Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on January 11, 2019, 02:05:PM
-
Why have some answers been cut out? :-\
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4069.0;attach=29940)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4064.0;attach=29896)
-
Why have some answers been cut out? :-\
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4069.0;attach=29940)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4064.0;attach=29896)
Well, it's from cross examination so it's not EP.
-
Well, it's from cross examination so it's not EP.
The Ann Eaton one is from examination the David Boutflour one is from cross examination.
You can find these cut outs on a few pages of their transcripts.
-
The Ann Eaton one is from examination the David Boutflour one is from cross examination.
You can find these cut outs on a few pages of their transcripts.
They are from the trial right?
-
They are from the trial right?
Yes they are trial transcripts.
-
Yes they are trial transcripts.
Then they are a matter of public record so it would be daft for the authorities to interfere with them - especially as it's obvious and the trial was attended by the public and journalists - so they heard everything anyway.
-
Then they are a matter of public record so it would be daft for the authorities to interfere with them - especially as it's obvious and the trial was attended by the public and journalists - so they heard everything anyway.
I have found another copy of that David Boutflour cross examination with nothing cut. I have highlighted it in red. How odd! ???
(https://i.ibb.co/289cG2B/sil6-001.jpg)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4064.0;attach=29896)
-
Then they are a matter of public record so it would be daft for the authorities to interfere with them - especially as it's obvious and the trial was attended by the public and journalists - so they heard everything anyway.
It remains that parts which weren't thought appropriate to put on a forum, might have been deleted, although I have no idea why. It makes no sense to remove what the world and his wife is already privy to.
-
I suppose they didn't take the silencer to the police straightaway as they had been asked to leave by DCI Taff Jones a few days before. The alternative is that they manufactured the evidence themselves or Robert Boutflour concocted the evidence and left it in the gun cupboard for his son to find.
-
I have found another copy of that David Boutflour cross examination with nothing cut. I have highlighted it in red. How odd! ???
(https://i.ibb.co/289cG2B/sil6-001.jpg)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4064.0;attach=29896)
Young Boutflour gave a different account to the COLP investigators in 1991..
-
Young Boutflour gave a different account to the COLP investigators in 1991..
In that COLP account, he recounted how he had used a razor blade to scrape off a small piece of dried blood, which he retained because (as he told them) it fascinated him! Worse still, when queried if Essex police knew what he had done? He responded by saying 'yes'..
-
In that COLP account, he recounted how he had used a razor blade to scrape off a small piece of dried blood, which he retained because (as he told them) it fascinated him! Worse still, when queried if Essex police knew what he had done? He responded by saying 'yes'..
Also, please don't be fooled by Young About clouds insistence that he personally hadn't, or didn't telephone e Essex police to tell them that he had found the silencer to the gun? At trial u see the spotlight he said 'no' that he hadn't but police records show that he had made such a telephone call to police on the 11th September 1985...
Young Boutflour, was hoping that nobody would discover the contents of this police document. I guess he thought police would take care of that side of transgressions! But, neither young Boutlour and Essex police did not bargain for someone like me coming along, to upset the applecart...
I am here, you lying scumbag - I can't understand how scumbags like you can live with yourselves..
-
I have found another copy of that David Boutflour cross examination with nothing cut. I have highlighted it in red. How odd! ???
(https://i.ibb.co/289cG2B/sil6-001.jpg)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4064.0;attach=29896)
Do you really think it's odd?
-
Do you really think it's odd?
yes.
-
Also, please don't be fooled by Young About clouds insistence that he personally hadn't, or didn't telephone e Essex police to tell them that he had found the silencer to the gun? At trial u see the spotlight he said 'no' that he hadn't but police records show that he had made such a telephone call to police on the 11th September 1985...
Young Boutflour, was hoping that nobody would discover the contents of this police document. I guess he thought police would take care of that side of transgressions! But, neither young Boutlour and Essex police did not bargain for someone like me coming along, to upset the applecart...
I am here, you lying scumbag - I can't understand how scumbags like you can live with yourselves..
Essex police documentation confirms that on 11th September 1985, that young Boutflour had and he did contact Essex police about the fact that he had found the silencer to the gun! Not only this, but he was specific about the silencer he had found on this occasion, was specific to the gun said to have fired all the bullets during the tragedy. In addition, ladies and gentleman, Ann Eaton is documented as having handed over that silencer to Essex police on the very same date (11th September 1985), which in turn, DS Eastwood and DS Davison ( not DS Davidson) had been tasked with fingerprinting it on 13th September, 1985. OK, let's go the whole hog to ensure there can be no mistake or error about when this silencer was submitted to the Lab' to be checked for fibres and blood, on the 20th September, 1985?
-
In that COLP account, he recounted how he had used a razor blade to scrape off a small piece of dried blood, which he retained because (as he told them) it fascinated him! Worse still, when queried if Essex police knew what he had done? He responded by saying 'yes'..
I'm sure he said he thought it could be removed by a razor blade, not that he did.
-
I'm sure he said he thought it could be removed by a razor blade, not that he did.
No, he told the COLP investigators that he did it, and he added that Essex police were fully aware about what he had done!
-
No, he told the COLP investigators that he did it, and he added that Essex police were fully aware about what he had done!
He also told them that he scraped the flake of blood off and kept it because it fascinated him!
-
He also told them that he scraped the flake of blood off and kept it because it fascinated him!
He also told COLP that Essex police knew what he had done after he had done it! But rather somewhat astonishingly, COLP never followed the matter up by asking him the following questions:-
-
He also told COLP that Essex police knew what he had done after he had done it! But rather somewhat astonishingly, COLP never followed the matter up by asking him the following questions:-
(1) - where is the dried flake of blood now?
(2) - can we have it please?
(3) - don't let the defence solicitors know what you have done?
(4) - you do realise that because of what you've done that we cannot use this silencer and rely on the blood you say you have removed from it, because you have interfered with the integrity of the evidence?
(5) - you do realise that if the defence find out about what you have done that you will be accused of tampering with the silencer and planting blood what you have recovered from elsewhere at the scene onto it?
(6) - where abouts is the Razer Blade that you used to scrape the blood off the silencer?
(7) - can we have the razor blade, as well?
-
Seems so logical to me, that by the time David Boutflour had admitted to COLP that he had tampered with the integrity of the silencer evidence, based on his own admission, that they already knew what had happened to the flake, and that it had been submitted to the lab' by the police, under exhibit reference DB/1 with a lab' reference no.23..
-
Seems so logical to me, that by the time David Boutflour had admitted to COLP that he had tampered with the integrity of the silencer evidence, based on his own admission, that they already knew what had happened to the flake, and that it had been submitted to the lab' by the police, under exhibit reference DB/1 with a lab' reference no.23..
The silencer that DI Cook had taken to the lab on the 13th of August 1985, already had the identifying Mark SJ/1, with its corresponding lab item number 22. If the same silencer had been resubmitted back to the lab on the 30th of August 1985 by the police there would not be any need whatsoever to alter the exhibit reference of the silencer or its corresponding lab reference number from SJ/1 (22), to DB/1 (23)..
-
The silencer that DI Cook had taken to the lab on the 13th of August 1985, already had the identifying Mark SJ/1, with its corresponding lab item number 22. If the same silencer had been resubmitted back to the lab on the 30th of August 1985 by the police there would not be any need whatsoever to alter the exhibit reference of the silencer or its corresponding lab reference number from SJ/1 (22), to DB/1 (23)..
No evidence exists to suggest that at some stage in-between the 13th August 1985 and the 30th August 1985, that any police officer, of any rank either from the lowly rank of a PC to the lofty heights of the Chief Constable had decided to give the silencer a change in exhibit reference, or its lab' item number - and here lies the fundamental truth behind what actually had taken place!
The same silencer SJ/1 (22) that got taken to the Lab' by Cook on 13th August 1985, did not get taken back to the lab' again on the 30th August 1985, and neither did a second silencer - what actually got taken to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, was the flake of dried blood which David Boutflour had scraped off that first silencer prior to the relatives handing it over to police, and Cook taking it to the Lab' on the first occasion! Essex police found out about the flake of blood that Boutfllour had scraped from the outside of the silencer only after that first occasion, which caused 'it' to be submitted to the lab' in the knowledge that it (DB/1, 23) had been originally stuck to the outside of the silencer (SJ/1, 22)..
-
The second silencer DRB/1 did not get handed over to DC Oakley by Ann Eaton, until 11th September 1985, and therefore, it could not possibly have been that particular silencer which police had already had in their possession from a much earlier time, sent to the lab' under the 'guise of DB/1 (23). Since, David Boutflour himself did not telephone Essex police until the 11th September 1985, to inform the police that he had found the silencer to the gun..
Why was David Boutflour telling Essex police on 11th September 1985, that he had found the silencer to the gun, and why was his sister, Ann Eaton, handing over a silencer to the police on the exact same day, if police already had the silencer by that late stage?
-
The second silencer DRB/1 did not get handed over to DC Oakley by Ann Eaton, until 11th September 1985, and therefore, it could not possibly have been that particular silencer which police had already had in their possession from a much earlier time, sent to the lab' under the 'guise of DB/1 (23). Since, David Boutflour himself did not telephone Essex police until the 11th September 1985, to inform the police that he had found the silencer to the gun..
Why was David Boutflour telling Essex police on 11th September 1985, that he had found the silencer to the gun, and why was his sister, Ann Eaton, handing over a silencer to the police on the exact same day, if police already had the silencer by that late stage?
COLP could have asked David Boutflour other telling questions:-
(8) - what was the name of the police officers that you spoke to about scraping the piece of dried blood flake off the outside of the silencer?
-
What I have discovered, was that the relatives visited DS Jones at With an police station on the 29th August 1985. This seems to me to have been the perfect opportunity for David Boutflour to discuss the piece of dried blood which he had scraped from the outside of the first silencer relatives had handed over! For the purpose of doubt, the first silencer (SJ/1), 22) being the one Cook had provisionally taken to the lab' on 13th August 1985, which per chance Cook still had in his possession on the very same date that the relatives visited Witham police station and spoke with police, who included to the best of my recollection, DS Jones, and DI Cook..
A pound to a penny that DS Jones, and DI Cook, were the police officers who David Boutflour spoke to at With an police station on the 29th August 1985, about the flake of blood in his possession?
-
A pound to a penny that DS Jones, and DI Cook, were the police officers who David Boutflour spoke to at With an police station on the 29th August 1985, about the flake of blood in his possession?
By a remarkable coincidence, Cook chooses to dismantle the silencer (SJ/1, 22) in his possession on that very same day (29th August 1985), and lo and behold, no sooner does Cook remove thescrew threaded metal end cap which Boutflour claims elsewhere he was incapable of doing, than Cook proceeds to separate the first half dozen or so baffle plates but more disturbingly he does not see, or find, or recover any blood at all from anywhere inside or upon those baffle plates, so what does Cook do? Well, he reassembles the silencer, and then proceeds to screw the rebuilt silencer which he has had in pieces minutes beforehand onto the thread on the end of the anshuzt rifles barrel...
No blood inside the silencer at the time Cook had it dismantled before him!
With this in mind, there would have been no need for Cook to resubmit that silencer (SJ/1, 22) back to the lab to be examined further, since Glynis Howard had already contacted Essex police soon after she had taken a sample of what appeared to be blood near to the silencers aperture on its metal end cap, and informed police that it was human blood, but insufficient for blood grouping purposes!
Instead, what Cook did is that he contacted the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, at the Lab' and explained to him that he had checked the inside of the silencer, in particular the baffle plates, and that he hadn't seen, or found any additional blood. Cook told Fletcher, that he had subsequently rebuilt the silencer (SJ/1, 22), and that he would send him copies of photographs he had taken so as to record his involvement with the silencer. In addition, Cook told Fletcher about the flake of dried blood which one of the relatives had scraped from the outside of the silencer (SJ/1, 22) prior to them handing the silencer over to the police, which meant that when he had originally brought the silencer (SJ/1, 22) to the lab' on 13th August 1985, that Glynis Howard didn't know about the existence of the other blood in the form of a flake, and Cook told Fletcher that shortly after the occasion Howard had provisionally examined a swab of blood taken at the lab' on that occasion, and confirmed it to be human blood, she had added that there was insufficient other blood to do blood grouping tests, and Cook was telling Fletcher about additional blood now in the possession of the police in the form of the pieces of a flake of dried blood which one of the relatives now handed over!
Fletcher told Cook, or Cook told Fletcher, to send the flake to the lab' and this was the real identity of exhibit DB/1 (23), blood belonging to the silencer (SJ/1, 22) which had previously been taken to the lab' on 13th August 1985..
SJ/1 (22) - a silencer
DB/1 (23) - a flake of blood scraped off outside of silencer SJ/1 (22)..
-
Fletcher told Cook, or Cook told Fletcher, to send the flake to the lab' and this was the real identity of exhibit DB/1 (23), blood belonging to the silencer (SJ/1, 22) which had previously been taken to the lab' on 13th August 1985..
SJ/1 (22) - a silencer
DB/1 (23) - a flake of blood scraped off outside of silencer SJ/1 (22)..
There simply was no silencer at Huntingdon Lab' at any stage between 13th August 1985 and the 20th September 1985 - it was the flake of blood which David Boutflour had scraped from the outside of the silencer, which got sent / taken to the lab' as exhibit DB/1 (23) on the 30th August 1985, which enabled the blood grouping results to be obtained at the lab' during tests carried out on the flake, on 12th, 13th, 18th, and the 19th September 1985...
The second silencer (DRB/1) followed to the lab' on 20th September 1985 - containing the crushed particles of red paint from the more recently scratched kitchen aga surround (as first photographed on 14th September 1985)..
-
There simply was no silencer at Huntingdon Lab' at any stage between 13th August 1985 and the 20th September 1985 - it was the flake of blood which David Boutflour had scraped from the outside of the silencer, which got sent / taken to the lab' as exhibit DB/1 (23) on the 30th August 1985, which enabled the blood grouping results to be obtained at the lab' during tests carried out on the flake, on 12th, 13th, 18th, and the 19th September 1985...
The second silencer (DRB/1) followed to the lab' on 20th September 1985 - containing the crushed particles of red paint from the more recently scratched kitchen aga surround (as first photographed on 14th September 1985)..
Cops, and people at the Lab' at Huntingdon, only started tampering with the different exhibit references of the silencer (SJ/1, 22) that was sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and (DRB/1, 23) not sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, in November 1985, by linking both of them as being reference to the same silencer, by claiming that exhibit DB/1 (23) which got sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, was a silencer, in fact, one and the same silencer, which had initially been sent to the lab' on 13th August, and latterly, on 20th September, when all along exhibit DB/1 (23) had been the flake of dried blood that David Boutflour scraped off the outside of the first silencer (SJ/1, 22) that Cook had taken to the lab' on 13th August 1985..
-
Cops, and people at the Lab' at Huntingdon, only started tampering with the different exhibit references of the silencer (SJ/1, 22) that was sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and (DRB/1, 23) not sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, in November 1985, by linking both of them as being reference to the same silencer, by claiming that exhibit DB/1 (23) which got sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, was a silencer, in fact, one and the same silencer, which had initially been sent to the lab' on 13th August, and latterly, on 20th September, when all along exhibit DB/1 (23) had been the flake of dried blood that David Boutflour scraped off the outside of the first silencer (SJ/1, 22) that Cook had taken to the lab' on 13th August 1985..
Cook sent a handwritten note to Fletcher at the lab' in November requesting him to alter the exhibit reference to the silencer and lab' item, number...
That's when the police and lab' documents were interfered with, where exhibit references (a)SBJ/1, (b)SJ/1, (c)DB/1, and (d)DRB/1, all referred to a silencer, or a sound moderator, as being one and the same silencer, or one and the same sound moderator, and the existence of the Boutflour flake excluded altogether..
Yet, exhibits (a) and (b) were the same silencer, or sound moderator, and (c) was the flake of dried blood Boutflour scaped off (b) prior to Cook taking it to the lab' on 13th August 1985. Cops sent (c) to the lab' on 30th August 1985, based on them finding out that Boutflour had scraped (c) off the outside of (b), acting in a response to Glynis Howard's finding that when she examined (b) on 13th August 1985, there was insufficient blood present on the outside of (b) to obtain blood grouping results. Only sufficient blood to confirm that the blood was human..
Exhibit (d) was the second silencer, or sound moderator, handed over to DC Oakey by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985, (d) was the same second silencer, or sound moderator that David Boutflour telephone Essex police about on that same date, (d) was the same silencer, or sound moderator, which DS Eastwood and DS Davison fingerprinted on 13th September 1985, and (d) the same silencer, or sound moderator, which was subsequently forwared, or sent to the Lab' for the very first time on 20th September 1985, and (d) which first got examined at the lab' on the 25th September 1985..
That's why exhibit DB/1 (23) or in other words (c) was sent or taken to the lab' on 30th August 1985 - it was a source of additional blood said to have been taken from the outside of (b) sufficient in quantity to enable blood grouping to be done upon, with (c) it..
The blood grouping tests on (c) were duly carried out after (c) was made into a solution, and separate tests carried out, on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, producing the key blood group results of A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP2-1, respectively..