Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on February 12, 2020, 01:46:PM
-
Here are the relevant parts of the witness statements of DCS Harris and Miller that are mentioned in the recent Guardian article.
"An entry wound" and "the wound" 🙄 Should I even bother looking at the other three? ;D
(https://i.ibb.co/jkVZZRm/harris1a.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/FHJmppf/20121017-193923.png)
-
And you are saying ?
-
And you are saying ?
The point I am making is that they are not stating Sheila had one gunshot wound. You could imply they meant such but that's not at all convincing. Some would even consider that dishonest. Don't you think?
-
As well as a suicide note " I've killed myself ". If the writing is anything like those other notes Jeremy had denied they'd been written by Sheila, so who wrote the said suicide note ?
-
The point I am making is that they are not stating Sheila had one gunshot wound. You could imply they meant such but that's not at all convincing. Some would even consider that dishonest. Don't you think?
well ‘an’ means singular doesn’t it.?
interesting they say his distressed Jb was
-
The point I am making is that they are not stating Sheila had one gunshot wound. You could imply they meant such but that's not at all convincing. Some would even consider that dishonest. Don't you think?
Yes I did agree to a certain extent . But they do say they have more evidence to back it up .
But on all of this I am not jumping up and down for joy.
But I do think something is brewing . I am hoping they are not showing their full hand in the papers.
-
It's only a snippet of what's to come Jan. Cards close to their chest for good reason.
-
Yes I did agree to a certain extent . But they do say they have more evidence to back it up .
But on all of this I am not jumping up and down for joy.
But I do think something is brewing . I am hoping they are not showing their full hand in the papers.
Nope. As far as the one shot is concerned. They have mentioned 6 statements. So far we have seen half of them. It would be a fools errand for me to search and scrutinize the other half.
All these documents and witnesses were avaliable for Rivlin/Terzeon at trial also.
-
Nope. As far as the one shot is concerned. They have mentioned 6 statements. So far we have seen half of them. It would be a fools errand for me to search and scrutinize the other half.
All these documents and witnesses were avaliable for Rivlin/Terzeon at trial also.
It was interesting on the extremely brief representation of the trial tonight they said the evidence of the blood on the silencer was inconclusive. So implicated it was all down to Julie . I bet she is not well pleased . All the family at the trial omitted .
-
Here are the relevant parts of the witness statements of DCS Harris and Miller that are mentioned in the recent Guardian article.
"An entry wound" and "the wound" 🙄 Should I even bother looking at the other three? ;D
(https://i.ibb.co/jkVZZRm/harris1a.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/FHJmppf/20121017-193923.png)
David have you got a link to this ?
-
Does anyone seriously believe that the police shot Sheila by accident?
-
Does anyone seriously believe that the police shot Sheila by accident?
How was the later 2nd wound inflicted ?
-
How was the later 2nd wound inflicted ?
Either by Sheila shooting herself or Jeremy shooting her.
-
Either by Sheila shooting herself or Jeremy shooting her.
So why does the above statement say "The Wound" ?
-
So why does the above statement say "The Wound" ?
Because they didn't look closely enough.
-
How was the later 2nd wound inflicted ?
People reading way too much into 'wound' vs 'wounds' vs 'gunshot wounds'. Until the pathology report, nobody was strictly in a position to determine what sort of wounds were inflicted. They were reporting on a superficial basis at this point. Of course, it was pretty obvious to most that the wounds were indeed gunshot wounds, but the pathologist would actually determine this for certain.
There really is no hope of claiming there was only one wound to Sheila, and that a second wound 'happened' whilst in the keep of the Police. It's not what many want to hear, but it's accurate.
-
Because they didn't look closely enough.
Surely at some point, somebody realised she had two? Wouldn't that have been a revelation worthy of some note, somewhere? Everyone assumes one wound, and then eventually, a keen eyed colleague spots another one?
-
It strikes me that officers needed eye-tests, very badly. First it was two bodies, then one and now it's one shot when there were two. What was going on with them ?
-
People reading way too much into 'wound' vs 'wounds' vs 'gunshot wounds'. Until the pathology report, nobody was strictly in a position to determine what sort of wounds were inflicted. They were reporting on a superficial basis at this point. Of course, it was pretty obvious to most that the wounds were indeed gunshot wounds, but the pathologist would actually determine this for certain.
There really is no hope of claiming there was only one wound to Sheila, and that a second wound 'happened' whilst in the keep of the Police. It's not what many want to hear, but it's accurate.
Somebody posted on here recently, that 'dead bodies don't bleed'. I'm not sure how accurate this is physiologically speaking. Although she has dried blood around her mouth, the blood leaking from her neck wounds does not seem very dry to me.
We have the raid team expressing 'real concerns', both individually and 'as a team', to their superiors about the position of head; bible; and gun in the crime scene images. The scene was not how they left it. These concerns were not disclosed to the defence - so the defence were prevented from arguing at trial that the first set of officers on the scene, effectively complained that later officers re-staged the scene.
Two Italian professors working from statements and crime-scene images, placed Sheila's time of death as being closer to the TFG operation than to any previous window of opportunity that JB had that night. Although the CCRC rejected their claims, I believe this was because they were working from statements and images instead of the corpse (i.e. they will stick with Vanezis evidence - just like they will stick with Fletcher evidence on ballistics).
Never known by the defence for many years - Essex Police called in a team of 'informatives' to practice removal of the weapon from Sheila.
The weapon reputedly had a hair trigger.
The logs don't look good for EP, which is probably why their content was concealed and they had to be taken to court in order to be released. It looks like there has been a effort to falsify some logs, in order to get around ESDA testing.
The police have hidden or destroyed possible suicide note and a bible with a bloodied palm print.
They have altered statements to change the context / meaning.
Apparently the police made virtually hundreds of mistakes during the first investigation - yet for some reason... it's sacrosanct (and ridiculous) to suggest they shot Sheila by accident?
What is this absolute obsession with defending the police in this case, as if they couldn't make such a mistake... but they are allowed to make hundreds of other mistakes when it suits. :-\
-
There really is no hope of claiming there was only one wound to Sheila, and that a second wound 'happened' whilst in the keep of the Police. It's not what many want to hear, but it's accurate.
No, she only had one bullet entry wound to her neck, until 9.13am, when the rifle which was being put to Sheila's body for 'informative' purposes discharged the second shot. It is also a very interesting concept knowing that the police subsequently introduced four spent cartridge cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4) to the main bedroom crime scene, which effectively altered the number of shots believed to have been fired in that part of the farmhouse - resulting in the original 10 becoming transformed into 14 (if we include the cartridge case found outside the main bedroom doorway on the top landing! Two of these four added bullet cases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) were associated with the two shots which Sheila had received..
The other two added bullet cases (DRH/3 and DRH/4) helped to build up a picture that Neville Bambers must have been shot at and initially wounded four times whilst he was upstairs in the main bedroom. This can be worked out by the following - there were 10 spent bullet cases originally found in the main bedroom, seven of these were linked to the shooting of June Bambers (which left three spent cartridge cases to be accounted for), an eighth bullet case related to the accidental shooting in the main bedroom of Sheila during an in house training exercise ('informatives') that went drastically wrong! So that's 9 spent bullet cases accounted for. This leaves one bullet case that was originally discovered by Headquarters SOCO in the main bedroom crime scene allocated to no-one!
It is a fruitless exercise trying to pretend that this 10th bullet case can be associated with the second shot inflicted upon Sheila because, the two subsequent bullet cases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) were introduced much later into the main bedroom scene in order to suggest that Sheila had received the two shots to her neck whilst she was present upstairs in the main bedroom, when in fact, this was untrue! She had only been shot once there!
Neville Bamber was not shot at at all upstairs in his bedroom! He was shot at and killed downstairs in the kitchen, and also shot at somewhere on the main stairs at the front of the house.
The original four exhibits (SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4) that DS Jones took possession of from downstairs were duly disposed of, which then resulted in the four additional spent bullet cases ( DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3, and DRH/4) being introduced into the main bedroom crime scene!
The original 10th bullet case found in the main bedroom, can only have related to the unrecovered third bullet from the skull of Nicholas Caffell, but both June Bambers and Nicholas Caffells bodies were found in different bedrooms of the house. These strange contradictions always tend to crop up when somebody or other has tampered with crime scene evidence .A total of eight bullet cases were discovered in the children's bedroom, and they have been shot eight times between them, so exactly how the 10th original bullet case that was found in the main bedroom could only be linked to the non recovery of the the 3rd bullet in Nicholas Caffell head beggars belief...
I think that this anomaly involving these ballistic discrepancies is linked to the first shot that Sheila received downstairs in the kitchen, linked to the fact that cops decided to say that Sheila's body had been found upstairs, already shot twice - there is a missing bullet (26 spent cartridge cases, but only 25 bullets), which leads to the conclusion that the missing bullet left in the skull of Nicholas Caffells was / is the 26th bullet!
-
Because they didn't look closely enough.
Julie Mugford also mentioned just seeing one gunshot wound when she visited the mortuary.
There was one instance where I showed someone a crime scene photo of Sheila and they didn't notice she had been shot twice until it was pointed out to them.
Sometimes its just a lack of visual acuity and spatial intelligence of the person looking.
-
Have any of the "informatives" ever been interviewed?
-
Have any of the "informatives" ever been interviewed?
Yes, but it is all being withheld under pii legislation!
There were several parts to the police / firearm operation at whf, on that first morning between when The very first telephone call was made to police at 3.26am from the farmhouse! including when PS Bews and PC Myall arrived at whf at 3.48am (Period 'A'), until the arrival of the first team of firearm officers to the scene at around 5.00am (period 'B'), there then followed period 'C' which covered the role played at the scene, and elsewhere between 5.00am and about 7.00 am, 'period D' incorporating what took place between about 7.00am and 7.30am involving two teams of firearm officers, which became merged into one group, throughout, and afterwards, during this time!
Between around 7.30 am and 8.10 am, 'period E' of the police / firearm operation took on another significant twist!
Shortly after 8.10am, senior officers in the form of DCI Harris, Chief Inspector Terry Gibbons, and PI Ivor Montgomery, left the safety of a forward control point that had been set up in a nearby farm outbuilding, and proceeded to make an entry into the farmhouse, only to discover that there were not two bodies which had been left dying, or dead, also, on the downstairs kitchen floor, since by that stage there was only the body of Ralph Neville Bamber, 'insitu', on the kitchen floor! As a result, those three senior police officers had no alternative reason for exposing themselves to the peril of being attacked by, and possibly shot and killed by a raging Sheila Caffell ('period F') throughout the period between about 8.10 am and 8.30am! ...
Between, about 8.30am and 9.00am, 'period G' came into play...
Between 9.00 am and 10.00 am, 'period H' of the police operation resumed!
Between 10.00 am and 1.15 pm, 'period I' unfolded...
So, we have a variety of different occurrences which police and firearm officers, partook in at and around the scene of this farmhouse tragedy ( a total of '9 specific periods in time'which covered the police investigations from between 3.26am, or thereabouts, until 1.15pm at the close of the first days involvement of police, two teams of SOCO personnel, and firearm officers
'Period A' (3.26am - 3.48am)
'Period B' (3.48am - 5.00am)
'Period C' (5.00am - 7.00am)
'Period D' (7.00am - 7.30am)
'Period E' (7.30am - 8.10am)
'Period F' (8.10am - 8.30am)
'Period G' (8.30am - 9.00am)
'Period H' (9.00am - 10.00am)
'Period I' (10.00am - 1.15pm)
There were, in fact two full versions of each of the 9 periods of this investigation, prior to the case being brought against Jeremy Bamber at trial (these two Crime incident No.'s were given references, 'SC/688/85' and 'SC/786/85'..
However, there were 'OTHER' individual investigations being carried out by the police, and Special Branch, into the circumstances of each of these five deaths, which had their own unique case reference No.'s, and which contained within these additional files, 'evidence that was clearly at odds' and 'contradictory / inconsistent' in nature with 'the scripts contained in the other investigations., which had been conducted alongside each of the other versions of the incident, as described, in particular, with a different interpretation of the evidence contained in the investigations 'SC/688/5' and 'SC/786/85', as follows:-
Ralph Neville Bamber - 'SC/***/85'
June Bamber - 'SC/***/85'
Nicholas Caffell - 'SC/***/85'
Daniel Caffell - 'SC/***/85'
and / but, in Sheila Caffells case, there were two additional investigations into the crcumstances of her death at the scene, these were / are :-
Sheila Caffell 'SC/***/85' and 'SC/***/85'
In total then, '8 separate investigations' into a case of 'four murders' and 'a suicide', or 'five murders' (including 'SC/688/85' and 'SC/786/85')...
Ralph Neville Bamber - 'SC/***/85'
June Bamber - 'SC/***/85'
Nicholas Caffell - 'SC/***/85'
Daniel Caffell - 'SC/***/85', and the two separate investigations carried out by police and Special Branch, into (a) the true circumstances in which she was shot and killed, and (b) how it was decided to suggest that she had been 'killed off' by 'someone else other than by 'herself'...
-
...there were 'OTHER' individual investigations being carried out by the police, and Special Branch, into the circumstances of each of these five deaths, which had their own unique case reference No.'s, and which contained within these additional files, 'evidence that was clearly at odds' and 'contradictory / inconsistent' in nature with 'the scripts contained in the other investigations., which had been conducted alongside each of the other versions of the incident, as described, in particular, with a different interpretation of the evidence contained in the investigations 'SC/688/5' and 'SC/786/85', as follows:-
Ralph Neville Bamber - 'SC/***/85'
June Bamber - 'SC/***/85'
Nicholas Caffell - 'SC/***/85'
Daniel Caffell - 'SC/***/85'
and / but, in Sheila Caffells case, there were two additional investigations into the crcumstances of her death at the scene, these were / are :-
Sheila Caffell 'SC/***/85' and 'SC/***/85'
In total then, '8 separate investigations' into a case of 'four murders' and 'a suicide', or 'five murders' (including 'SC/688/85' and 'SC/786/85')...
Ralph Neville Bamber - 'SC/***/85'
June Bamber - 'SC/***/85'
Nicholas Caffell - 'SC/***/85'
Daniel Caffell - 'SC/***/85', and the two separate investigations carried out by police and Special Branch, into (a) the true circumstances in which she was shot and killed, and (b) how it was decided to suggest that she had been 'killed off' by 'someone else other than by herself'...
What the jury were never made aware of, was that the prosecution and police, and prosecution witnesses, were being selective about which parts of each individual investigations which had been on going because of the manner with which Sheila Caffel had died inside her parents bedroom long after the firearm raid team entered the building at around 7.30am!
Nobody told or informed the jury or Jeremy Bambers counsel, either before, or during the commencement of the trial at Chelmsford Crown court on 2nd October 1986, that a police motorcycle outrider had been dispatched to collect two identical looking Parker hale silencers from the relatives and bring these to the courthouse! So there were three silencers, the one exhibited at the trial ('DRB/1'), and two others, in control of the other two ('SBJ/1' and 'DB/1'), held by the prosecution witnesses (the Eaton's and the Boutflours) when there was only supposed to have been involved the use of only one sound moderator / silencer, nothing could be any clearer...
the bottom line being this - the three similar looking silencers which relatives, police and Lab' experts must surely have known or been fully aware that they had been examining three totally separate silencers, and not only one solitary one...
-
the bottom line being this - the three similar looking silencers which relatives, police and Lab' experts must surely have known or been fully aware that they had been examining three totally separate silencers, and not only one solitary one...
The awful truth in this matter of 'Sheila's blood' and 'red paint' particles were found upon and inside the very same sound moderator / silencer, when it was impossible to have been true!
-
it was impossible to have been true!
Police and Lab' records confirm that three different marked 'sound moderators / silencers' ('SBJ/1', 'DB/1', and 'DRB/1' were submitted to Huntington Laboratory on three separate occasions, (13th August 1985, 30th August 1985, and the 20th September 1985) each submission different to the purpose of-seriously, neglectfully, and dishonestly, making out in a court of law, that there had only ever been just the one sound Moderator, when all along there had been and was three identical looking ones, handed around like a game of pass the parcel by 'relatives', 'police and 'lab' experts' to introduce what is almost certainly fabricated evidence!
Extracted from earlier post« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2020, 10:17:PM »
[Nobody told or informed the jury or Jeremy Bambers counsel, either before, or during the commencement of the trial at Chelmsford Crown court on 2nd October 1986, that a police motorcycle outrider had been dispatched to collect two identical looking Parker hale silencers from the relatives and bring these to the courthouse! So there were three silencers, the one exhibited at the trial ('DRB/1'), and two others, in control of the other two ('SBJ/1' and 'DB/1'), held by the prosecution witnesses (the Eaton's and the Boutflours) when there was only supposed to have been involved the use of only one sound moderator / silencer, nothing could be any clearer...]
The fact of the matter, was DS Jones recovered the first Sound Moderator (silencer) 'SBJ/1' from the scene on the very first morning of the ongoing police investigations (7th August 1985), after returning to the farmhouse from Jeremy's cottage, where he had originally been tasked along withe PC Myall to take a witness statement from Jeremy Bamber. However at 11.15am that same morning DS Jones went back to the farmhouse, where he took possession of four exhibits, namely, SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2, and the first Sound Moderator SBJ/1. A police log that was being kept to record the names of everybody who went into and came out of the farmhouse once senior officers started performing 'INFORMATIVES' from about 9am, onward. When DS Jones was interviewed by COLP regarding his reason for returning to the scene after having already left it previously, Jones said that he couldn't remember why he had gone back to the scene, or what if anything he did when he arrived there (See interview of DS Jones by COLP Investigators!
The second Sound Moderator (silencer) 'DB/1' recovered from the farmhouse was found by David BOUTFLOUR on the 10th August 1985. This second silencer was subsequently handed over to DS Jones by Peter Eaton, on the evening of 12th August 1985.
A third Sound Moderator (silencer) 'DRB/1' - originally labelled 'AE/1', was handed over to DC Oakey (Headquarters SOCO team), on the 11th September 1985...
Now this is where it starts getting interesting because the third Sound Moderator (silencer) 'DRB/1' was not sent along to Huntingdon Laboratory to be scientifically examined until the 20th September 1985, and therefore it could not have been one or the other additional silencers (DB/1) that was sent off to the Lab' at Huntingdon, on either the 30th August 1985, and 'DRB/1' could not have been the silencer 'SBJ/1' which DI Cook had taken to the Lab' to be scientifically Examined by Glynis Howard on the 13th August 1985, because sound moderator (DRB/1) was not handed over to police by Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985, a silencer which was kept by Essex police until after DS Davison and DS Eastwood (Headquarters SOCO team) had fingerprinted it on the 13th September 1985, retained it in their possession for another week or so, so by the time police eventually dispatched it off to the Lab' on the 20th September 1985, it did not get examined by Scientists, until at the very earliest, the 25th September 1985!
Similarly, The second Sound Moderator (silencer) 'DB/1' did not in fact get sent off to Huntingdon Laboratory to be scientifically examined until the 30th August 1985, and so it (SBJ/1) could not have been the first Sound Moderator (silencer), which DI Cook had taken along to the Lab' on the 13th August 1985, the three submissions of a sound moderator to Hungtingdon Lab' with a view to being scientifically examined or tested ('SBJ/1', 'DB/1', and 'DRB'1') were individual Sound moderators which were either sent or taken to the Lab' on 13th August 1985, 30th August 1985, and the 20th September 1985, accounted for why three different / separate Sound Moderators (silencers) were brought to court on the first day of the trial..
Two collected from the relatives by a police motorcycle outrider and brought at speed to the courthouse, and of course there was the third Sound Moderator (silencer) 'SBJ/1', Court exhibit 9, upon which, and inside of which had supposedly been found crushed red paint from the kitchen aga surround and mantelpiece, and blood attributed as belonging primarily to Sheila Caffell. Silencer 'DRB/1' wasn't even present at Huntingdon Lab' on the 14th September 1985, onwards until up to and including the 20th September 1985, when the blood was detected inside the other silencer (DB/1), as confirmed by Lab' documents. Red paint was not detected to be present in the knurl of the third of these sound moderators (DRB/1) until as late as 2nd October 1985 - so it becomes somewhat obvious that the red paint and the human blood attributed as being either unique to Sheila, or an intimate mixture of her parents bloods, could not have been associated with the same sound Moderator, because the third of these silencers (DRB/1) couldn't have been present at the lab' on any date prior to the 20th September 1985, when lo and behold, the blood was found inside one of the other sound moderators (that silencer being 'DB/1'). Additionally the silencer ('DRB/1) upon which the red paint eventually surfaced by 2nd October 1985, could not have been found on either of the two sound moderators ('DB/1' and or 'SBJ/1') because each of these three sound moderators ('SBJ/1', 'DB/1', and 'DRB/1') only went once to the Lab' at Huntingdon and that was on 13th August 1985, 30th August 1985, and the 20th September 1985!
How did two of these sound moderators (namely, DB/1 and SBJ/1) end up back in the relatives possession, until the day when the trial commenced?
DS Jones took possession of a sound moderator (silencer) from the scene on the 7th August 1985..
David Boutflour took possession of a second sound moderator (silencer) from the scene on the 10th August 1985...
Ann Eaton took possession of the third Sound moderator (silencer) at the scene from her brother David Boutflour on the 11th September 1985, and David Boutflour himself telephoned the police on the 12th September 1985, to inform them that he had found the silencer to the rifle!
Then of course, we have the existence of the two exhibit labels (both exhibit 9) which a part from one label only bearing the exhibit reference of 'DRB/1', the other label is marked 'DB/1' (crossed out), accompanied by the exhibit reference 'DRB/1. Ironically, 'nobody involved in the finding', 'handling', or 'examination of these two exhibits' signed their signatures on each of the two labels!
There is more, because according to DI Cook, when he took the first of these three Sound moderators ('SBJ/1') to the lab' at huntingdon, Cook stated that because that particular silencer did not have any exhibit label attached to it at all, so he attached one himself marking it exhibit reference 'SJ/1', because at that stage he was not aware that Ds Jones had a middle christian name of 'Stanley', or 'Stan'. There then follows on, even more confusion and conflict because he states that both he and Glynis Howard had signed that exhibit Label ('SJ/1), however, their individual signatures only appear on One of the two disclosed exhibit labels, and the label which bears their signatures is not labelled as exhibit reference 'SJ/1'..
Cook must have labelled the first Sound moderator exhibit 'SJ/1' because he knew that at 11.15am, on the first morning of the investigations that Jones had returned to the scene to collect a silencer ( irrespective of whether or not, he knew that DS Jones had a middle christian name!
So where is the original exhibit label marked 'SJ/1', with DI Cooks and Glynis Howards signatures upon them!
Even more confusion surrounds the lab' item reference numbers for each of the three Sound moderators, item No. 22, and or Item No. 23, interchangeable depending upon which lab' documentation one cares to look at or investigate! In some documents the same sound moderator, is labelled Lab' item No. 22 and Lab' item No. 23. Exactly how it could be possible for one or other of these three sound moderators coukd have the same Lab' item No. of another sound Moderator when none of the three sound moderators in question were all present at Huntingdon Lab' at the same time, or on the same date?
The third sound moderator, for example, could never have been allocated Lab' item 23, because exhibit 'DRB/1' did not arrive at the Lab' until the 20th September 1985, by which time other items of evidential value had already been allocated Item Lab' No.'s, higher in sequence than 22, and or 23..
They faked the whole sound moderator evidence, and made out that the red paint and the blood were found upon and inside the third sound moderator, but that which cannot possibly have been true, or is true.
The more I look, the more I keep finding glaring holes in the police, relatives, scientists and the prosecutions reliance upon the suggestion that a sound moderator was fitted to the rifle, when Neville Bamber got murdered downstairs in the kitchen because of the red paint from scratch-marks only found a month later, and only photographed a month later, and the blood found inside a sound moderator ('DB/1') almost a week prior to the third sound moderator ('DRB/1') arriving at the Lab' (20th September 1985)...
DI Cook claimed he fingerprinted the first silencer twice once on the 15th August 1985, and again on a second occasion, on the 23rd August 1985, when he carried out another fingerprint examination of the same sound moderator! Yet, according to the documentary evidence,' DS Davison' and 'DS Eastwood' fingerprinted the third silencer 'DRB/1' on the 13th September 1985, at a time when had there only been one sound moderator, it would have by that stage already have arrived at the Lab' earlier on the 30th November 1985 - so how could 'DS Davison' and 'DS Eastwood' still have possession of the exact same silencer two weeks or so, back at Headquarters, if it had been sent to the Lab' on 30th August 1985...
I will update this matter in due course...
-
Police and Lab' records confirm that three different marked 'sound moderators / silencers' ('SBJ/1', 'DB/1', and 'DRB/1' were submitted to Huntington Laboratory on three separate occasions, (13th August 1985, 30th August 1985, and the 20th September 1985)..
One had a distinctive scratch mark along the outer casing of the sound moderator (silencer), another sound moderator (Silencer) had a solitary hair stuck on it, and a third Sound Moderator (silencer), was found to have got some red paint particles crushed into the knurled pattern, around the circumference of the silencers end cap!
-
One had a distinctive scratch mark along the outer casing of the sound moderator (silencer), another sound moderator (Silencer) had a solitary hair stuck on it, and a third Sound Moderator (silencer), was found to have got some red paint particles crushed into the knurled pattern, around the circumference of the silencers end cap!
The mysterious hair found on one of the sound moderators (silencer), was the one found in the gun cupboard at whf by David Boutflour on the 10th August which his brother in law, Peter Earn handed over to DS Jones on the evening of 12th August 1985, which I believe was the one Labelled originally as exhibit 'DB/1', which did not get sent to the lab' at Huntingdon until the 30th August 1985, where it remained for a lengthy time afterwards! It was inside this particular sound moderator (silencer) that on the 12th, 13th, 18th, and the 19th of September 1985, that blood which had been found upon 'its' baffle plates was identified by scientific means (blood grouping), producing the four blood group types, 'A', (etc), (etc), (etc). There was no blood found on any of the baffle plates belonging to either of the other two sound moderators (silencers), 'SBJ/1', or 'DRB/1'. The shiny elongated scratch found on one of the sound moderators was almost certainly present on the silencer bearing the identification mark of 'SBJ/1' which Was taken to Huntingdon Lab' on the 13th August 1985....
The third sound moderator (silencer) 'DRB/1', was the one taken from the farmhouse by Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985, which she handed over to headquarters SOCO (DC OAKY), on that very same date. It was a also the very same sound moderator (silencer) 'DRB/1' that on the 12th September 1985, David Boutflour took it upon himself to telephone the police to tell them that he had found the silencer to the rifle! This was also the very same sound moderator ('silencer), 'DRB/1', which DS Davison and DS Eastwood fingerprinted on the 13th September 1985, and which was subsequently sent off to the lab' to be examined on the 20th September 1985, and which was provisionally examined for the first occasion on the 25th September 1985, and upon which not until the 2nd October 1985, red paint which was present in the knurled pattern on the circumference of that silencers metal end cap was subsequently matched with a red paint sample taken from the kitchen aga mantelpiece, on a date and time which is shrouded in mystery! According to DS Davidson (Witham police SOCO), DI Cook handed him a paint sample taken from wherever, because some reddish coloured paint had been found to be present on the end of a guns barrel at the scene!
A sound moderator (silencer) was fingerprinted on three separate dates!
First occasion was on the 15th August 1985, by DI Ron Cook!
Second occasion was on the 23rd August 1985 by DI Ron Cook!
Third occasion was on the 13th September 1985 by DS Davison and DS Eastwood!
-
A sound moderator (silencer) was fingerprinted on three separate dates!
First occasion was on the 15th August 1985, by DI Ron Cook!
Second occasion was on the 23rd August 1985 by DI Ron Cook!
Third occasion was on the 13th September 1985 by DS Davison and DS Eastwood!
It is understood, that Cook had fingerprinted the first Sound moderator (silencer) 'SBJ/1' on the 15th August 1985, which was the first of the three silencers taken from the crime scene, the first by DS Jones, who was not even part of the SOCO team responsible for the crime scene between the entire period between 10am and 1.15pm. It is believed that DS Jones was requested by DCI Jones, to leave Jeremy's cottage and return to the scene to collect the Sound moderator (silencer) 'SJ/1', because he didn't want its presence recorded in The Witham police SOCO crime scene register. This was because the shooting incidents at the farmhouse, were part of two entirely different police investigations, one where Sheila was originally shot downstairs in the kitchen, and later on once she had recovered and made her way upstairs to the main bedroom and collapsed onto the bed! She received the second shot to her throat after her body was lifted off the bed and it was placed onto the bedroom floor. At this time, senior officers who had entered the farmhouse were carrying out 'Informatives', which in the wake of what had taken place surrounding the circumstances of her being shot downstairs in the kitchen, but her (presumed) dead body had ended on top of the bed in the main bedroom the police had no option but to stage manage parts of the crime scene so as to try and keep a lid on the failures by the police to carry out their duties properly once entry had been forced to the farmhouse! It was whilst senior officers were reconstructing the crime scene in the main bedroom, that a .22 rifle which had been resting against the main bedroom window was brought to Sheila's body on the floor with a view of trying to establish whether or not it was viable for the police to make out a case that the solitary bullet wound which had originally been inflicted downstairs in the kitchen, could be disguised if the police could show that Sheila had been found on the bedroom floor in possession of the rifle from the main bedroom window! Namely that she had shot herself with the rifle they had placed into her possession, at a time when Sheila had only been shot once! This led to another fundamental error made by members of the raid team who had originally entered the farmhouse, who had mistakenly assumed that Sheila had died downstairs in the kitchen after sustaining the original shot. The second error, was when the firearm officers relocated Sheila's body upstairs laying on top of the bed and again mistakenly assuming she was dead, after collapsing onto the top of the bed! This second error of judgement was not helped by Dr Craig who did not carry out a physical check to see whether or not she could still have been barely alive at the time (8.44am) he pronounced her as being dead! At the time Dr Craig arrived at his conclusion, Sheila's body was laid 'on the far side of the bed' ( on top of the bed)! After he left the scene, her body had been lifted from the bed and placed on the bedroom floor as a result of what was deemed necessary, to right wrongs that had been made thus far in the operation ('Informatives'), they had no idea that when they shifted Sheila's body from on top of the bed, and plonked it on the bedroom floor, that she was actually barely still alive in a deep unconsciousness...
At 9.05am, DS Jones arrived upstairs in the main bedroom!
At that stage Sheila Caffells body was still laid on top of the bed. She did not have any weapon in her possession, and he noted that here was only a single bullet entry hole in her neck!
-
This second error of judgement was not helped by Dr Craig who did not carry out a physical check to see whether or not she could still have been barely alive at the time (8.44am) he pronounced her as being dead! At the time Dr Craig arrived at his conclusion, Sheila's body was laid 'on the far side of the bed' ( on top of the bed)! After he left the scene, her body had been lifted from the bed and placed on the bedroom floor as a result of what was deemed necessary, to right wrongs that had been made thus far in the operation ('Informatives'), they had no idea that when they shifted Sheila's body from on top of the bed, and plonked it on the bedroom floor, that she was actually barely still alive in a deep unconsciousness...
At that stage Sheila Caffells body was still laid on top of the bed. She did not have any weapon in her possession, and he noted that here was only a single bullet entry hole in her neck!
'Informatives' had only recently started before DS Jones and DC Clark's arrival in the bedroom (9.05am) - which lasted an hour between 9am, and 10am...
-
'Informatives' had only recently started before DS Jones and DC Clark's arrival in the bedroom (9.05am) - which lasted an hour between 9am, and 10am...
According to DS Jones only had a single shot / bullet entry wound to her neck when he first saw her body at 9.05am, and he described the sight of her body as appearing as though she was simply a sleep!
Now, please look at the crime scene photographs showing the two bullet entry wounds inflicted to Sheila Caffells throat, with blood having oozed from each bullet entry wound, blood having leaked from the corner of her mouth, and blood running from one nostril and pooling in her left eye! How could anyone describe Sheila as appearing as though she was asleep at 9.05àm, if her appearance at that stage was as shown in the photographs not taken by PC Bird after 10 O'clock (an hour later)?
Was the leaking blood (as depicted in various crime scene photographs of Sheila) wet / fresh looking blood at 9.05am, when DS Jones and DC Clark arrived in the main bedroom, or already dry?
The importance / significance being that if there 'was not' two bullet entry wounds to Sheila's throat at the time DS Jones and DC Clark (9.05am) visited the main bedroom crime scene, when could the second bullet entry wound to Sheila's throat have been inflicted? More importantly, if the first photographs of Sheila sporting two bullet entry wounds in her neck were not taken until after 10 O'clock that same morning, how could it have been possible for DS Jones and DC Clark not be able to see blood running from two different bullet entry wounds in her throat? 21 minutes beforehand (8.44am) Dr Craig had also not seen blood running from two bullet entry wounds in Sheila's throat! Ask yourselves, if Sheila had originally been found there on the main bedroom floor as depicted in crime scene photographs taken (allegedly) by PC Bird (Witham police SOCO) after 10am, how Dr Craig (8.44am) and DS Jones / DC Clark (9.05am) avoided being able to notice by those two stages, that Sheila had already been shot dead by way of two shots to her throat?
Take a look closely, at the following crime scene photograph (showing blood leaking from two bullet entry wounds in Sheila throat) and convince me that by 8.44am (Dr Craig) and 9.05am ( Jones / Clark) only saw a singular bullet entry wound to Sheila's throat!!!
-
According to DS Jones only had a single shot / bullet entry wound to her neck when he first saw her body at 9.05am, and he described the sight of her body as appearing as though she was simply a sleep!
Now, please look at the crime scene photographs showing the two bullet entry wounds inflicted to Sheila Caffells throat, with blood having oozed from each bullet entry wound, blood having leaked from the corner of her mouth, and blood running from one nostril and pooling in her left eye! How could anyone describe Sheila as appearing as though she was asleep at 9.05àm, if her appearance at that stage was as shown in the photographs not taken by PC Bird after 10 O'clock (an hour later)?
Was the leaking blood (as depicted in various crime scene photographs of Sheila) wet / fresh looking blood at 9.05am, when DS Jones and DC Clark arrived in the main bedroom, or already dry?
The importance / significance being that if there 'was not' two bullet entry wounds to Sheila's throat at the time DS Jones and DC Clark (9.05am) visited the main bedroom crime scene, when could the second bullet entry wound to Sheila's throat have been inflicted? More importantly, if the first photographs of Sheila sporting two bullet entry wounds in her neck were not taken until after 10 O'clock that same morning, how could it have been possible for DS Jones and DC Clark not be able to see blood running from two different bullet entry wounds in her throat? 21 minutes beforehand (8.44am) Dr Craig had also not seen blood running from two bullet entry wounds in Sheila's throat! Ask yourselves, if Sheila had originally been found there on the main bedroom floor as depicted in crime scene photographs taken (allegedly) by PC Bird (Witham police SOCO) after 10am, how Dr Craig (8.44am) and DS Jones / DC Clark (9.05am) avoided being able to notice by those two stages, that Sheila had already been shot dead by way of two shots to her throat?
Take a look closely, at the following crime scene photograph (showing blood leaking from two bullet entry wounds in Sheila throat) and convince me that by 8.44am (Dr Craig) and 9.05am ( Jones / Clark) only saw a singular bullet entry wound to Sheila's throat!!!
In addition to this inconsistency, are others which indicate without doubt that had the police first found Sheila's body on the main bedroom floor as depicted by reference to crime scene photographs all allegedly taken only by PC (x) Bird (Witham police station SOCO team) they would have known from all the basic clues available to them, that Sheila's body had been resting upon its right hand side prior to her ending up on her back clutching one of thge rifles!This is despite the fact that whilst testifying during the trial (October 1986), he confirmed that in fact he had not taken the following photograph ( see transcript of his sworn testimony from the trial for confirmation of this)!
-
The clues which point to this, are clear for all to see - you don't have to be or have been a 1985 / 1986 Essex police officer, to be able to fathom this out!
-
The clues which point to this, are clear for all to see - you don't have to be or have been a 1985 / 1986 Essex police officer, to be able to fathom this out!
A teenager with average intelligence could work it out, that Sheila's body must have been resting for a considerable time upon its right hand side, long before the body was rolled onto its back and that somebody then positioned the rifle in her possession, and then took photographs with a view to supporting the police stance or take on the matter from then on in, as a case of four murders and a suicide!
-
Looking at that pic I could argue that Sheila had already been dead before the second shot as the blood flow had been cut-off as opposed to the above initial shot where it had pumped out.
Blood would have already been gorged in that area and would have run out and not pumped. It is clearly an accidental shot made when either demonstrating or removing the loaded rifle.
Sheila would only have shot herself once.
-
A teenager with average intelligence could work it out, that Sheila's body must have been resting for a considerable time upon its right hand side, long before the body was rolled onto its back and that somebody then positioned the rifle in her possession, and then took photographs with a view to supporting the police stance or take on the matter from then on in, as a case of four murders and a suicide!
All the blood, whether it be a leakage, run, or a bloodstain, is prevalent on the right hand side of her body as visible by examination of the crime scene photographs taken by DC Oaky (Head Quarters SOCO), or PC Bird ( Witham SOCO), and DS Jones (Witham CID)!
Direction of blood flow from mouth
Position of triangular bloodstain in region of armpit on nightdress
Blood smears upon her right forearm
Blood runs on the upper part of her right arm
Blood underneath the bible next to her body that somebody tried to conceal
Bloodied fingermarks upon the front lower part of her nightdress
How could it have been possible for all this blood to end up where it ended up, if she had been responsible for killing herself?
More worryingly, how did some of the top Essex police officers, SOCO, CID personnel, rank and file police officers, a doctor, a coroner, and the CPS / trial judge / appellate court, not recognise that the police must have k own that Sheila did not kill herself and end up in possession of the rifle on her parents bedroom floor, in the wake of these characteristics, this being all the blood was on the right of her body, and the bedroom carpet beneath the overturned bible, also on the right of her body?
-
Looking at that pic I could argue that Sheila had already been dead before the second shot as the blood flow had been cut-off as opposed to the above initial shot where it had pumped out.
Blood would have already been gorged in that area and would have run out and not pumped. It is clearly an accidental shot made when either demonstrating or removing the loaded rifle.
Sheila would only have shot herself once.
Lookout, it makes sense, what you are saying, however, all the blood leakage, running, pooling and staining is clearly on the right hand side of her body, and on the bedroom carpet beneath the bible!
Now hang on a minute, did some would be killer of Sheila really expect the police not to notice that there was blood underneath the open paged bible on the carpet, if she had truly shot and killed herself?
How did one edge of the bible end up nestling upon part of Sheila's upper right arm if she was shot either by her own hand, or someone else