DRB/1, no sorry but that possibility was an impossibility!

Only a mug would trust in the official presentation of the facts - all those who believe that the cops, relatives, and favoured Lab' experts, did not conspire together to get a dishonest conviction, hold your breath because more evidence is coming to prove beyond doubt that the cops, the relatives and certain Lab' experts, are the real criminals!

The excuse which has been handed around since the manipulation of the exhibit references of the silencer came to light after the 2002 appeal hearing does not add up, or make any sense! Why wouldn't the police want to keep the original exhibit reference (SBJ/1) for the silencer? Why change it to SJ/1, then to DB/1, then to AE/1, then to CAE/1, and then to DRB/1? DS Jones had no other exhibit bearing the exhibit reference 'SBJ/1' (silencer), so why the need to change it at all? There was no conflict, no matching exhibit from any other witness who had the same exhibit initials as himself?

It's all a load of codswallop!

The real and only reason all these different exhibit references came into play at different times of the investigation was because there were two silencers, both of which had a checkered history all of their own! It all started back at the scene with the silencer (SBJ/1) recovered by DS Jones on the first morning of the police investigation! The cops had one of the silencers long before the two relatives both handed over a silencer to the police one month a part, Peter Eaton handed one of these two silencers (which became known as exhibit SJ/1) to DS Jones on 12th August 1985, and his wife (Ann Eaton) handed over the second silencer (which became known by a variety of exhibit references, AE/1, and CAE/1, before the cops, the relatives, and the Lab' experts, opted to refer to it as DRB/1) to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985. There was never a physical silencer which had the exhibit reference DB/1 (23), because that item was the flake of dried blood and the razor blade which David Boutflour had used to scrape the blood off one of the two silencers that he recovered from Whf on the 10th August 1985...

It was the flake of blood and the razor blade (DB/1), 23, which got taken to the Lab' by Essex police on 30th August 1985, not any silencer. Prior to this, Cook had taken the only other silencer (SJ/1) 22, to the Lab' on 13th August 1985 for Glynis Howard to take a look at - the reason the flake of dried blood and the razor blade was originally given the exhibit reference of DB/1 (23) when it arrived at the Lab' on 30th August 1985, was because David Boutflour had scraped the blood bearing this exhibit reference, from the silencer (SJ/1) 22, which Cook had taken to the Lab' about 2 weeks previously (13th August 1985). The cops didn't find out that there existed 2 different silencers which the relatives recovered from the scene on 10th August 1985, until the 11th September 1985, when two of the relatives became jointly involved in introducing the second silencer, for example David Boutflour telephoned Essex police that day, whilst his sister, Ann Eaton actually handed the 2nd silencer over to DC Oakey, like clockwork!

It was at this time, that Essex police harboured notions that the relatives were trying to frame Jeremy Bamber for the murders!

Why hadn't the relatives come forward with the existence of the 2nd silencer before now, before then?


Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 10:53:AM

Why hadn't the relatives come forward with the existence of the 2nd silencer before now, before then?

The relatives could have done anything during that month long period, with or to the silencer, and worse still, cops were mindful that they then became unsure about the silencer which had originally been seized (SBJ/1) by DS Jones at the scene itself on 7th August 1985, being the same silencer which Peter Eaton (SJ/1) had handed over to DS Jones on the 12th August 1985? Since, it remained possible, that the silencer which Jones took possession of (SBJ/1), and which he put back at the scene on Friday, 9th August 1985, might now have been the second silencer (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) being handed over by Ann Eaton, on the 11th September 1985? Or, was it the 1st Silencer ( SJ/1) which Peter Eaton had handed over to DS Jones himself on the 12th August 1985?
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 11:01:AM
A flake of dried blood and a razor blade (DB/1) 23, and two different silencers, one SJ/1 (22), the other (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) - now, which of these two silencers did David Boutflour scrape blood for the outside of?
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 11:05:AM
A flake of dried blood and a razor blade (DB/1) 23, and two different silencers, one SJ/1 (22), the other (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) - now, which of these two silencers did David Boutflour scrape blood for the outside of?

I think, between themselves, and by 11th September 1985, or thereabouts, that cops and relatives settled for, the original silencer (SBJ/1) having an elongated scratch along the side of its outer casing, and the same silencer being the silencer which at some stage or other, had a hair attached to it!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 11:09:AM
I think, between themselves, and by 11th September 1985, or thereabouts, that cops and relatives settled for, the original silencer (SBJ/1) having an elongated scratch along the side of its outer casing, and the same silencer being the silencer which at some stage or other, had a hair attached to it!

However, by the 11th September 1985, with the introduction of the second silencer, (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1), the 1st silencer (SJ/1) had already been exposed to Superglue treatment (23rd August 1985), and it became impossible to tell whether or not, or which of these two silencers had got an elongated scratch upon it, or indeed a grey coloured hair attached to it! Cops realised that the 2nd silencer hadn't any of these features upon it, and so what they decided to do, was to fingerprint the 2nd silencer which Ann Eaton had handed over to DC Oakey on 11 the September 1985, by fingerprinting the 2nd silencer, exposing it to Superglue treatment in the same manner the 1st silencer had been exposed to Superglue treatment on the 23rd August 1985 - this was completed on the 13th September 1985, by DS Eastwood and DS Davison. Therefore, on that day, Essex police had two silencers currently in their possession, (SJ/1) 22, and (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1), both of which had been exposed to Superglue treatment, making it impossible to determine which of the two silencers had got the original elngated scratch mark present upon its outer casing!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 11:20:AM
Only then did the fun and games commence...
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 11:26:AM
Only then did the fun and games commence...

Cops decided to wait until the results were in for the piece of dried blood flake (DB/1) 23, which had been taken or sent to the Lab' by Essex police on the 30th August 1985..

Results were known by the 19th September 1985, which the caused Essex police to submit the 2nd Silencer (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) to the Lab' to be checked for blood, and fibers!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 11:34:AM
Cops decided to wait until the results were in for the piece of dried blood flake (DB/1) 23, which had been taken or sent to the Lab' by Essex police on the 30th August 1985..

Results were known by the 19th September 1985, which the caused Essex police to submit the 2nd Silencer (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) to the Lab' to be checked for blood, and fibers!

There was ample time, in-between the handing over of the second silencer (11th September 1985) and it's submission to the Lab' (20th September 1985) to try to make that 2nd silencer, the one which David Boutflour had used a razor blade to scrape dried blood from 'it' ( AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1), by deliberately scratching the kitchen mantelpiece with the end of the 2nd Silencer, so that paint particles became crushed into the knurled pattern of it, so that when it arrived at the Lab' and was examined (25th September 1985), it could be discovered, enabling cops to kill two birds with one stone - matching blood to the 2nd silencer, and paint which matched the scratched kitchen mantelpiece upon it!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 11:36:AM
Cops still had a problem to overcome!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 11:37:AM
Cops still had a problem to overcome!

David Boutflour had scraped the dried blood flake from the outside of one of the silencers, he had not found it inside!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 12:04:PM
There can be no doubt that prior to or on the 30th August 1985, that Essex police received, or confiscated, the piece of dried blood flake (DB/1) 23, and the razor blade which David Boutflour had used to scrape the dried blood from the outside of the Silencer, and that this was sent to the Lab' on that date for analysis!

Meanwhile, Cook had a lot on his mind, he knew for example, that David Boutflour had scraped that dried blood flake from the outside of one of the silencers he had recovered - Cook would have realised or known that even if the blood turned out to be Sheila's blood, that the silencer could have got contaminated during its recovery and transportation in Ann Eaton's car to her house. So what Cook did (because at that time Cook didn't know about the existence of the second silencer, and he would not be made aware of its existence until the 11th September 1985, when Ann Eaton handed the 2nd silencer over to police), he dismantled the only silencer (SJ/1) cops had in their possession, looking to see if he could find any blood inside the 1st silencer ( SJ/1). In order to do this, he had to remove the metal end cap, followed by the withdrawal of the internalised top washer, and all of its baffle plates. Upon doing this he set about creating a gap between the metal cap, the top washer, and the following 5 or 6 baffle plates, to see if there was anything present there, for example, and in particular, blood!

He performed this examination on the day before he submitted item DB/1(23) to the Lab' ( the dried flake of blood David Boutflour scraped off the outside of one of two silencers that he recovered at the scene on 10th August 1985)! If Cook had found any blood on the internal baffle plates after he had dismantled 'SJ/1' on that occasion, it would have been he, and not the ballistics expert, who had supposedly found the crucial flake of blood which subsequently produced Sheila Caffell's blood group activity! The fact that Cook had tampered with the inner workings of the silencer before anyone at the Lab' had got chance to examine it (that silencer) throws considerable doubt upon the integrity of the silencer / blood group evidence associated to the silencer. It may also be worth taking into account, that Cook was also at the heart of a query involving a paint sample (RC/1) which DS Davidson told the COLP investigators in 1991, Cook had handed to him at whf on the 8th August 1985, because some paint had been found on the end of a guns barrel at the scene, and that one of the blood samples taken from Sheila Caffell's body during autopsy was unaccounted for!

One thing is certain, the ballistic Expert, Fletcher, didn't find the dried flake of blood in a silencer that he had dismantled at the Lab' by or before 12th September 1985, Fletcher has lied, he received the flake (DB/1) 23, and the razor blade, he handed the flake to the blood expert, Hayward...

What we are dealing with here, is a circle of crooks!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 12:10:PM
There was no silencer at all at the Lab', at least neither of the two silencers, one or other of them, which David Boutflour had recovered from the scene on 10th August 1985, between 13th August 1985 and 20th September 1985, and so Fletcher couldn't have found Sheila's blood inside a silencer that he had possession of at the Lab' either on, or just before the 12th September 1985...
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 12:13:PM
Cops knew, just like the ballistic expert, Fletcher must have also known, that a presence of Sheila Caffells blood on the outside of a silencer, could have got there by innocent or accidental contamination, at the time of it's collection, removal, transportation, and storage by the relatives!

Of course by and after the 11th September 1985, and the hand over by Ann Eaton of the 2nd silencer (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1), cops had an even bigger headache to try to deal with!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 12:17:PM
Cops knew, just like the ballistic expert, Fletcher must have also known, that a presence of Sheila Caffells blood on the outside of a silencer, could have got there by innocent or accidental contamination, at the time of it's collection, removal, transportation, and storage by the relatives!

Of course by and after the 11th September 1985, and the hand over by Ann Eaton of the 2nd silencer (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1), cops had an even bigger headache to try to deal with!

The following, is a list of all the problems the cops were faced with from that time (11th to 19th September 1985) onwards:-

(1) - they knew that David Boutflour had interfered with one of the two silencers, (a) by trying to unscrew the top off one of them, to look inside, and (b) that he had removed key blood evidence from the outside of one of the silencers by scraping it off with a razor blade, (c) but during this period the cops didn't know which of the two silencers Boutflour Jnr had tampered with.

(2) - there was no silencer at the Lab' between 13th August 1985 and 20th September 1985, which David Boutflour had recovered from the scene on 10th August 1985, (police had both silencers in their possession and at their disposal between 11th to the 20th September 1985), this became problematic because even when the testing of the flake of dried blood (DB/1) 23 produced corresponding blood group activity, no court in the Land would entertain it being admissible in evidence because of The alleged manner with which David Boutflour had come upon it.

(3) - it was then decided to pretend that one of the silencers had been sent along to the Lab' on 30th August 1985, in the 'guise of exhibit DB/1 (23), and that the flake of blood which produced the blood group activity belonging to Sheila Caffell had been discovered by the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, when he dismantled it at the Lab' on the 12th September 1985, and (a) how he had transferred the flake that same day to the blood expert, John Hayward. But, even this tactic was problematic, because the second silencer at the centre of this plot, did not get handed over to the police by Ann Eaton, until long after, it was supposed to have already been submitted to the Lab' on 30th August 1985, in the 'guise of exhibit DB/1 (23) effectively with Sheila Caffell's blood already inside it, (b) but, how could 'the' same silencer in whatever 'guise they would say it had been submitted to the Lab' on the 30th August 1985, be submitted to the Lab' on that date, when Ann Eaton had not yet even got around to handing over the second silencer to DC Oakey, and moreover she would not do so until almost two weeks afterwards!

(4) - additionally, as if the cops thought they could simply bluff their way out of the trench they had dug for themselves surrounding their direct involvement in the death of Sheila Caffell ( including the staging of her death scene there on the bedroom floor, presented by them to look like she had committed suicide by shooting herself), Cook himself, had dismantled one of the silencers, an exercise which he captured in photographs that he took, showing all the baffle plates removed, and gaps between the first 5 or 6 baffle plates, only to find that there was no blood at all inside that silencer! If there had been some blood in there, Cook would have found it, and he wouldn't have rebuilt the silencer again, and then screwed it directly onto the barrel of the anshuzt rifle like he did, and then supposedly submit the silencer ( SJ/1) (22) to the Lab' on the following day (30th August) only for the ballistic expert, to repeat the dismantling exercise which Cook had already done, only as if by magic, Fletcher supposedly found the blood which Cook hadn't seen, there in-between the first couple of baffle plates, which Cook himself had separated almost two weeks previously! Worse still, when Cook dismantled the silencer it had the exhibit reference SJ/1(22) associated with it, yet in the blinking of an eye, by the time it was whisked off to the Lab' for the attention of Fletcher, it was now supposedly sent and recieved there in the 'guise of exhibit DB/1(23)...

(5) - of course, by the time the matter came to trial the cops, the experts from the Lab' and the relatives, were all singing from the same hymn sheet, the silencer had been found by the relatives, police had submitted it to the Lab' for the experts to look at, and they found Sheila's blood inside it, and here it was being produced at court during the trial, passed around amongst everybody who testified about it, and even the jury members got to touch it, making them believe that it was a real piece of evidence, and that the silencer had been exhibit DRB/1 (22) on all the occasions mentioned during the proceedings, no mystery there then, just a good piece of detective work by the relatives, and the experts at the Lab' did the rest, but (a) the cops then had to set about altering all the documents which gave any mention of the silencer, all these different exhibit references, and changing the Lab' item numbers to try and make out a false case that there had only been just the one silencer, a silencer which on the face of it, was submitted to the Lab' on 30th August 1985, almost two weeks before Ann Eaton had even given that all  oh so key silencer (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB)1) to the police on the 11th September 1985...

(6) - It remains to be seen, how Essex police and the relatives are going to have to try and explain how Sheila Caffell's unique blood could have been found inside a silencer at the Lab' on the 12th September 1985, when the silencer in question, (DRB/1) wasn't even present at the Lab' and would not arrive there until some 8 days after Sheila's blood had already supposedly been found inside 'it'...
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 07:00:PM
These weren't mistakes that cops made, these were well directed and intended acts of deception! You can't go around swapping key exhibits about, and altering the exhibit references an item was first given, and argue that cops made a few mistakes!

These Criminals in uniform should have been locked up during the entire past 33 years or more for what they have done, and what they did! You can't put what they have done, or what they did down to a few mistakes! How can they have got the position of Sheila Caffell's body wrong in so far as where the raid team supposedly first saw or found her body? I mean, there must have been thirty to forty police at the scene surrounding the farmhouse or inside it, and nobody thought to mention that the raid team had got it wrong because there wasn't a female body downstairs, there wasn't the body of one dead female in the kitchen, there wasn't a dead person whose death was regarded as a murder, and there wasn't, another dead person who had committed suicide before the raid team eventually got upstairs and found only a further three bodies! Nobody challenged all these so called mistakes? What, you must be having a laugh...

These weren't mistakes, these references were made because at the time these messages were being passed, two bodies were downstairs, and only three bodies upstairs. It's not as though there were tens and tens of bodies all over the place! Each member of the raid team had a pair of hands upon which they had five fingers, on each hand, ample fingers you would think for them to be able to calculate how many bodies had been present downstairs and believed to be dead between 7.35am and 8.08am, and because by the time the raid team managed to get themselves upstairs, all of them would have known that they could all count the number of dead bodies that had been found already downstairs upon entry, on each one of their own hands (twice over) and still have sufficient fingers left to calculate into the equation that another three bodies upstairs, makes 1 + 1 = 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5 dead, in total...
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 07:10:PM
The cops have got it recorded that there was a female body seen and a female body dead downstairs in the kitchen, and this evidence is backed up by timed messages, and they think they can get away with being exposed for the criminals that they were, by simply saying, ' oh, I, we mistook the dead male body for the body of a female, a mistake which was corrected in undisclosed witness ststements much later on'?  Sorry, but that don't wash, it's a pathetic explanation, because on each of the timed occasions when there is reference to there having been two dead bodies found in the kitchen, the reference to the dead male, always comes before any mention of there also being a dead female there too..

Members of the public should not believe the sort of bullshit that these coppers have been feeding them. Why can't the cowardly cops admit what they had done, and what they did?
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 07:21:PM
My logic on this point is good - I had a similar situation in one of my prosecution's when I was targeted by the then No.3 RCS, when they said they had two CID officers in an observation van at 5.20pm, on Wednesday 22nd January 1986, and these two low life scum bag bent criminalised coppers swore my life away saying they had identified me as the driver of a stolen vehicle which had supposedly pulled up outside the target premises they had under observation, but it turned out that the DI who was running the operation did not send one of these two Barnsley CID men to collect the observation van from Barnsley police station vehicle compound, until 5.55pm, that same date, a fact recorded in a police log, just like the ones involved in the Bamber case! The cops couldn't have been in that observation van when they said they had been there, and they couldn't have seen anybody who they thought had been me, because not only wasn't I there, but the bent Barnsley CID officers weren't there either!  I spent five and a half months in custody on those false allegations, and I have yet to be compensated by South Yorkshire police in relation to that matter! So, take it from me that Sheila was still alive inside the farmhouse, and hers was the female body in the kitchen, and rest assured that her body did not arrive upstairs in the bedroom until after 8.10am, in fact not until after 8.13am when the firearm operation was officially terminated!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 10:21:PM
Also rest assured, that the prison service intercepted the photograph that I sent in to Jeremy proving that his sisters body was laid on top of the bed, prior to her body being moved onto the bedroom floor! Wait for it, yes, she had only been shot once to the neck before her body was moved onto the bedroom floor! Work it out for yourselves, who could possibly have been responsible for inflicting the second fatal shot to her neck?

If Sheila shot herself a second time like Jeremy and his team would have us believe, at some time after the photograph of Sheila had been taken of her body laid on top of the bed, shot once - please, do not even try to insult my intelligence by claiming she did or had shot herself on the second occasion, because if that had been true, you wouldn't have the cops suggesting that her blood which was linked to one of the two silencers, that was linked to one of the two silencers could only have got into one of the silencers, if somebody else had shot and killed her, and that afterwards the people responsible for killing her, had removed the silencer, and in some way, or some means concealed it in another part of the farmhouse, in the so called gun cupboard situated in a room known by the family, as the den...

All those of you who doubt what I am saying about me seeing Sheila's body laid on top of the parents bed, minus the rifle, minus the bible, minus the flowing blood which later flowed horizontally across her neck and her face, please contact the Home Office, and get confirmation that the letter I sent to Jeremy, with the enclosed photograph was intercepted, and that the letter itself and the photograph have never been made a available to Jeremy Bamber, or anybody who purports to be representing him...

They confiscated my letter to Jeremy which informed him of the photograph which I had taken possession of, which shows Sheila's body laid on top of the bed, before she had received the second shot which in fact killed her off. I have no reason to lie, in fact supporting my case is the fact that on the previous evening that I had spoken to Jeremy on the pay phone (HMP Full Sutton) I had told him how excited I was for him, because I had got a photograph of Sheila's body laid on top of her parents bed, before she had received the second shot which effectively killed her off instantaneously..

I ask the lot of you - how was it possible for the cops to take such a photograph on an occasion after she had originally been shot across the neck, and prior to the occasion when she had effectively had her life snuffed out, if Jeremy Bamber be his sisters killer, and he be the person who staged his sisters death scene as a suicide?

IT CAN'T HAVE BEEN JEREMY BAMBER WHO MURDERED HIS SISTER, and IT CAN'T HAVE BEEN JEREMY BAMBER WHO STAGED HIS SISTER'S DEATH THERE ON THE MAIN BEDROOM FLOOR AS A SUICIDE...

Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 29, 2018, 10:27:PM
Ask yourselves, why the Home Office withheld my letter and the photograph I took for Jeremy's benefit, if I am making any of this up? Why can't Jeremy and his present legal team get access to my letter, and that photograph?

The only reason I can think of, is that the photograph has been classified as Pii, and that as such the Home Office is not obliged to disclose any such material to a prisoner, or an appellant, or a defendant. And, the reason why I have not been prosecuted for taking 'it' from Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham, is because I did not seek to permanently deprive Essex police and the powers that be from access to it. On the contrary, I took possession of the said photograph with the specific intent of providing it to Jeremy Bamber, to force his release from incarceration by drawing attention to the said photograph......
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 30, 2018, 07:37:AM
Ask yourselves, why the Home Office withheld my letter and the photograph I took for Jeremy's benefit, if I am making any of this up? Why can't Jeremy and his present legal team get access to my letter, and that photograph?

The only reason I can think of, is that the photograph has been classified as Pii, and that as such the Home Office is not obliged to disclose any such material to a prisoner, or an appellant, or a defendant. And, the reason why I have not been prosecuted for taking 'it' from Ewen Smiths office in Birmingham, is because I did not seek to permanently deprive Essex police and the powers that be from access to it. On the contrary, I took possession of the said photograph with the specific intent of providing it to Jeremy Bamber, to force his release from incarceration by drawing attention to the said photograph......

The contents of my letter to Jeremy on that occasion contains the shocking truth about who must have been responsible for Sheila's death on the bedroom floor, and it couldn't have been Jeremy Bamber who shot her dead, and if she had shot herself the cops would not only have said she had, but they would have stuck to that story and not altered their stance after a month into the original investigation, by claiming that Sheila's killer had removed the silencer from the guns barrel after she had died, and concealed 'it' in a cupboard downstairs, because if anybody removed a silencer from any gun, after Sheila was shot for the second time, the police have got to be responsible for hiding away any silencer, it can't have been anybody else but them! In fact, DS Jones whisked the silencer away from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation, without the knowledge of Cook and his SOCO team - a likely story if ever I heard one! Cook and everybody else knew that Jones had returned to the scene from Jeremy's cottage to take away the silencer (SBJ/1), only to return it a couple of days later when the dust has settled, which in turn led to its recovery along with a second silencer by David Boutflour on the following day!

I don't know how David Boutflour has got the cheek to remain silent for all these years pretending that he only recovered one silencer from inside the gun cupboard, when he made a statement to Essex police in September 1985 to the effect that he found a silencer in two different positions inside that gun cupboard!!!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 30, 2018, 07:41:AM

I don't know how David Boutflour has got the cheek to remain silent for all these years pretending that he only recovered one silencer from inside the gun cupboard, when he made a statement to Essex police in September 1985 to the effect that he found a silencer in two different positions inside that gun cupboard!!!
you can't get away with saying you found a silencer in two different places inside a small gun cupboard situated in the den at the scene, and in the next breath then say but there was only one silencer like the relatives have made out!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 30, 2018, 08:02:PM
Anyway, the cat is out of the bag now, the silencer, blood found inside 'it' (DRB/1), and paint from the scratched mantelpiece upon 'it' (DRB/1), nothing but a cheap dirty low life trick, to help get the cops out of a tricky situation, and along the way increase the wealth entering into the pockets of the relatives!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: mike tesko on November 30, 2018, 08:07:PM
When the news was broke to Jeremy that all his family were dead inside the farmhouse, he accused the firearms officers who had gone into the farmhouse brandishing firearms of shooting dead, one or other of the victims - little did he really know how close he was to the truth..
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Harry on February 02, 2019, 08:15:AM

AE/1 is the cardboard box DRB/2

(https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=606.0;attach=54556;image)

It's hard to make sense of the claim that AE/1 is the
cardboard box, if AE/1 is also DRB/2.

DRB/2 is the telescopic sight. That list of equivalent references is fake.

From the statement of DC Oakey dated October 25th 1985.

"At 1820 hours. on Wednesday, 11th September 1985, I was on duty, when I went to Oak Farm, Loamy Hill Road, Tolleshunt Major. I received from Mrs Ann Eaton one Nikko Stirling Telescopic Sight in box (Exhibit DRB/2 and an ABU carrier bag, containing seven boxes of fifty Eley Subsonic Hollowpoint .22 bullets and one empty .22 bullet box (Exhibit DRB/3).....

On top of one of the smaller boxes was a spot of what appeared to be blood. I later caused this smaller box, the Telescopic Sight box from Exhibit DBR/2 and the empty .22 bullet box from Exhibit DRB/3 to be forwarded to the Home Office Forensic science Laboratory. Huntingdon."

So AE/1 is the same as DRB/2! This is getting beyond a joke.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on February 07, 2019, 08:47:PM
(https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=606.0;attach=54556;image)

It's hard to make sense of the claim that AE/1 is the
cardboard box, if AE/1 is also DRB/2.

DRB/2 is the telescopic sight. That list of equivalent references is fake.

From the statement of DC Oakey dated October 25th 1985.

"At 1820 hours. on Wednesday, 11th September 1985, I was on duty, when I went to Oak Farm, Loamy Hill Road, Tolleshunt Major. I received from Mrs Ann Eaton one Nikko Stirling Telescopic Sight in box (Exhibit DRB/2 and an ABU carrier bag, containing seven boxes of fifty Eley Subsonic Hollowpoint .22 bullets and one empty .22 bullet box (Exhibit DRB/3).....

On top of one of the smaller boxes was a spot of what appeared to be blood. I later caused this smaller box, the Telescopic Sight box from Exhibit DBR/2 and the empty .22 bullet box from Exhibit DRB/3 to be forwarded to the Home Office Forensic science Laboratory. Huntingdon."

So AE/1 is the same as DRB/2! This is getting beyond a joke.

The list of equivalent references is fake lol.  You sound like someone who believes in a flat earth having to explain the photos of the earth taken from space. Insisting its fake and with nothing to substantiate the claim.

David Boutflour collected the following items from the gun cupboard on August 10th that ended up being taken to Ann Eatons house.

DRB/1, DRB/2 and DRB/3.

On the 12th of August Peter Eaton handed over DRB/1 to Stan Jones.

Come September when things were taken more seriously. The police wanted everything taken to Oak Farm to be sent to the lab thus they send Oakley to collected them.

Subsequently they find Peter Eatons fingerprints on the box that contained the silencer (DRB/3). This corroborates Stan Jones account of things because Peter Eaton had to put the box away then take it out in order to give the silencer to Stan Jones in the first place. This narrows down the suspects for planting the blood and paint down to AE,PE,DRB and RWB. Because according to Stan Jones, Peter Eaton pointed out the blood and paint on it to him.

But I guess you will now claim Peters fingerprints on the box is fake also.

How many more things do you have to insist is fake (in the absence of evidence) in order for this crackpottery of yours to work?
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Harry on February 08, 2019, 03:33:AM
I thought that you might try to argue that when DC Oakey referred to the telescopic sight as DRB/2 he made a mistake. But you haven't even addressed the point at all.

(https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=606.0;attach=54556;image)

If you refuse to give up on the idea that DRB/2 is the cardboard box, then what is the correct exhibit reference for the telescopic sight?


Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Harry on February 08, 2019, 03:59:AM
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9299.0;attach=52220;image)

The silencer was found by the police on the morning of August 7th 1985. It was found in the gun cupboard by the police. That silencer is the one sent to Huntingdon laboratory on August 13th.

It is the silencer referred to by ACC Peter Simpson when held a press conference on September 17th.

Simpson was clear in stating that it had been found by the police on August 7th.

‘A silencer was found at the White House Farm on the day of the killings, but this does not have to mean anything suspicious.’

How could the relatives have a found a silencer on August 10th which had already been found by the police on August 7th?

Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on August 11, 2019, 04:10:PM

The silencer was found by the police on the morning of August 7th 1985. It was found in the gun cupboard by the police. That silencer is the one sent to Huntingdon laboratory on August 13th.

It is the silencer referred to by ACC Peter Simpson when held a press conference on September 17th.

Simpson was clear in stating that it had been found by the police on August 7th.

‘A silencer was found at the White House Farm on the day of the killings, but this does not have to mean anything suspicious.’

How could the relatives have a found a silencer on August 10th which had already been found by the police on August 7th?

I have recently come across a transcript of this press conference. Lo and behold ACC Simpson says no such thing.

Like I have said numerous times. The one local news paper that keep being quoted here has made an error. Its rather obvious now the newspaper misunderstood what was said due to its ambiguity. And they have in-fact misquoted him a lot. What are we to expect from one local news paper anyway.  ::)

(https://i.ibb.co/K9Vvx9L/int4-001.jpg)
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on August 11, 2019, 04:39:PM
I have recently come across a transcript of this press conference. Lo and behold ACC Simpson says no such thing.

Like I have said numerous times. The one local news paper that keep being quoted here has made an error. Its rather obvious now the newspaper misunderstood what was said due to its ambiguity. And they have in-fact misquoted him a lot. What are we to expect from one local news paper anyway.  ::)

(https://i.ibb.co/K9Vvx9L/int4-001.jpg)

And so. The essence of this huge conspiracy is based on.

- An empty box that the silencer was found in

- An excel spread sheet were someone in Ewen Smiths office thought the silencer in the box was referred to in the present tense when it was actually reffered to in the past tense.

- A telephone call David Boutflour made in September talking about what he found in August.

- A local newspaper article that reports something that ACC Simpson never actually said.

- An old man with Alzheimer's remembering the police fingerprinting the house a month prior to when it actually happened.


Needless to say. I am not convinced.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Jane on August 11, 2019, 06:01:PM
Do we know if RB was suffering with Alzheimers as early as 1991, or are you just guessing/assuming?
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on August 11, 2019, 06:24:PM
Do we know if RB was suffering with Alzheimers as early as 1991, or are you just guessing/assuming?

IIUC he was completely senile by the time he died in 2010. Considering its a progressive illness that develops over time. I think its a reasonable assumption he would have been in the early stages of it by his 60s.

In the case files you will find he gets numerous dates and things mixed up and wrong, more so than anyone else. So I think this explains it, don't you?
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Jane on August 11, 2019, 06:37:PM
IIUC he was completely senile by the time he died in 2010. Considering its a progressive illness that develops over time. I think its a reasonable assumption he would have been in the early stages of it by his 60s.

In the case files you will find he gets numerous dates and things mixed up and wrong, more so than anyone else. So I think this explains it, don't you?


Alzheimers is a progressive illness but I've never known it to last 20 years, besides which, it's the short term memory which fails first, victims forgetting what they did yesterday but having clear recall of past events.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Caroline on August 11, 2019, 06:48:PM
IIUC he was completely senile by the time he died in 2010. Considering its a progressive illness that develops over time. I think its a reasonable assumption he would have been in the early stages of it by his 60s.

In the case files you will find he gets numerous dates and things mixed up and wrong, more so than anyone else. So I think this explains it, don't you?

There was 19 years between COLP and RWB's death in 2010. Once again you have made a completely sweeping statement as though you are qualified to do so. At 67 years of age, it's no wonder that RWB 'forgot things'! But not so long ago, according to you, he was a mastermind, even managing to talk Julie into following his lead. I guess it suits this post for him to be an old man with Alzheimers but for another to be cunning and calculating!  ::)
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: lookout on August 12, 2019, 01:33:PM
Alzheimers can take years to develop even before the disease is actually diagnosed.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: lookout on August 12, 2019, 01:35:PM
It was something I'd pondered a few years ago myself that RWB had a problem, especially by the stance of his pic. at the funeral as you can clearly see it in some people as the disease advances.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: lookout on August 12, 2019, 01:53:PM
In our 40's, we can all experience our times of forgetfulness then 30 years later that could become more than just forgetting the odd thing so it's highly possible to suffer full-blown alzheimers as the brain loses its ability to contain present day occurrences so it struggles to remember.
Frustration can push them towards violence as I've encountered in the past.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Caroline on August 12, 2019, 02:06:PM
Alzheimers can take years to develop even before the disease is actually diagnosed.

Of course it can, but you don't but IF he had it for almost 20 years, the onset was slow and NO ONE here is qualified to diagnose RWB in respect to to Alzheimers  and it has no bearing on the case whatsoever!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Jane on August 12, 2019, 02:16:PM
It was something I'd pondered a few years ago myself that RWB had a problem, especially by the stance of his pic. at the funeral as you can clearly see it in some people as the disease advances.
In our 40's, we can all experience our times of forgetfulness then 30 years later that could become more than just forgetting the odd thing so it's highly possible to suffer full-blown alzheimers as the brain loses its ability to contain present day occurrences so it struggles to remember.
Frustration can push them towards violence as I've encountered in the past.
Alzheimers can take years to develop even before the disease is actually diagnosed.


Indeed it can, but by the time it's diagnosed in a patient, their friends/relatives can probably not recall behavioural changes in them going back more than a few years. I've not known anyone to have it for 20 years -which is what's being suggested- and I suspect, that if it's not being mooted that all of us over the age of 40 have a degree of dementia? there may be more than a little wishful thinking behind it.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Caroline on August 12, 2019, 02:21:PM

Indeed it can, but by the time it's diagnosed in a patient, their friends/relatives can probably not recall behavioural changes in them going back more than a few years. I've not known anyone to have it for 20 years -which is what's being suggested- and I suspect, that if it's not being mooted that all of us over the age of 40 have a degree of dementia? there may be more than a little wishful thinking behind it.

Generally, it's 8-9 years and making this assumption is totally desperate.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: lookout on August 12, 2019, 03:41:PM
Those who are living with someone who has undiagnosed alzheimers are more often than not in denial and put a lot down to getting older. In fact alzheimers doesn't often feature in the life of their loved one and they just carry on regardless.

Similarly, PND can lie dormant for many years too and also go undiagnosed until it's too late dependent on a person's lifestyle and how it could be masked by unnecessary medications.It's not always admissible by the person involved because they don't know what's happening to themselves. What is known is that when left undiagnosed it manifests itself into something more serious. 
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Caroline on August 12, 2019, 04:20:PM
Those who are living with someone who has undiagnosed alzheimers are more often than not in denial and put a lot down to getting older. In fact alzheimers doesn't often feature in the life of their loved one and they just carry on regardless.

Similarly, PND can lie dormant for many years too and also go undiagnosed until it's too late dependent on a person's lifestyle and how it could be masked by unnecessary medications.It's not always admissible by the person involved because they don't know what's happening to themselves. What is known is that when left undiagnosed it manifests itself into something more serious.

19 years prior to his death from Alzheimers, if he has symptoms, they would be mild. However, I thought RWB was supposed to be a cunning old bar steward who was responsible for engineering the whole case around Jeremy Bamber? Thought his diary was the blue print?
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Jane on August 12, 2019, 04:46:PM
Those who are living with someone who has undiagnosed alzheimers are more often than not in denial and put a lot down to getting older. In fact alzheimers doesn't often feature in the life of their loved one and they just carry on regardless.

Similarly, PND can lie dormant for many years too and also go undiagnosed until it's too late dependent on a person's lifestyle and how it could be masked by unnecessary medications.It's not always admissible by the person involved because they don't know what's happening to themselves. What is known is that when left undiagnosed it manifests itself into something more serious.


To say that those are in denial who are living with someone in the early stages of Alzheimers is grossly unfair, however, I'll accept that they may believe that little quirks are part of getting older. It's only 'after the event' that they can recognize what the 'oddities' were. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

You've floated the PND theory for years -and I'm more than prepared to accept that sensitive, 17 year old Sheila, rather than being made to act as if nothing had happened worth mentioning, should have received counselling following her first termination- but as you've never suggested at what point you believe it set in, I'm not prepared to accept that it went back 10 years prior to erupting violently, and whilst she probably had every reason to be depressed, I don't believe PND reared it's head 6 years after she last gave birth. Whilst it's always possible that it CAN lay dormant and undiagnosed for years -after all, everything is possible- the probabilities lean more towards that it didn't.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Caroline on August 12, 2019, 05:10:PM

To say that those are in denial who are living with someone in the early stages of Alzheimers is grossly unfair, however, I'll accept that they may believe that little quirks are part of getting older. It's only 'after the event' that they can recognize what the 'oddities' were. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

You've floated the PND theory for years -and I'm more than prepared to accept that sensitive, 17 year old Sheila, rather than being made to act as if nothing had happened worth mentioning, should have received counselling following her first termination- but as you've never suggested at what point you believe it set in, I'm not prepared to accept that it went back 10 years prior to erupting violently, and whilst she probably had every reason to be depressed, I don't believe PND reared it's head 6 years after she last gave birth. Whilst it's always possible that it CAN lay dormant and undiagnosed for years -after all, everything is possible- the probabilities lean more towards that it didn't.

I don't buy that it lays dormant for years, I think it can cause long term issues but not that it lays dormant for years.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: lookout on August 12, 2019, 07:13:PM
I know someone who had PND for 17 years ( 1st diagnosis 3 years ago ) Because it went undiagnosed it led to paranoia pre-menopause and she was duly hospitalized for over 3 months.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Jane on August 12, 2019, 07:23:PM
I know someone who had PND for 17 years ( 1st diagnosis 3 years ago ) Because it went undiagnosed it led to paranoia pre-menopause and she was duly hospitalized for over 3 months.


As I previously said, everything is possible, the probability makes the odds very much longer. Of course, it's perfectly possible that the sight of her children and parents being slaughtered would have tipped her already fragile mental balance over the edge, but we'll never know.
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Caroline on August 12, 2019, 07:48:PM
I know someone who had PND for 17 years ( 1st diagnosis 3 years ago ) Because it went undiagnosed it led to paranoia pre-menopause and she was duly hospitalized for over 3 months.

So how is being undiagnosed the same as the condition being 'dormant'?
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: lookout on August 12, 2019, 08:04:PM
So how is being undiagnosed the same as the condition being 'dormant'?



Undiagnosed/dormant are one and the same. Undiagnosed because the person wasn't aware of what was wrong but continued with the problem. Dormant because of the 17 years it had been making the person suffer because she didn't speak to a GP or anyone about it. 
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Jane on August 12, 2019, 08:11:PM


Undiagnosed/dormant are one and the same. Undiagnosed because the person wasn't aware of what was wrong but continued with the problem. Dormant because of the 17 years it had been making the person suffer because she didn't speak to a GP or anyone about it.


She had suffered for 17 years without seeking help?
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Caroline on August 12, 2019, 08:11:PM


Undiagnosed/dormant are one and the same. Undiagnosed because the person wasn't aware of what was wrong but continued with the problem. Dormant because of the 17 years it had been making the person suffer because she didn't speak to a GP or anyone about it.

No they aren't!  ;D ;D

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dormant

Dormant means 'inactive' - they wouldn't be showing signs of the symptoms - that's the point!
Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: David1819 on August 12, 2019, 09:11:PM
As far as I know, The causes, triggers and the duration of the decease in a healthy person is still poorly understood by medical science. With the exception of drug or alcohol induced alzheimer's and I don't think that applies to RWB. So I don't think there is much point us debating the condition.

Title: Re: COLP interview of Robert Boutflour, dated 4th September 1991, 45 Pages:-
Post by: Caroline on August 12, 2019, 09:44:PM
As far as I know, The causes, triggers and the duration of the decease in a healthy person is still poorly understood by medical science. With the exception of drug or alcohol induced alzheimer's and I don't think that applies to RWB. So I don't think there is much point us debating the condition.

Then you shouldn't have made the claim.