Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on January 04, 2019, 12:28:PM
-
In Colins book he publishes a copy of a letter from Jeremy. In this letter you can find the following -
"the corner stone of the prosecution evidence was fabricated, by whom I cant prove yet and its not necessary to do so for my appeal, but eventually I'll find out because it can only be one of five people."
So who are these five people? I believe they are the five name's listed in the attachment. AE,PE,RWB,DRB and SJB.
PS: I find it rather bizarre that Colin would include this in his book. He is more less giving the person he believes murdered his kids a platfrom to get his point across.
The whole letter can be found here :
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1045.msg32140.html#msg32140 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1045.msg32140.html#msg32140)
-
In Colins book he publishes a copy of a letter from Jeremy. In this letter you can find the following -
"the corner stone of the prosecution evidence was fabricated, by whom I cant prove yet and its not necessary to do so for my appeal, but eventually I'll find out because it can only be one of five people."
So who are these five people? I believe they are the five name's listed in the attachment. AE,PE,RWB,DRB and SJB.
PS: I find it rather bizarre that Colin would include this in his book. He is more less giving the person he believes murdered his kids a platfrom to get his point across.
The whole letter can be found here :
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1045.msg32140.html#msg32140 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1045.msg32140.html#msg32140)
He clearly thinks the point has no merit.
-
In Colins book he publishes a copy of a letter from Jeremy. In this letter you can find the following -
"the corner stone of the prosecution evidence was fabricated, by whom I cant prove yet and its not necessary to do so for my appeal, but eventually I'll find out because it can only be one of five people."
So who are these five people? I believe they are the five name's listed in the attachment. AE,PE,RWB,DRB and SJB.
PS: I find it rather bizarre that Colin would include this in his book. He is more less giving the person he believes murdered his kids a platfrom to get his point across.
The whole letter can be found here :
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1045.msg32140.html#msg32140 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1045.msg32140.html#msg32140)
The letters should be read as a whole. Here's another one you may have missed:
Posts: 10727
Re: Jeremy Bamber: the Prelude, the Tragedy and the Aftermath
« Reply #1592 on: August 07, 2018, 07:12:PM »
SCRUBS PRISON, WEDNESDAY 2 FEBRUARY 1989
DEAR COLIN,
SO YOU DECIDED NOT TO REPLY TO MY LETTER. I WONDER WHY? MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FACE THE TRUTH THAT I DID NOT KILL YOUR CHILDREN OR SHEILA OR MUM OR DAD. HOW SAD, COLIN, THAT YOU CAN'T DISTINGUISH REALITY FROM MEDIA HYPE, MISGUIDED POLICE AND MY MONEY-GRABBING RELATIVES. OUT OF EVERYONE I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND BUT INSTEAD YOU'VE MADE YOURSELF A COG IN THE MEDIA WHEEL. THE VERY SAME MEDIA THAT YOU RIDICULE IN THE RADIO TIMES. YOU CAN'T IMAGINE HOW I'VE SUFFERED SINCE SHEILA KILLED MY FAMILY-I DON'T SUPPOSE YOU CARE AND WHY SHOULD YOU COLIN, WITH YOUR NICE LITTLE BOOK AND YOUR PRETTY LITTLE SCULPTURES POURING OUT YOUR GRIEF TO ANY FILM CREW AROUND-NICE TIMING TOO, EH, WITH MY APPEAL UP SOON, MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO WAVE A BANNER OUTSIDE THE COURT WITH "JEREMY'S GUILTY BUT I DON'T WANT REVENGE."
I HAD A REPORT FROM A TOP FORENSIC SCIENTIST WHO CAN SAY THAT THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE USED AT MY TRIAL WAS SERIOUSLY AT ODDS WITH THE FACTS-THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE USED WAS CRUCIAL FOR A CONVICTION AND I CAN NOW DEMOLISH IT-WHAT THAT MEANS IS I'M LIKELY TO HAVE A RETRIAL OR BE RELEASED AND THEN IT WILL BE MY TURN TO USE THE MEDIA FOR MY OWN SELFISH INTERESTS-PAY BACK FOR THOSE PEOPLE TOO BLIND TO SEE TRUTH. SHEILA KILLED HER CHILDREN AND MY MUM AND DAD AND THEN SHOT HERSELF AND I'M 9/10ths OF THE WAY TO PROVING THAT. BUT WITH NO THANKS TO YOU. DON'T BOTHER TO WRITE BACK EVER, COLIN, COS YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN MY LIFE
As for the substance, David Boutflour wouldn't have had the gumption, nor his sister the technical ability. Her husband might have had the knowledge but not the idea. Did Robert Boutflour have access to the house and a hair of Nevill's? As for Stan Jones, why risk his career on one case?
Whilst we're about it here's more of Colin's thoughts:
Posts: 10727
Re: Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985
« Reply #772 on: January 14, 2017, 07:34:PM »
I realised there were going to be certain occasions when I would miss the boys more than any other. The obvious ones like Christmas and our birthdays were almost too painful to think about. Fortunately I had that wonderful family of friends to take the sting out of my grief and loneliness that first Christmas. There were other times, however, when the memories would sneak up and I found myself, unexpectedly, in situations where I couldn't avoid my desolation and missed the boys desperately.
When it snowed that February, I wandered up to Highgate to visit the grave on my own. The snow was that lovely powdery type that sparkles in the sunlight. I needn't have had any fears about not finding the site under all that snow because as I came to the bottom of the hill I was greeted by a sight that made me roar with laughter.
Standing in front of the grave was the loveliest snowman I had ever seen. He wasn't tall by snowman standards, about two feet at the most, had a broad, cheeky smile on his face and an upside-down flowerpot with a red rose stuck in the hole, on his head. I was once again overjoyed at people's sensitivity to the way the boys would have liked to be remembered; it didn't surprise me later to learn it was Herbie.
On my way home I passed Hampstead Heath and decided to stop for a walk in the snow. The sun had come out, lighting up the scene with lovely pale colours contrasted by a deep blue sky and dark silhouettes of the trees. The scene was reassuring like a Christmas card but my dream was quickly shattered by the squeals of laughter coming from the happy families playing in the snow, throwing snowballs at each other and racing down hills on makeshift toboggans. All of a sudden, vivid memories of Daniel and Nicholas sprang to mind and I desperately wanted to join in the fun and be part of a family again. Knowing I couldn't, I began to wish the snow would go away.
-
The letters should be read as a whole. Here's another one you may have missed:
I will only post what is relevant. I did provide a link to the whole thing.
As for the substance, David Boutflour wouldn't have had the gumption, nor his sister the technical ability. Her husband might have had the knowledge but not the idea. Did Robert Boutflour have access to the house and a hair of Nevill's? As for Stan Jones, why risk his career on one case?
David Boutflour didn't notice the grey hair on the knurled end when he took a close look and tried to unscrew it. The grey hair appears when Peter Eaton hands it over to Stan Jones. The Eaton's had more motive than the Boutflour's because Jeremy was going to sell their farm to pay the inheritance tax bill.
-
I will only post what is relevant. I did provide a link to the whole thing.
David Boutflour didn't notice the grey hair on the knurled end when he took a close look and tried to unscrew it. The grey hair appears when Peter Eaton hands it over to Stan Jones. The Eaton's had more motive than the Boutflour's because Jeremy was going to sell their farm to pay the inheritance tax bill.
I think the hair is irrelevant because it could have attached itself after DB looked at it.
-
25 bullets or part bullets recovered, one unrecovered bullet, and 25 spent cartridge cases recovered - OK copper, what happened to the 26th Bullet case?
-
The public have got to stop believing all the bullshit police are saying..
-
The public have got to stop believing all the bullshit police are saying..
The police are not superhuman..
-
The police are not superhuman..
Cops are target - motivated...
-
Much like the situation with the grey hair, David Boutflour did not notice the spot of blood on the silencer despite taking a close look at it during the visit to white house farm. Only later that day at Ann Eaton's house. At this stage the grey hair was yet to appear two days later.
Ann Eaton tells the court her first impression was that it was that it was rabbit blood. Her explanations for thinking this has several problems.
A) Her description of the blood is not consisted with blood that has been exposed for 4 days.
B) It requires her to believe Jeremy was shooting rabbits before leaving the gun out.(presumably she didn't)
Mike do you have another copy of Ann Eaton's trial transcript that does not have some of her answers cut out? There are three answers that have been cut out. Two involving the silencer and another answer involving the buckets in the kitchen. This could be really important info.
(https://i.ibb.co/HphfJMd/dbt1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/jyXj3PN/dbt2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/K7sxjcz/AET.jpg)
-
Much like the situation with the grey hair, David Boutflour did not notice the spot of blood on the silencer despite taking a close look at it during the visit to white house farm. Only later that day at Ann Eaton's house. At this stage the grey hair was yet to appear two days later.
Ann Eaton tells the court her first impression was that it was that it was rabbit blood. Her explanations for thinking this has several problems.
A) Her description of the blood is not consisted with blood that has been exposed for 4 days.
B) It requires her to believe Jeremy was shooting rabbits before leaving the gun out.(presumably she didn't)
Mike do you have another copy of Ann Eaton's trial transcript that does not have some of her answers cut out? There are three answers that have been cut out. Two involving the silencer and another answer involving the buckets in the kitchen. This could be really important info.
(https://i.ibb.co/HphfJMd/dbt1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/jyXj3PN/dbt2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/K7sxjcz/AET.jpg)
First of all, when I first took possession of the 50,000 or so documents which were due to be destroyed in 2003 / 2004 because the custodians of them needed the space in their garage, which they duly transformed into another room of their house in understandable circumstances, and I first came across some of the trial transcripts and I noticed that some of the trial transcripts were not only missing, but that someone had physically cut parts out ( I do not profess, to know by whom), but I have a good idea who might have been responsible!
-
First of all, when I first took possession of the 50,000 or so documents which were due to be destroyed in 2003 / 2004 because the custodians of them needed the space in their garage, which they duly transformed into another room of their house in understandable circumstances, and I first came across some of the trial transcripts and I noticed that some of the trial transcripts were not only missing, but that someone had physically cut parts out ( I do not profess, to know by whom), but I have a good idea who might have been responsible!
I still have the original A4 sheets of paper upon which parts of the trial transcripts were cut out...
-
I don't need to make anything up, for the sake of trying to sensationalise the point I am trying to make - because, it's all true, somebody had deliberately cut out sections of the various prosecution witnesses testimony, all of which just so happened to be the relatives testimonies!
-
For what it's worth, I figured out that the person responsible for deliberately cutting out sections of the relatives trial transcripts, wasn't at the hand of Jeremy!
Furthermore, neither was it at the hand of the custodians of the files, which subsequently became handed over to me - instead I held what I consider to be an educated guess, that it was the solicitors who had control of these records, prior to 1989 /1990 when I persuaded Jeremy to try and obtain everything his solicitors / counsel had got, in connection with his prosecution / convictions...
Nobody had any motive to remove the cut out contents of these court transcripts, other than those representing Jeremy Bamber! I take the view, that his solicitors are responsible for cutting out parts of these transcripts because those parts which they tried to conceal reflected on the service they gave to Jeremy - in other words, they took out anything which might expose them as performing negligently in his behalf!
-
First of all, when I first took possession of the 50,000 or so documents which were due to be destroyed in 2003 / 2004 because the custodians of them needed the space in their garage, which they duly transformed into another room of their house in understandable circumstances, and I first came across some of the trial transcripts and I noticed that some of the trial transcripts were not only missing, but that someone had physically cut parts out ( I do not profess, to know by whom), but I have a good idea who might have been responsible!
Oh do tell..
-
Oh do tell..
OK, I have just given my view..
-
Much like the situation with the grey hair, David Boutflour did not notice the spot of blood on the silencer despite taking a close look at it during the visit to white house farm. Only later that day at Ann Eaton's house. At this stage the grey hair was yet to appear two days later.
Ann Eaton tells the court her first impression was that it was that it was rabbit blood. Her explanations for thinking this has several problems.
A) Her description of the blood is not consisted with blood that has been exposed for 4 days.
B) It requires her to believe Jeremy was shooting rabbits before leaving the gun out.(presumably she didn't)
Mike do you have another copy of Ann Eaton's trial transcript that does not have some of her answers cut out? There are three answers that have been cut out. Two involving the silencer and another answer involving the buckets in the kitchen. This could be really important info.
(https://i.ibb.co/HphfJMd/dbt1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/jyXj3PN/dbt2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/K7sxjcz/AET.jpg)
He or Nevil could have shot rabbits previous to the night of the murders but at that point, perhaps she did believe him - it wouldn't stop him being the killer.
-
I still have the original A4 sheets of paper upon which parts of the trial transcripts were cut out...
But there are copies lying around without the answers cut out. You have posted two copies of David Boutflours testimony, one with the cut outs and one without. I am hoping you might have an untampered version of Ann Eatons testimony also?
The one with the cut outs is on a yellowy paper and the other on a brighter white paper.
-
He or Nevil could have shot rabbits previous to the night of the murders.
One of the complications of there having been two different silencers / sound moderators, at the heart of this deception, was that insofar as the blood found on the outside of (let's call it) the first silencer, Glynis Howard, had identified that blood as 'human blood', whereas, in April 1986, the same blood from the same area or let us just say in close proximity to the area where Howard had previously identified the blood as human blood, the blood mysteriously became identified as animal blood!
So, here we have disparity on one silencer, versus the other silencer, that it was human blood detected in the first silencer (b) SJ/1 (22), but it was animals blood in the other silencer (d) DRB/1 (22)...
Being the inquisitive spirit that I profess to be, the only explanation available, where both human blood and animal blood, could possibly be present in the same silencer (b) and (d), must involve the blood group activity AK1..
Now, irrespective of whether or not, any of you can grasp what I am talking about, with regard to there existing two different identical Parker Hale silencers / moderators, (which was / is true), we end up with one of the four positive blood group results (AK/1) attributed as being unique to Sheila Caffell turning out to be described in the first instance (immediately after 13th August 1985) as ' human blood'. Thereafter, in April 1986 that same blood (AK1) is being described and recorded as being animals blood!
With this in mind..
-
Now, irrespective of whether or not, any of you can grasp what I am talking about, with regard to there existing two different identical Parker Hale silencers / moderators, (which was / is true), we end up with one of the four positive blood group results (AK/1) attributed as being unique to Sheila Caffell turning out to be described in the first instance (immediately after 13th August 1985) as ' human blood'. Thereafter, in April 1986 that same blood (AK1) is being described and recorded as being animals blood!
With this in mind..
It was detrimental to the prospect of Jeremy Bamber receiving a fair trial that this disparity involving the AK1 blood group result, should be presented during Bambers trial, should be included as being a unique only to Sheila Caffell, when such a significant contradiction was 'known about' by the experts at the Lab' who for whatever reason best known to themselves kept quiet or silent about the key disparity, which if the truth had been declared would have served to nullify the AK1 blood group result, leaving only three positive human blood group results capable of identifying the donor of the human blood supposedly found inside the silencer ( those being, A, EAP BA, and HP 2-1), which as anyone and everyone can see alters the state of play dramatically - since no longer can the argument be relied upon, that the blood supposedly found inside the silencer was unique to Sheila Caffell, but rather that the blood in its true format could have originated from any one of three of the five victims (excluding the child victims)...
-
It was detrimental to the prospect of Jeremy Bamber receiving a fair trial that this disparity involving the AK1 blood group result, should be presented during Bambers trial, should be included as being a unique only to Sheila Caffell, when such a significant contradiction was 'known about' by the experts at the Lab' who for whatever reason best known to themselves kept quiet or silent about the key disparity, which if the truth had been declared would have served to nullify the AK1 blood group result, leaving only three positive human blood group results capable of identifying the donor of the human blood supposedly found inside the silencer ( those being, A, EAP BA, and HP 2-1), which as anyone and everyone can see alters the state of play dramatically - since no longer can the argument be relied upon, that the blood supposedly found inside the silencer was unique to Sheila Caffell, but rather that the blood in its true format could have originated from any one of three of the five victims (excluding the child victims)...
Being the diligent philosophical person that I am, had only three blood group results ( A, EAP BA, and HP 2-1) and not the four (A, EAP BA, HP2-1, and AK1) results, been at the heart of the prosecutions case, then (a) the source of the blood group activity could have originated from any one of three victims, (b) Neville Bamber, (c) June Bamber, or (c) Sheila Caffell, or (d) be an intimate mixture, in any mixture, between victims (a), (b) and (c), a far cry from what the prosecution told to the jury by its case..
-
Rather disturbingly, I feel it is now time to mention, that despite Glynis Howard making a witness statement that she was only involved in the examination of one silencer (SJ/1),22), on the 13th August 1985, suddenly becomes exposed as a deception, because she was involved in the April 1986 re-examination of the other silencer!
Now, what becomes someone 'alarming' once we grasp this knowledge, is that in August 1985, Glynis Howard told Essex police that it was human blood in the silencer (SJ/1, 22), whereas, she records the presence of animals blood in the same part of the second silencer (DRB/1, 22)?
-
Rather disturbingly, I feel it is now time to mention, that despite Glynis Howard making a witness statement that she was only involved in the examination of one silencer (SJ/1),22), on the 13th August 1985, suddenly becomes exposed as a deception, because she was involved in the April 1986 re-examination of the other silencer!
Now, what becomes someone 'alarming' once we grasp this knowledge, is that in August 1985, Glynis Howard told Essex police that it was human blood in the silencer (SJ/1, 22), whereas, she records the presence of animals blood in the same part of the second silencer (DRB/1, 22)?
Well, this being the case, how come that by the start of Jeremy's October 1986 Chelmsford Crown Court trial, the experts from the lab' in the form of John Hayward were relying upon four unique blood group results (A, EAP BA, HP2-1, and AK1) unique to Sheila Caffell, when they already knew that one of the four blood group results relied upon, (AK1), should have been discarded by virtue of the fact that the experts could not discern the difference between human or animals blood, as tested by Glynis Howard in August 1985, and much later, by the same expert in April 1986!
-
This deception was enforced because the prosecution sought to rely on the expert evidence given by John Hayward, rather than Glynis Howard - Hayward was only involved in the identifying of the blood from the flake between 12th - 19th September 1985..
-
But you're still relying on Sheila returning the silencer to the gun cupboard even if the blood is not exclusively hers.
-
But you're still relying on Sheila returning the silencer to the gun cupboard even if the blood is not exclusively hers.
The silencer was in the cupboard all night long. It was never returned in the first place.
-
This deception was enforced because the prosecution sought to rely on the expert evidence given by John Hayward, rather than Glynis Howard - Hayward was only involved in the identifying of the blood from the flake between 12th - 19th September 1985..
Glynis Howard, examined the first silencer (SJ/1, 22) on 13th August 1985 - concluding that there was human blood in the silencers aperture, on that occasion, but in April 1986, she was involved in the examination of the second silencer (DRB/1, 22), which concluded that blood present in the same part of both silencers SJ/1 (22) and DRB/1 (22) was of animal origin!
How, was it possible to detect blood group activity inside the first silencer (SJ/1, 22) at the lab' between 12th - 19th September 1985, if there was no silencer present at all at the Lab' until after this period, had been surpassed?
-
This deception was enforced because the prosecution sought to rely on the expert evidence given by John Hayward, rather than Glynis Howard - Hayward was only involved in the identifying of the blood from the flake between 12th - 19th September 1985..
Whereas, Glynis Howard, she was involved in the examination of the two different silencers, firstly on 13th August 1985 (SJ/1, 22) at which time all she could say was that human blood was found inside the aperture on the silencers end cap, on that occasion. Secondly, in April 1986 she was involved in the examination of the other silencer (DRB/1, 22), which served to confirm the presence of animals blood in the same part of the second silencer, where she had attributed a presence of human blood in the first silencer...
-
Whereas, Glynis Howard, she was involved in the examination of the two different silencers, firstly on 13th August 1985 (SJ/1, 22) at which time all she could say was that human blood was found inside the aperture on the silencers end cap, on that occasion. Secondly, in April 1986 she was involved in the examination of the other silencer (DRB/1, 22), which served to confirm the presence of animals blood in the same part of the second silencer, where she had attributed a presence of human blood in the first silencer...
Only one blood group is shared between human and animals, and that is AK1..
-
Let us not forget, that John Hayward made a huge issue about the relevance of the AK1 blood group result attributed by himself as being present in the solitary silencer argument! Remember how he said that he would have expected to have detected June Bambers AK2-1 in the results, if the blood found in the silencer had been a mixture of the parents bloods?
What a lousy thing for him to allege, since by the time of Jeremy's trial in October 1986, Hayward must have known about the work carried out by Glynis Howard in August 1985, and April 1986, and that she had said it was my human blood in 1985, but concluded there was animals blood present in the second silencer she examined in April 1986? Because of those conflicting results (human versus animal blood - AK1), Hayward had no right to legitimately introduce his argument that the blood group results obtained from inside the silencer was unique to Sheila, and this was the case because of a marked absence of June Bambers AK2-1..
-
To put everything into perspective - John Hayward claimed he would have expected to detect June Bambers AK2-1 in the results because it was a stronger enzyme than Sheila's AK1 - but if the AK1 element of the results obtained during that crucial period between 12th to 19th September 1985, sandwiched either side of that period with the findings of Glynis Howard, that human blood was present on the silencer in August 1985, and animal blood present there in April 1986, my natural instinct tells me that Hayward deliberately misused the AK1 part of the test result, despite knowing that he could not prove wholeheartedly that the AK1 element of the results were human, or animal orientated...
Human / animal blood - AK1...
-
To put everything into perspective - John Hayward claimed he would have expected to detect June Bambers AK2-1 in the results because it was a stronger enzyme than Sheila's AK1 - but if the AK1 element of the results obtained during that crucial period between 12th to 19th September 1985, sandwiched either side of that period with the findings of Glynis Howard, that human blood was present on the silencer in August 1985, and animal blood present there in April 1986, my natural instinct tells me that Hayward deliberately misused the AK1 part of the test result, despite knowing that he could not prove wholeheartedly that the AK1 element of the results were human, or animal orientated...
Human / animal blood - AK1...
Consider the following matter - a large amount of animal blood (including AK1) found its way onto the end of the silencer (DRB/1, 22), an amount which masked the presence of June Bambers AK2-1 enzyme?
How could it have masked June Bambers AK2-1 enzyme?
Quantity of the AK1 enzyme, produced (a) by Neville Bamber (human blood), mixed with (b) animal blood, in quantities far greater than the AK2-1 blood enzyme in June Bambers make up...
-
Seems to me that in this day and age, that scientists ought to be able to say if it is possible in any circumstances for AK1 type enzyme in a blood sample to mask the presence of the AK2-1 blood enzyme, depending upon the volumes of each in the same sample? Including any potential adverse reaction which might occur where human and animal blood inadvertently (Ak1) mix together in the same mix, as appears to have happened in this instance?
-
Seems to me that in this day and age, that scientists ought to be able to say if it is possible in any circumstances for AK1 type enzyme in a blood sample to mask the presence of the AK2-1 blood enzyme, depending upon the volumes of each in the same sample? Including any potential adverse reaction which might occur where human and animal blood inadvertently (Ak1) mix together in the same mix, as appears to have happened in this instance?
I am sorry to have to be so adamant regarding the misuse of the AK1 blood enzyme in the scientific presentation of the blood said to have been found inside 'the' silencer, on the basis that it should have been excluded on the grounds that both humans and animals share this blood group with no scientific possibility of it being determined between one or other - and Glynis Howard said there was human blood on the flat end cap in the vicinity of its 1/4 inch aperture in August 1985, yet in April 1986 she found animal bloods in the same, or similar areas of a silencer ( including AK1)...
This evidence was misused by the forensic science service in the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber, because without the AK1 portion of the blood group results obtained from the carrying out of blood group testing at the lab' between 12th to 19th September 1985, leaving only A, EAP BA, and HP2-1, I dare say that the jury would have been satisfied that any blood found inside the silencer as claimed could have come from June Bamber, or have been an intimate mixture of June's and Neville Bambers bloods ( on the basis that where A and O blood mix together, the A will mask the presence of O type)!
Take out the AK1, and it no longer becomes tenable for the prosecutions argument that the blood found inside the silencer was unique to Sheila Caffell..
But, and..
John Hayward deceived the court which tried this case, by behaving as though he didn't know the significance of the find of human blood and animals blood in the same silencer ( if there truly had been just the one silencer), since he was senior blood expert at Huntingdon at the time, and he would have reviewed Glynis Howard's findings arising out of her August 1985, and April 1986, examination of the silencer(s), which both fell before the commencement of the trial in October 1986...
Human blood (August 1985), animal blood (April 1986) - trial started October 1986..
-
I am sorry to have to be so adamant regarding the misuse of the AK1 blood enzyme in the scientific presentation of the blood said to have been found inside 'the' silencer, on the basis that it should have been excluded on the grounds that both humans and animals share this blood group with no scientific possibility of it being determined between one or other - and Glynis Howard said there was human blood on the flat end cap in the vicinity of its 1/4 inch aperture in August 1985, yet in April 1986 she found animal bloods in the same, or similar areas of a silencer ( including AK1)...
This evidence was misused by the forensic science service in the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber, because without the AK1 portion of the blood group results obtained from the carrying out of blood group testing at the lab' between 12th to 19th September 1985, leaving only A, EAP BA, and HP2-1, I dare say that the jury would have been satisfied that any blood found inside the silencer as claimed could have come from June Bamber, or have been an intimate mixture of June's and Neville Bambers bloods ( on the basis that where A and O blood mix together, the A will mask the presence of O type)!
Take out the AK1, and it no longer becomes tenable for the prosecutions argument that the blood found inside the silencer was unique to Sheila Caffell..
But, and..
John Hayward deceived the court which tried this case, by behaving as though he didn't know the significance of the find of human blood and animals blood in the same silencer ( if there truly had been just the one silencer), since he was senior blood expert at Huntingdon at the time, and he would have reviewed Glynis Howard's findings arising out of her August 1985, and April 1986, examination of the silencer(s), which both fell before the commencement of the trial in October 1986...
Human blood (August 1985), animal blood (April 1986) - trial started October 1986..
And, as if that isn't enough to warrant sending Bambers case back to the appeal court, there is then the mischievous manner with which the senior blood expert, John Hayward testified during the trial - whilst being examined the following exchanges between himself and Mr Arlidge QC:-
Arlidge QC - ' can you say from your experience anything about the appearance of the blood that you saw inside the moderator'?
Hayward - ' there was nothing to suggest to me that there was more than one blood from more than one person present, or in my grouping results, to suggest that there was more than one'.
Arlidge QC - ' it may be of limited value but is it possible at all to judge it by appearance'?
Hayward - ' not really, no'. I certainly would not want to offer an opinion on the basis of appearance alone'.
Arlidge QC - ' but in this case you say you were putting together appearance and your grouping tests'?
Hayward - ' and also my reading of the statements of other Witnesses which perhaps I should not refer to at the moment'.
Arlidge QC - ' can you just tell us who those other Witnesses are'?
Hayward - ' Dr Vanezis and Mr Fletcher'.
(short adjournment during the proceedings)..
Arlidge QC - ' when you were dealing with the remoteness of the possibility that this blood in the moderator could be the result of two people's blood, you mentioned that there were things in other Witnesses statements that had affected your view: were those other people expert Witnesses or lay Witnesses'?
Hayward - ' they were expert Witnesses, sir'.
Arlidge QC - ' can you tell us just for the moment, what it was in the statements that affected your view'?
Hayward - ' yes sir, it was a case of whether or not individuals had suffered contact or very close contact shots'.
Arlidge QC - ' and in whose statement did you see that'?
Hayward - ' I was referring to Mr Fletcher's statement and Dr Vanezis' statement.
Arlidge QC - ' how does whether it is a contact wound or not affect the position'?
Hayward - ' I would be very surprised to find blood from a person who has not had a contact or very close range shot inside the muzzle of the silencer, Sir'.
Arlidge QC - ' when you say "very close range", what do you mean'?
Hayward - ' I cannot elaborate, Sir. I am not a firearms expert'.
-
And, as if that isn't enough to warrant sending Bambers case back to the appeal court, there is then the mischievous manner with which the senior blood expert, John Hayward testified during the trial - whilst being examined the following exchanges between himself and Mr Arlidge QC:-
Arlidge QC - ' can you say from your experience anything about the appearance of the blood that you saw inside the moderator'?
Hayward - ' there was nothing to suggest to me that there was more than one blood from more than one person present, or in my grouping results, to suggest that there was more than one'.
Arlidge QC - ' it may be of limited value but is it possible at all to judge it by appearance'?
Hayward - ' not really, no'. I certainly would not want to offer an opinion on the basis of appearance alone'.
Arlidge QC - ' but in this case you say you were putting together appearance and your grouping tests'?
Hayward - ' and also my reading of the statements of other Witnesses which perhaps I should not refer to at the moment'.
Arlidge QC - ' can you just tell us who those other Witnesses are'?
Hayward - ' Dr Vanezis and Mr Fletcher'.
(short adjournment during the proceedings)..
Arlidge QC - ' when you were dealing with the remoteness of the possibility that this blood in the moderator could be the result of two people's blood, you mentioned that there were things in other Witnesses statements that had affected your view: were those other people expert Witnesses or lay Witnesses'?
Hayward - ' they were expert Witnesses, sir'.
Arlidge QC - ' can you tell us just for the moment, what it was in the statements that affected your view'?
Hayward - ' yes sir, it was a case of whether or not individuals had suffered contact or very close contact shots'.
Arlidge QC - ' and in whose statement did you see that'?
Hayward - ' I was referring to Mr Fletcher's statement and Dr Vanezis' statement.
Arlidge QC - ' how does whether it is a contact wound or not affect the position'?
Hayward - ' I would be very surprised to find blood from a person who has not had a contact or very close range shot inside the muzzle of the silencer, Sir'.
Arlidge QC - ' when you say "very close range", what do you mean'?
Hayward - ' I cannot elaborate, Sir. I am not a firearms expert'.
First things first, just let me say that John Haywood would have known that the three adult victims, that is Neville, June and Sheila, all had contact or near contact wounds...
Secondly, Hayward admits that he wasn't referring to the witness statements made by Glynis Howard, only that he was influenced by Mr Fletcher's and Dr Venezis' witness statements - but why would he choose to ignore the damning witness statements of Glynis Howard, and her findings arising out of her examination of a silencer in August 1985 (human blood) and in April 1986 (animal blood)?
-
First things first, just let me say that John Haywood would have known that the three adult victims, that is Neville, June and Sheila, all had contact or near contact wounds...
Secondly, Hayward admits that he wasn't referring to the witness statements made by Glynis Howard, only that he was influenced by Mr Fletcher's and Dr Venezis' witness statements - but why would he choose to ignore the damning witness statements of Glynis Howard, and her findings arising out of her examination of a silencer in August 1985 (human blood) and in April 1986 (animal blood)?
By taking that approach, it enabled him to include the AK1 blood enzyme found in the silencer as being the determining factor by which he could conclude that the blood found in the silencer was unique to Sheila Caffell, when in reality he was wrong!
-
By taking that approach, it enabled him to include the AK1 blood enzyme found in the silencer as being the determining factor by which he could conclude that the blood found in the silencer was unique to Sheila Caffell, when in reality he was wrong!
Both Sheila and June had A, EAP BA, and HP2-1, blood groups, and additionally very relevant was the fact that in Neville Bambers case, although he had O, EAP BA, and HP2-1 blood types, his O type blood would have been masked by the A type bloods of both June and Sheila - paving the way for (a) a possible intimate mixture of the parents bloods, (b) Sheila's and Neville's bloods, (c) Sheila's and June's bloods, and (d) an intimate mixture of all three adults bloods, rather than it simply have been (e) a case of the blood results being unique, and or exclusive to Sheila alone!
-
So, when the jury retired, and sent out a note asking whose blood was found inside the silencer (setting aside, the issue regarding whether the blood in question had been the flake scraped from the outside of the silencer using a razor blade by David Boutflour), the jury were deceived by the response which the trial judge gave to them. I am not saying the trial judge deliberately deceived the jury with the response he gave to the question which was concerning them, only that what he told them (recited to them from what Hayward had said in the witness box) was not factual in light of what we now know about the value of blood type AK1 in the circumstances of this case..
-
The true value of blood type AK1 has a direct bearing upon whether the verdict of the jury was the right decision based upon them being reassured by the trial judge, after they had already retired to consider their verdict and had sent out a hand written note to the judge, asking the pertinent question, amongst other things which are of no value to this particular issue, 'who's blood was in the silencer'?
The correct answer was not given to them, since the true value of AK1 had been deliberately kept from the court by John Hayward, who deliberate chose to ignore the findings made by Glynis Howard in August 1985 (human blood), and April 1986 (animal bloods), in particular with reference to the AK1 blood enzyme she found to be present on or in 'the' silencer. Hayward must have known about the significance of the value of the AK1 blood enzyme, and rather than include it in his own findings, he should ordinarily have excluded it for all the reasons given!
-
The correct answer was not given to them, since the true value of AK1 had been deliberately kept from the court by John Hayward, who deliberate chose to ignore the findings made by Glynis Howard in August 1985 (human blood), and April 1986 (animal bloods), in particular with reference to the AK1 blood enzyme she found to be present on or in 'the' silencer. Hayward must have known about the significance of the value of the AK1 blood enzyme, and rather than include it in his own findings, he should ordinarily have excluded it for all the reasons given!
Why would (and did) John Hayward, ignore the findings of Glynis Howard?
-
Why would (and did) John Hayward, ignore the findings of Glynis Howard?
Perhaps the answer to this rests with the fact that by reference to his trial transcript, he was influenced by Mr Fletcher's, witness statement..
-
Fletcher, supposedly Dismantled a silencer at the Lab' on 12th September 1985, something which was an impossibility because there wasn't a silencer at the lab' on that occasion, or by that date..
The silencer (SJ/1, 22) had been returned to Essex police on 13th August 1985, and the other silencer (DRB/1, 22) was not submitted to the lab' until 20th September 1985. Exhibit DB/1 (23) which got sent to the Lab' on 30th August 1985, was the dried flake of blood which David Boutflour had scraped from the outside of the silencer (SJ/1, 22) prior to that silencer having been handed over to police and the provisional examination of it by Glynis Howard at the Lab' on the 13th August 1985..
What Howard knew was the true value of AK1, in a one silencer scenario - if there was only one silencer, which had had all these different exhibit references at one time or another, and different lab' item numbers at different times, Howard knew that the AK1 blood enzyme couldn't be allocated to Sheila Caffell, alone. Howard knew the secret significance of the silencers. John Hayward knew Howard's secret, because he (Hayward) was a party to the same secret..
Hayward and Fletcher, they were both different to Glynis Howard, different because she was committed to telling the truth, and saying it as it was, and is - "human blood" on the silencer (SJ/1, 22) August 1985, and "animal blood" on the silencer (DRB/1, 22) April 1986 - her findings capable of seriously undermining the expert opinions of both Hayward and Fletcher, where the former claimed the blood found in the silencer was unique to Sheila, and where the latter, based his expert opinion on the opinion of the former, by declaring that the only way that Sheila Caffell's blood could have got into the silencer, was if the silencer was fitted to the end of the guns barrel at the time she was shot and killed!
This in turn had the knock on effect of enabling the prosecution to "ambush" the defendants case, by gleefully declaring that Sheila couldn't have taken her own life, therefore, because when the police found her body that silencer with her unique blood inside it, wasn't still attached on to the end of the guns barrel, it had been removed and carried off to another part of the farmhouse and concealed in a cupboard, and allegedly not found or recovered by the police, but by the relatives later on...
Hayward, and Fletcher, knew Glynis Howard's secret...
That secret, will come back to haunt both of them, and all the others who took part in its concealment, as sure as night follows day, and death follows birth..
-
Ann Eaton knows the secret, so does her brother David Boutflour, so to does her husband Peter, and her father, Robert Woodwis Boutflour. DS Jones knew Glynis Howard's secret, so too did DI Cook, and PI Miller..
The COLP investigators not only knew the truth regarding this secret, but they gathered together two entirely separate reports after completing their findings into complaints listed by Jeremy Bamber in 1990, one report favouring four murders and a suicide, the other report based on the one that Bamber stands convicted of - the existence and misuse of two different identical looking silencers in one report, and a single silencers involvement in the other report...
-
Ann Eaton knows the secret, so does her brother David Boutflour, so to does her husband Peter, and her father, Robert Woodwis Boutflour. DS Jones knew Glynis Howard's secret, so too did DI Cook, and PI Miller..
The COLP investigators not only knew the truth regarding this secret, but they gathered together two entirely separate reports after completing their findings into complaints listed by Jeremy Bamber in 1990, one report favouring four murders and a suicide, the other report based on the one that Bamber stands convicted of - the existence and misuse of two different identical looking silencers in one report, and a single silencers involvement in the other report...
Report one - two silencers (SJ/1, )22 - four murders, and a suicide
Report two - one silencer (DRB/1, 22 and SJ/1, 22), five murders
-
By keeping Glynis Howard's findings on her examination of the two different silencers, the first one in August 1985 (human blood), the second one in April 1986 (animal blood), Hayward and Fletcher had the freedom to present the evidence along the lines that it was Sheila's unique blood found inside the silencer, and that the silencer must have been fitted to the gun when she was shot dead, and that once she had been shot dead she couldn't have taken the silencer off and hid it somewhere else in another part of the farmhouse, because she was dead and would have been incapable of doing such a thing!
-
By keeping Glynis Howard's findings on her examination of the two different silencers, the first one in August 1985 (human blood), the second one in April 1986 (animal blood), Hayward and Fletcher had the freedom to present the evidence along the lines that it was Sheila's unique blood found inside the silencer, and that the silencer must have been fitted to the gun when she was shot dead, and that once she had been shot dead she couldn't have taken the silencer off and hid it somewhere else in another part of the farmhouse, because she was dead and would have been incapable of doing such a thing!
Dr Venezis' influence in the proceedings simply being that once the fatal shot was received, that death would have followed instantaneously..
-
The three stooges then, in the case against Jeremy Bamber, were (a) the blood expert, John Hayward, (b) the firearm expert, Malcolm Fletcher, and (c) the pathologist, Dr Venezis', where the opinions of all three were reliant upon one another, in order to paint a picture for the prosecution to elaborate upon during the trial..
-
In the two silencer involvement scenario, as looked into by COLP, and reported on by them in the first version of their report, it wasn't the same silencer in which the human blood (SJ/1, 22) was found in August 1985, which produced the animal blood results obtained on the April 1986 silencer (DRB/1, 22) - the former had been the silencer from which David Boutflour had scraped dried blood from the outside, dried blood which produced the blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP2-1, once the flake in question had been submitted to the lab' by police on 30th August 1985, under the exhibit reference, DB/1 (23).
By the time of the trial in October 1986, the prosecution and it's witnesses had got their act together, and they were relying on the second silencer, the one bearing the identifying mark of DRB/1 (22), making out to all intents and purposes this had been and was the very same silencer to which everyone was and would be referring to ( Court Exhibit no.9) whilst testifying..
-
By the time of the trial in October 1986, the prosecution and it's witnesses had got their act together, and they were relying on the second silencer, the one bearing the identifying mark of DRB/1 (22), making out to all intents and purposes this had been and was the very same silencer to which everyone was and would be referring to ( Court Exhibit no.9) whilst testifying..
This is where Hayward and Fletcher will come unstuck - because the second silencer (DRB/1 (22), could not possibly have been the silencer inside which on Fletcher's account, he had dismantled at the lab' on12th September 1985, simply because COLP proved that the second silencer did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985. There wasn't even a silencer present at the lab' at any stage after 13th August and before 20th September 1985, as I say because the blood group activity (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP2-1) was obtained from examination of the dried blood flake scraped off the outside of SJ/1 (22), earlier..
They will become unstuck because animal blood was found on / in the second silencer (DRB/1, 22) which Glynis Howard examined in April 1986..
This is what the problem was and is...
The value of the AK1 blood enzyme obtained from examination of the flake (DB/1, 23) between 12th and 19th September 1985, came from the outside of the first silencer (SJ/1, 22), which cannot be married up to the second silencer (DRB/1, 22) examined by Glynis Howard in April 1986, because what you would end up with is a conflict between the value of the AK1 blood belonging to humans and animals...
For this reason, Hayward ignored Howard's findings from the examination of the second silencer in April 1986, because it was during this examination of the second silencer that she detected animal blood on, or in, or both, (silencer) DRB/1 (22)..
-
Basically put for arguments sake, the following applied:-
David About flour scrapes flake of blood from outside of silencer before police arrive to collect the silencer from Peter Eaton. The silencer (minus the removed flake) is taken to the Lab' by Cook on 13th August 1985, and it is only then given an exhibition reference, (SJ/1) and a lab' item number (22). At this time, Cook doesn't know about the Flake of dried blood that David Boutflour has already removed from the silencer, which results in Howard only having access to a relatively small amount of dried blood on the flat surface of the silencers metal end cap, close to a 1/4 inch aperture. She gives the silencer (SJ/1, 22) back to Cook the same day. Shortly afterwards she contacts the police by telephone to tell them that the blood she tested on the silencers end cap is human in origin. Cook retains the silencer (SJ/1, 22)..
On 29th August 1985, relatives visit Witham police station with the flake of blood which unbeknown to police until that time that David Boutflour had scraped from the outside of the silencer (SJ/1, 22) this is the flake that will subsequently sent to the Lab' on the following day (30th August 1985), bearing the identifying mark DB/1 (23)..
it is important to understand why and how this flake of dried blood (DB/1, 23) ended up with the police. This came about because the relatives had been hounding the police at Witham to reinvestigate the case again because they didn't think Sheila could be responsible. There exists evidence in the file which refers to one occasion when relatives are tormenting the police to such an extent, that the police tell them that there is only one more set of results from a test that they are still waiting for, and that was the silencer which Cook had taken to the Lab' on the 13th August 1985. Other than the outcome of that police told relatives during the early days that everything else pointed to Sheila having been responsible for the other deaths, and her own. Well, we know that sometime on the following day, that Glynis Howard contacted the police at Witham with the news that it was human blood found on the flat surface of the silencers end cap, but adding that there was insufficient blood there for blood grouping purposes...
-
Well, we know that sometime on the following day, that Glynis Howard contacted the police at Witham with the news that it was human blood found on the flat surface of the silencers end cap, but adding that there was insufficient blood there for blood grouping purposes...[/color][/i]
So, if the police found out from Glynis Howard on 14th August 1985, that although it was human blood on the silencer, there was however 'insufficient blood for blood grouping purposes', then the occasion I am referring to when relatives were told by the police that there was only one more set of results they were waiting for, before they could be absolutely sure whether Sheila was responsible or not, must have been on an occasion either on the 13th August 1985, or as the case may be, on 14th August 1985 prior to police receiving that information from Glynis Howard..
-
So, if the police found out from Glynis Howard on 14th August 1985, that although it was human blood on the silencer, there was however 'insufficient blood for blood grouping purposes', then the occasion I am referring to when relatives were told by the police that there was only one more set of results they were waiting for, before they could be absolutely sure whether Sheila was responsible or not, must have been on an occasion either on the 13th August 1985, or as the case may be, on 14th August 1985 prior to police receiving that information from Glynis Howard..
I think this is a very significant discovery..
-
I think this is a very significant discovery..
It's significant for the very reason why the relatives should come forward on the 29th August 1985, when they visited Witham police station with 'the flake of dried blood', which turned out to be exhibit DB/1 (23) that ESSEX police should forward this to the lab' on the following day (30th August 1985), an exhibit which they dishonestly disguised as a silencer!
-
It's significant for the very reason why the relatives should come forward on the 29th August 1985, when they visited Witham police station with 'the flake of dried blood', which turned out to be exhibit DB/1 (23) that ESSEX police should forward this to the lab' on the following day (30th August 1985), an exhibit which they dishonestly disguised as a silencer!
This deception exposed as a lie, because the silencer which eventually became Court Exhibit No.9, had not yet even been handed over to DC Oakley by Ann Eaton by 30th August 1985, she didn't hand it over to him until 11th September 1985! She knows the truth, DC Oakey knows the truth, so did Cook and Miller, and Ainsley. Let's not forget DS Eastwood and DS Davison who fingerprinted 'it' on 13th September 1985...
-
This deception exposed as a lie, because the silencer which eventually became Court Exhibit No.9, had not yet even been handed over to DC Oakley by Ann Eaton by 30th August 1985, she didn't hand it over to him until 11th September 1985! She knows the truth, DC Oakey knows the truth, so did Cook and Miller, and Ainsley. Let's not forget DS Eastwood and DS Davison who fingerprinted 'it' on 13th September 1985...
DC Oakey never collected a silencer Mike. There is no mention of a silencer in her statements. You are just misinterpreting the action report. It refers to the box containing the silencer in the past tense not the present tence.
-
DC Oakey never collected a silencer Mike. There is no mention of a silencer in her statements. You are just misinterpreting the action report. It refers to the box containing the silencer in the past tense not the present tence.
Yes, he did...
It was the same second silencer that DS Eastwood and DS Davison fingerprinted on 13th September 1985. The same second silencer that David Boutflour telephoned Essex police about on the same day (11th September1985) to inform them that he had found the silencer to the gun. Also bear in mind, that the first photographs taken of the scratch marks on the kitchen aga surround was not taken until 14th September 1985. Oh, and not forgetting the statement made by David Boutflour about the two locations inside the cupboard in the downstairs office that he found a silencer!
Last, but not least the contents of Basil Cocks witness statement where he first attended whf as part of his duties as the executor of the parents estate(s), at and - certainly not as early as the 10th August 1985, but during September 1985..
The fingerprinting inside whf, did not in fact get undertaken until after Jeremy Bambers arrest at the beginning of September 1985...
Anyone who suggests otherwise, quite simply does not know what they are talking about..
Young Boutflour, states that Basil Cock was present at the scene when 'he found the Silencer'..
Well, my question is...
-
Young Boutflour, states that Basil Cock was present at the scene when 'he found the Silencer'..
Well, my question is...
If the relatives only recovered one silencer, and that silencer was recovered by David Boutflour at the scene on 10th August 1985, how could Basil Cock have been present, and why were fingerprints already being taken at a time when police were treating the matter at such an early stage as 'a case of four murders and a suicide'?
-
If the relatives only recovered one silencer, and that silencer was recovered by David Boutflour at the scene on 10th August 1985, how could Basil Cock have been present, and why were fingerprints already taken at a time when police were treating the matter at such an early stage (10th August 1985) as 'a case of four murders and a suicide'?
Police, did not start taking fingerprints at whf (the scene) until (a) after Robert Boutflour went to see ACC Simpson, at the beginning of September 1985, and he persuaded him to open a fresh investigation, and (b) Basil Cock eventually arrived at the scene for whatever reason, by which time fingerprint dust was everywhere, all over the place, on everything! So, please, don't either you, or Jeremy, or those representing Jeremy at the moment try to ridicule what I am saying, because what I am reporting is true, and verifiable...
There were two silencers, one recovered 10th August 1985, and a second silencer handed over to DC Oakey by Ann Eaton a month later..
How can you prove that there was only one silencer, rather than two different ones?
-
It is no secret, at least as far as I am concerned, that I am someone afflicted with psychic abilities. Some people say that this condition is a gift, but I disagree, I prefer to treat this ability as an affliction..
I do not enjoy knowing the truth, it is a burden I wish I could throw away, and not concern myself with...
-
It is no secret, at least as far as I am concerned, that I am someone afflicted with psychic abilities. Some people say that this condition is a gift, but I disagree, I prefer to treat this ability as an affliction..
I do not enjoy knowing the truth, it is a burden I wish I could throw away, and not concern myself with...
Despite what many think, or believe in, I can't use this ability to make myself filthy rich, I can't for example, predict the future...
But..
Things that have already transpired in the past, flood into my mind overburdening me, rendering me sleepless, and thoroughly exhausted...
The convictions of Jeremy Bamber is one such case, but not the only transgression - I wish that I wasn't the person chosen to deliver these truths..
-
Despite what many think, or believe in, I can't use this ability to make myself filthy rich, I can't for example, predict the future...
But..
Things that have already transpired in the past, flood into my mind overburdening me, rendering me sleepless, and thoroughly exhausted...
The convictions of Jeremy Bamber is one such case, but not the only transgression - I wish that I wasn't the person chosen to deliver these truths..
I am a psychic, according to a reliable source - but if this be true, it doesn't mean that my life is sweet, since, it has been, is and will continue to be somewhat troublesome, and problematic. Not through my choosing, but simply because that is the way it is - ' it is what it is'...
-
I know, for example, many things, not because I was there when things occurred, or happened, but because I am drowned out with images of the truth, or intense feelings of the circumstances surrounding issues which flood into my consciousness - this is not a gift, but rather a burden..
-
I am a psychic, according to a reliable source - but if this be true, it doesn't mean that my life is sweet, since, it has been, is and will continue to be somewhat troublesome, and problematic. Not through my choosing, but simply because that is the way it is - ' it is what it is'...
For confirmation of this, please don't be afraid to contact the medium, 'Sarah Freeda'..
-
Oackley never collected a silencer. Who whole idea now depends on your alleged psychic powers ;D
-
Oackley never collected a silencer. Who whole idea now depends on your alleged psychic powers ;D
You are wrong!
DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4 exhibits were ultimately handed over on the 11th September 1985, by none other than, Ann Eaton, this being the case, she was also responsible for handing over exhibit DRB/1, that same date. Between David Boutflour, his sister Ann Eaton, and DC Oakley, DS Eastwood, and DS Davison, the second silencer was introduced! You should not try to make fun about my psychic abilities, your attempt at trying to pull this off by attacking me, and my abilities, says quite a lot about you!
Who is Stephen, by the way?
The past may be about to catch up with you!
If, when it does, remember this personal attack upon me!
-
I am sorry to have to report, the death of my pet, animal sanctuary dog, 'Misty', at 9.23am, on the 1st January 2019. The circumstances of which are thus, she had been diagnosed as having cancer and a tumour of the bowel about 4 months ago! One of the vets who was dealing with her case (she was 15 years old in September last year at Sheffield PDSA) wanted to put her to sleep 4 months ago, but I felt that she still had quality of life, and as a result a second vet at the same place, gave her an extended life by prescribing her with aniti- biotics and steroids. I vowed to return her back to the PDSA to be put to sleep once I thought that her quality of life had deteriorated to such an extent that it would be cruel to make her have to suffer unnecessarily!
'Misty' died with dignity, in my arms on the living room floor of my home, at 9.23am on 1st January 2019, just before she passed over her breathing became somewhat frantic, and during the last three breaths that she took upon this earth, she raised her snout into and against my neck / chin, and the last of those three breaths will remain with me forever! She then stopped breathing and I said to my sister who had just arrived at my home a minute or so, beforehand, that God had taken 'Misty' from us...
-
I am sorry to have to report, the death of my pet, animal sanctuary dog, 'Misty', at 9.23am, on the 1st January 2019. The circumstances of which are thus, she had been diagnosed as having cancer and a tumour of the bowel about 4 months ago! One of the vets who was dealing with her case (she was 15 years old in September last year at Sheffield PDSA) wanted to put her to sleep 4 months ago, but I felt that she still had quality of life, and as a result a second vet at the same place, gave her an extended life by prescribing her with aniti- biotics and steroids. I vowed to return her back to the PDSA to be put to sleep once I thought that her quality of life had deteriorated to such an extent that it would be cruel to make her have to suffer unnecessarily!
'Misty' died with dignity, in my arms on the living room floor of my home, at 9.23am on 1st January 2019, just before she passed over her breathing became somewhat frantic, and during the last three breaths that she took upon this earth, she raised her snout into and against my neck / chin, and the last of those three breaths will remain with me forever! She then stopped breathing and I said to my sister who had just arrived at my home a minute or so, beforehand, that God had taken 'Misty' from us...
'Misty' was the best friend that I have ever had in almost all of the 63 years, thus far of my life, she shared the previous 15 years of her life, coping and putting up with me, and all the problems I have brought into her life. Minutes before she died she had been laying on one of my two sofas ( a favorite resting place of hers) and my sister captured an image of her whilst there was still life in her.
After this she voluntarily stepped down from the sofa and proceeded to lay on the floor, and this was followed by a short period of frantic breathing, which alerted me to the fact that her end of days was imminent. As she was taking her final breaths I kept reminding her how much she meant to me, how much I loved her, and how sorry I was for being responsible for keeping all the other people who must have been important to her and her upbringing from her, and I whispered an apology to her for me being responsible for this occurring..
-
'Misty' was the best friend that I have ever had in almost all of the 63 years, thus far of my life, she shared the previous 15 years of her life, coping and putting up with me, and all the problems I have brought into her life. Minutes before she died she had been laying on one of my two sofas ( a favorite resting place of hers) and my sister captured an image of her whilst there was still life in her.
After this she voluntarily stepped down from the sofa and proceeded to lay on the floor, and this was followed by a short period of frantic breathing, which alerted me to the fact that her end of days was imminent. As she was taking her final breaths I kept reminding her how much she meant to me, how much I loved her, and how sorry I was for being responsible for keeping all the other people who must have been important to her and her upbringing from her, and I whispered an apology to her for me being responsible for this occurring..
I then pleaded with god, to take her into his care, at the same time, I was telling 'Misty' that baby Jesus was coming to take her to the kingdom of the Lord, and for her not to worry, that she would be in safe hands, and that I would look forward to meeting up with her again, on my judgement day!
-
It's the second time in my life when a life has passed over to the other side in my arms! On the first occasion, it was my father in law, Gordon...
-
Anyway, the reason I have not being paying as much attention to dealing with issues in the Bamber case, are that I have been preoccupied with these other matters...
But, now I am back..
-
I am sorry to have to report, the death of my pet, animal sanctuary dog, 'Misty', at 9.23am, on the 1st January 2019. The circumstances of which are thus, she had been diagnosed as having cancer and a tumour of the bowel about 4 months ago! One of the vets who was dealing with her case (she was 15 years old in September last year at Sheffield PDSA) wanted to put her to sleep 4 months ago, but I felt that she still had quality of life, and as a result a second vet at the same place, gave her an extended life by prescribing her with aniti- biotics and steroids. I vowed to return her back to the PDSA to be put to sleep once I thought that her quality of life had deteriorated to such an extent that it would be cruel to make her have to suffer unnecessarily!
'Misty' died with dignity, in my arms on the living room floor of my home, at 9.23am on 1st January 2019, just before she passed over her breathing became somewhat frantic, and during the last three breaths that she took upon this earth, she raised her snout into and against my neck / chin, and the last of those three breaths will remain with me forever! She then stopped breathing and I said to my sister who had just arrived at my home a minute or so, beforehand, that God had taken 'Misty' from us...
I am sorry to hear of your very sad loss Mike.
-
I am sorry to have to report, the death of my pet, animal sanctuary dog, 'Misty', at 9.23am, on the 1st January 2019. The circumstances of which are thus, she had been diagnosed as having cancer and a tumour of the bowel about 4 months ago! One of the vets who was dealing with her case (she was 15 years old in September last year at Sheffield PDSA) wanted to put her to sleep 4 months ago, but I felt that she still had quality of life, and as a result a second vet at the same place, gave her an extended life by prescribing her with aniti- biotics and steroids. I vowed to return her back to the PDSA to be put to sleep once I thought that her quality of life had deteriorated to such an extent that it would be cruel to make her have to suffer unnecessarily!
'Misty' died with dignity, in my arms on the living room floor of my home, at 9.23am on 1st January 2019, just before she passed over her breathing became somewhat frantic, and during the last three breaths that she took upon this earth, she raised her snout into and against my neck / chin, and the last of those three breaths will remain with me forever! She then stopped breathing and I said to my sister who had just arrived at my home a minute or so, beforehand, that God had taken 'Misty' from us...
So sorry Mike, my previous dog died in similar circumstances.
-
I am sorry to have to report, the death of my pet, animal sanctuary dog, 'Misty', at 9.23am, on the 1st January 2019. The circumstances of which are thus, she had been diagnosed as having cancer and a tumour of the bowel about 4 months ago! One of the vets who was dealing with her case (she was 15 years old in September last year at Sheffield PDSA) wanted to put her to sleep 4 months ago, but I felt that she still had quality of life, and as a result a second vet at the same place, gave her an extended life by prescribing her with aniti- biotics and steroids. I vowed to return her back to the PDSA to be put to sleep once I thought that her quality of life had deteriorated to such an extent that it would be cruel to make her have to suffer unnecessarily!
'Misty' died with dignity, in my arms on the living room floor of my home, at 9.23am on 1st January 2019, just before she passed over her breathing became somewhat frantic, and during the last three breaths that she took upon this earth, she raised her snout into and against my neck / chin, and the last of those three breaths will remain with me forever! She then stopped breathing and I said to my sister who had just arrived at my home a minute or so, beforehand, that God had taken 'Misty' from us...
So sad that you've lost your dear friend, Mike. I'm sorry.
-
I am sorry to hear of your very sad loss Mike.
Thank You for your support, it means such a lot..
-
So sad that you've lost your dear friend, Mike. I'm sorry.
Thank You for your support, it means such a lot..
-
So sad that you've lost your dear friend, Mike. I'm sorry.
Thank You for your support, it means such a lot..
'Misty' was taken to a Chapel of rest, and eventually cremated - her ashes returned and subsequently laid to rest beneath a pear tree in my sisters back garden..
At the time of my last view of 'Misty' the following image was captured in a photograph - astonishingly, the crescent moon scar on the right hand side of my own face appears to have been replicated on the left hand side of 'Misty's' face. I have no explanation for why this phenomena should have appeared, other then to say that when she passed over, she snooked the left hand side of her snout and face close against me - I treat this distinctive mark on 'Misty' face as captured in the last photograph I have of her as being some sort of a sign bonding us together..
-
Thank You for your support, it means such a lot..
'Misty' was taken to a Chapel of rest, and eventually cremated - her ashes returned and subsequently raid to rest beneath a pear tree in my sisters back garden..
At the time of my last view of 'Misty' the following image was captured in a photograph - astonishingly, the crescent moon scar on the right hand side of my own face appears to have been replicated on the left hand side of 'Misty's' face. I have no explanation for why this phenomena should have appeared, other then to say that when she passed over, she snooked the left hand side of her snout and face close against me - I treat this distinctive mark on 'Misty' face as captured in the last photograph I have of her as being some sort of a sign bonding us together..
Mike, I imagine the bonding between you occurred long before she drew her last breath. You've probably experienced it on a daily basis.
-
I am sorry to have to report, the death of my pet, animal sanctuary dog, 'Misty', at 9.23am, on the 1st January 2019. The circumstances of which are thus, she had been diagnosed as having cancer and a tumour of the bowel about 4 months ago! One of the vets who was dealing with her case (she was 15 years old in September last year at Sheffield PDSA) wanted to put her to sleep 4 months ago, but I felt that she still had quality of life, and as a result a second vet at the same place, gave her an extended life by prescribing her with aniti- biotics and steroids. I vowed to return her back to the PDSA to be put to sleep once I thought that her quality of life had deteriorated to such an extent that it would be cruel to make her have to suffer unnecessarily!
'Misty' died with dignity, in my arms on the living room floor of my home, at 9.23am on 1st January 2019, just before she passed over her breathing became somewhat frantic, and during the last three breaths that she took upon this earth, she raised her snout into and against my neck / chin, and the last of those three breaths will remain with me forever! She then stopped breathing and I said to my sister who had just arrived at my home a minute or so, beforehand, that God had taken 'Misty' from us...
So sorry you have lost your beloved Misty, Mike. x77
-
Mike, I imagine the bonding between you occurred long before she drew her last breath. You've probably experienced it on a daily basis.
Yeah, I understand that, I am just grateful that she died in my arms, and that she didn't pass over on the end of an injection. The fact that my sister arranged for her remains to be on display at the chapel of rest, eased my suffering. And, left me with a clear memory of the dog 'Misty' was to me. She was often a character, set in her ways, but always well loved by me, and well looked after. I know that in general she outlived her expected lifespan, one of the vets told me that 'Misty' breed of dog would normally be expected to have a life span of between 7 - 10 years, and so I got overtime..
Anyway, I am going to try and get on with the rest of my life, now..
Thanks to all of you who have been touched by my grief..
-
So sorry you have lost your beloved Misty, Mike. x77
Thanks, Maggie..
-
Ann Eaton told the court that she thought the blood on the silencer was rabbit blood since Jeremy had been shooting rabbits the night before. Despite knowing that A) He didn't get a chance to shoot any and B) The silencer was not on the gun. How she was able to detect blood five days old that her brother failed to notice any of earlier that day is to my mind highly suspicious.
Moreover, what she told the court differs from her early September statement. Here she seems to have thought it was involved in the deaths of the family. Nothing to do with rabbits.
(https://i.ibb.co/64t0RvR/ann47-001.jpg)
-
Ann Eaton told the court that she thought the blood on the silencer was rabbit blood since Jeremy had been shooting rabbits the night before. Despite knowing that A) He didn't get a chance to shoot any and B) The silencer was not on the gun. How she was able to detect blood five days old that her brother failed to notice any of earlier that day is to my mind highly suspicious.
Moreover, what she told the court differs from her early September statement. Here she seems to have thought it was involved in the deaths of the family. Nothing to do with rabbits.
(https://i.ibb.co/64t0RvR/ann47-001.jpg)
Ok, I will try to bring the truth in this matter to the table:-
Now, according to the notes typed out by Robert Boutflour, David Boutflour (his son) did not find the first silencer until 11th August 1985...
-
How could Robert Boutflour be 24 hrs out of sync' regarding the time his son found, and discovered the silencer, (David, his son and Ann Eaton his daughter, claimed he found the silencer on the 10th August 1985) - please, the lot of you, stop acting like you are all dumb..
10th /or 11th August 1985, please, who is / was correct?
How could some of the prosecution witnesses, who stood to benefit from the Bamber parents, and Mabel Speakman estate, be 24 hours out of sync' regarding when 'the' key silencer was discovered, recovered?
Cops, relatives, and lab' experts acted like common criminals - and I am going to expose the lot of you rotten morons! I can think outside the perimeters of ordinary folk, you lot will not fool me!
-
How could Robert Boutflour be 24 hrs out of sync' regarding the time his son found, and discovered the silencer, (David, his son and Ann Eaton his daughter, claimed he found the silencer on the 10th August 1985) - please, the lot of you, stop acting like you are all dumb..
10th /or 11th August 1985, please, who is / was correct?
How could some of the prosecution witnesses, who stood to benefit from the Bamber parents, and Mabel Speakman estate, be 24 hours out of sync' regarding when 'the' key silencer was discovered, recovered?
Cops, relatives, and lab' experts acted like common criminals - and I am going to expose the lot of you rotten morons! I can think outside the perimeters of ordinary folk, you lot will not fool me!
The full estate of the Bamber parents (and Mabel Speakman) should temporarily be stripped from every relative who gleefully succeeded once Jeremy Bamber was convicted, as recipients of vast wealth to boot!
Freeze the assets of all the relatives, until there has been a cold case review of the so called 'Bamber Case'..
-
I do not consider myself to be any sort of a fool, alarm bells are ringing, seems to me that greed influenced the relatives stance ...
If a jury were asked to judge whether or not the relatives were influenced by their desire to inherit the wealth of the deceased Bamber parents, and the awesome wealth of the Speakman's dangled in front of them, I truly believe that such a jury would have found the lot of them 'guilty' , as charged?
Greed, lies at the heart of this case, those who had a lot to lose, not on a one to one basis, but a group of greedy individuals against one person, that group were the greedy relatives, and unfortunately the individual was Jeremy Bamber..
The relatives can't even agree when they found the same silencer!!!
-
I do not consider myself to be any sort of a fool, alarm bells are ringing, seems to me that greed influenced the relatives stance ...
If a jury were asked to judge whether or not the relatives were influenced by their desire to inherit the wealth of the deceased Bamber parents, and the awesome wealth of the Speakman's dangled in front of them, I truly believe that such a jury would have found the lot of them 'guilty' , as charged?
Greed, lies at the heart of this case, those who had a lot to lose, not on a one to one basis, but a group of greedy individuals against one person, that group were the greedy relatives, and unfortunately the individual was Jeremy Bamber..
The relatives can't even agree when they found the same silencer!!!
10th August 1985 - versus - 11th August 1985 (don't worry, the relatives are only 24 hours out of sync'), oh, and then there was the silencer which Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakley on 11th September 1985, on the same date (11th September 1985) her brother contacted Essex police to tell them that he had found the silencer to the gun!
OK..
Here, we have a month long period between the alleged find of the silencer (10th August 1985 and 11th September 1985) , whereas, elsewhere there was a diffence of only one day (10th August 1985 - versus - 11th August 1985)...
It's make your mind up time, which out of sync' argument would you believe in?
Why can't the evidence ring true?
-
There are many amongst you, who refuse to accept the truth in this matter - if the suspect had been one of your own flesh and blood who you genuinely cared for, you would be supporting that which I am pointing out! But everything points to those of you being brainwashed individuals who will accept everything, and whatever the system alleges!l
If you are one of these people, you ought to feel ashamed of yourself!
-
You, yes you are you are going to be exposed as a supporter of dishonesty, and corruption...
I am gunning for you, and your dishonest beliefs..
There is no evidence to support the suggestion that Sheila had'nt and did'nt take her own life - everything points to the fact that she did, and tha5 she had taken her own life!
-
10th August 1985 - versus - 11th August 1985 (don't worry, the relatives are only 24 hours out of sync'), oh, and then there was the silencer which Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakley on 11th September 1985, on the same date (11th September 1985) her brother contacted Essex police to tell them that he had found the silencer to the gun!
OK..
Here, we have a month long period between the alleged find of the silencer (10th August 1985 and 11th September 1985) , whereas, elsewhere there was a diffence of only one day (10th August 1985 - versus - 11th August 1985)...
It's make your mind up time, which out of sync' argument would you believe in?
Why can't the evidence ring true?
It was the 10th
-
Here is how Ann Eaton describes what was thought of this "discovery" prior to contacting the police.
"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."
However come Jeremy's trial she plays dumb while being examined by the prosecution.
"At the time I did not know whether it was rabbit blood or what. and I thought the jewellery was the most important thing, turns out I was wrong."
Then under cross examination she gives the following explanation.
"Q: How could you imagine that the blood at the end of the silencer might be a rabbits blood?
A: I don't know.
Q: That is what you told the court. How could you imagine that it might be a rabbits blood?
A: Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before."
Problem here is that she overhead the conversation between Jeremy/police and her brother, which he describes under examination.
"Q: Now whilst you had been at Jeremy's house at Goldhanger on the day after the killings, and you overheard him talking to the police, do you recall anything being said by anybody about the silencer or a silencer or telescopic sight in relation to the gun?
A: Yes, I recall Jeremy having said that the silencer and the telescopic sight of the undermentioned gun had been removed for the purpose of -----"
And so. Ann Eaton not only did not believe Jeremy's story of the rabbits, she also knew no silencer was attached to the gun. Yet she tells the court she thought blood may have got there because Jeremy was shooting rabbits with the silencer attached. However In her September 8th statement she presupposes the silencer was in involved the killings of the family and she describes herself more or less working out the prosecution case before charges are even brought. Unbelievable.
-
It was the 10th
Robert Boutlour says it was the 11th August 1985..
Moreover, there is blood and paint on the end of this silencer once his son David got it back to Ann and Peters house..
-
Here is how Ann Eaton describes what was thought of this "discovery" prior to contacting the police.
"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."
However come Jeremy's trial she plays dumb while being examined by the prosecution.
"At the time I did not know whether it was rabbit blood or what. and I thought the jewellery was the most important thing, turns out I was wrong."
Then under cross examination she gives the following explanation.
"Q: How could you imagine that the blood at the end of the silencer might be a rabbits blood?
A: I don't know.
Q: That is what you told the court. How could you imagine that it might be a rabbits blood?
A: Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before."
Problem here is that she overhead the conversation between Jeremy/police and her brother, which he describes under examination.
"Q: Now whilst you had been at Jeremy's house at Goldhanger on the day after the killings, and you overheard him talking to the police, do you recall anything being said by anybody about the silencer or a silencer or telescopic sight in relation to the gun?
A: Yes, I recall Jeremy having said that the silencer and the telescopic sight of the undermentioned gun had been removed for the purpose of -----"
And so. Ann Eaton not only did not believe Jeremy's story of the rabbits, she also knew no silencer was attached to the gun. Yet she tells the court she thought blood may have got there because Jeremy was shooting rabbits with the silencer attached. However In her September 8th statement she presupposes the silencer was in involved the killings of the family and she describes herself more or less working out the prosecution case before charges are even brought. Unbelievable.
Ann Eaton knew Jeremy attempted to shoot rabbits the night before but missed them. And she also knew that no silencer was on the weapon. As she wrote this down in her notes.
So why did she tell the court that she thought the blood got on the silencer by Jeremy shooting rabbits the night before. Knowing this could not be true and contradicting her statement on the 8th also?
(https://i.ibb.co/wzJLDDx/aenote1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/FH4pG4y/aenote2.jpg)
-
Jeremy didn't shoot at any rabbits, they had disappeared in-between him going into the farmhouse, loading the gun, and venturing out behind the barns - he said he missed the rabbits, meaning they had gone by the time he arrived there, not that he had fired two bullets or that his shots had missed the rabbits..
The presence of animals blood was not detected in the DRB/1 silencer by Glynis Howard until April 1986, she detected two lots of animal bloods in the silencer on that / this occasion..
-
Jeremy didn't shoot at any rabbits, they had disappeared in-between him going into the farmhouse, loading the gun, and venturing out behind the barns - he said he missed the rabbits, meaning they had gone by the time he arrived there, not that he had fired two bullets or that his shots had missed the rabbits..
Yes. And Ann Eaton knew this. This along with her September 8th statement shows that she is lying in court.
-
Ann Eaton knew Jeremy attempted to shoot rabbits the night before but missed them. And she also knew that no silencer was on the weapon. As she wrote this down in her notes.
So why did she tell the court that she thought the blood got on the silencer by Jeremy shooting rabbits the night before. Knowing this could not be true and contradicting her statement on the 8th also?
(https://i.ibb.co/wzJLDDx/aenote1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/FH4pG4y/aenote2.jpg)
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that she was lying simply because she noted down what Jeremy said when questioned? She didn't KNOW he didn't shoot any rabbits, all she knew what what he said.
-
The key thing being the contradiction between David Boutflour not physically examining the first silencer at the scene to the extent that he noticed a 1" elongated scratch mark along the outside of the silencers casing. He makes mention of this in the 43 page witness statement dated 17th September 1985, stating that he noticed this damage on the silencer prior to him leaving the scene. Whereas, whilst testifying during the trial, he said he didn't notice the scratch damage on the side of the silencer until later on in the evening at Peter and Ann Eaton's house!
Somebody cut that bit out of the 17th September 1985 witness statement, which must have been done either by the CPS or Essex police prior to disclosure of the same after the failed 2002 appeal - it was cut out because it seriously contradicted the evidence David Boutflour, gave about the matter under oath. Strangely enough, neither Cook nor Howard saw such an elongated scratch mark on the outside of the first silencer (SJ/1,22) taken to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and the same elongated scratch mark on the outer casing of one of the silencers, was not replicated, or noted as being present at all on the silencer which went to the lab' on that very first occasion..
There must have been two silencers to which David Boutflour had direct involvement..
The first one which Peter Eaton handed over to DS Jones, who in turn handed it over to cook, who in turn took it to the lab' where Glynis Howard provisionally examined it. Then, a second silencer, which Ann Eaton handed over to the police on 11th September 1985. This silencer had the 1" elongated scratch mark along it's sleeve. This was the self same silencer that David Boutflour was alluding to when he incorporated mention of the elongated scratch mark in his 43 page witness statement, dated, 17th September 1985, and to which he said whilst testifying, that this second silencer had his fingerprints all over it.
We know that when Cook fingerprinted the first silencer (SJ/1), on 15th and 23rd August 1985, that no fingerprints were found upon it. The reason for this was because the first silencer (SJ/1,22) was not the same silencer David Boutflour had been referring to when he spoke about the damaged gun blue scratch along the sleeve of the other silencer, and the silencer with his fingerprints all over it. He was being deliberately evasive when he was being questioned about which box he had found the silencer he was talking about, in? The reason why he gave confusing replies about which box the silencer with the 1" elongated scratch along its sleeve was found in, was because he found two silencers in the same cupboard, one month a part! The second silencer which turned out to be DRB/1 was left in the box that he put back in the cupboard at the scene on 10th August 1985.(refer to the relevant part of the recently discovered statement contents, dated, 17th September 1985) - he made s statement dated 14th September 1985 to police giving the two different locations inside the gun cupboard where he found each one of the two silencers!
-
Ann Eaton handed over what turned out to be exhibit DRB/1 to the police on 11th September 1985, followed by the other DRB exhibits (DRB/2, DRB/3, and DRB/4) which the police collected from whf on the 14th September 1985.
-
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that she was lying simply because she noted down what Jeremy said when questioned? She didn't KNOW he didn't shoot any rabbits, all she knew what what he said.
Her answer explicitly states "Jeremy said"
"Q: How could you imagine that the blood at the end of the silencer might be a rabbits blood?
A: I don't know.
Q: That is what you told the court. How could you imagine that it might be a rabbits blood?
A: Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before."
However Jeremy SAID he did not get a chance to shoot them. And Jeremy also SAID the silencer had been removed from the gun. Ann Eaton knew Jeremy SAID this and hence her answer "Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before." as for why she thought rabbit blood was on the silencer is clearly a lie.
Moreover, there is a major discrepancy in her trial testimony and her September 8th statement. Its not just what she wrote down here.
-
Her answer explicitly states "Jeremy said"
"Q: How could you imagine that the blood at the end of the silencer might be a rabbits blood?
A: I don't know.
Q: That is what you told the court. How could you imagine that it might be a rabbits blood?
A: Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before."
However Jeremy SAID he did not get a chance to shoot them. And Jeremy also SAID the silencer had been removed from the gun. Ann Eaton knew Jeremy SAID this and hence her answer "Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before." as for why she thought rabbit blood was on the silencer is clearly a lie.
Moreover, there is a major discrepancy in her trial testimony and her September 8th statement. Its not just what she wrote down here.
Major discrepancy? I think you're over egging this. I think Jeremy himself has contradicted himself more than anyone else in this case. Ann Eaton's comments are neither here nor there.
-
Major discrepancy? I think you're over egging this. I think Jeremy himself has contradicted himself more than anyone else in this case. Ann Eaton's comments are neither here nor there.
What you think doesn't really concern me TBH.
-
What you think doesn't really concern me TBH.
Likewise!
Your argument is made even weaker when you look at what Jeremy himself said about both the rifle and whether he fired any shots during his police interview! If he can't be sure, how can anyone else.
-
Major discrepancy? I think you're over egging this. I think Jeremy himself has contradicted himself more than anyone else in this case. Ann Eaton's comments are neither here nor there.
Jeremy does not have all the answers to solving his miscarriage of justice just because he is the victim!
Just because you might be innocent of whatever matter you become convicted of, does not mean that you will have all the answers or know all the solutions to get you out of every fix in the case...
-
Jeremy does not have all the answers to solving his miscarriage of justice just because he is the victim!
Just because you might be innocent of whatever matter you become convicted of, does not mean that you will have all the answers or know all the solutions to get you out of every fix in the case...
No, I agree, but you would know if you fired the gun at some rabbits or not and you would know if the silencer was on or off.
David is making much of AE contradicting herself when it's something people do everyday and Jeremy is no different in this respect as I am sure you know.
-
No, I agree, but you would know if you fired the gun at some rabbits or not and you would know if the silencer was on or off. I am well aware of many discrepancies in Jeremy's fluctuating account on the rabbit shooting saga. You see, he told me at the beginning when I first met him at Full Sutton Prison in 1989, that when he loaded up the ammunition magazine in the kitchen prior to leaving the house to hopefully get a shot off at a rabbit or two, something which has always puzzled me? He thinks I have forgot what he told me, but he would be mistaken in taking that attitude with me, because I had a habit of making notes about everything he told me. There has not yet been any explanation for the absence of the piece of evidence that he told me about. There's an old saying 'the devil is in the detail'...
David is making much of AE contradicting herself when it's something people do everyday and Jeremy is no different in this respect as I am sure you know. Everyone should be given the opportunity to respond to things which someone is accusing them of, There are a number of very serious contradictions in the relatives accounts, which are laid threadbare for all to see and comment upon. Until such times as a relative or two, comes forward to put the record straight there will always be people who believe what they want to believe, its human nature...
-
Jeremy said that in September. Its what Ann Eaton heard Jeremy say on the 7th of August that matters. And what was going through her mind on the 10th/11th of August that is important here.
What was going through Ann Eaton's mind on 10th/11th of August? According to her it was as follows.
"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."
And
"At the time I did not know whether it was rabbit blood or what. and I thought the jewellery was the most important thing, turns out I was wrong."
These statements are totally incompatible. In one she works out that it contradicts the murder suicide and they call the police while in the other she gives the impression that she doesnt have a clue and thought the Jewellery was more important. So one of these statements is a lie.
Her latter claim is a lie and when Rivlin asked her elaborate she lied to explain the lie. She first answered "I don't know" since she had not thought of an answer. Once he repeated the question she came up with one.
"Q: How could you imagine that the blood at the end of the silencer might be a rabbits blood?
A: I don't know.
Q: That is what you told the court. How could you imagine that it might be a rabbits blood?
A: Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before."
So, its OK for Jeremy to be evasive about something he should KNOW but AE's contradiction is 'important'? ::)
-
So, its OK for Jeremy to be evasive about something her should KNOW but AE's contradiction is 'important'? ::)
Considering it involves an exhibit that she is a key witness to, an exhibit that if taken at face value implicates a man in the murder of five members of his family. This contradiction coming out at this mans murder trial with the Judge telling the jury they can convict him on this evidence alone. Its extremely important. Should go without saying really.
Why do you think I post this stuff on here? This is not a game of trivial pursuit.
-
Ann Eaton knows more than she is telling..
After the shootings both she and her husband stood to loose a valuable piece of land - they knew that it would go to Jeremy, and they went out of their way to try to force the police to arrest Jeremy for the murders..
Why is she remaining silent about the silencer (DRB/1) that she knows she handed over to the police on 11th September 1985? Why does her brother David Boutflour deny contacting Essex police on that very same date to inform them that he had found the silencer to the gun?
Between 11th and 14th September 1985, the relatives and police were in cahoots together trying to put together a failsafe piece of evidence that Bambers legal team would be hard pressed to overcome! That failsafe piece of evidence was the silencer, it was only after 11th September 1985, that the scratch marks were first photographed as being present upon the kitchen aga surround (14th September 1985), blood group evidence from the flake obtained, 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, and ingrained paint in / on the knurled end of the silencers end cap confirmed at the beginning of October 1985...
Together with the help and co-operation of police, relatives and experts, they set the trap to convict Jeremy as the killer...
-
Never before in the history of the Criminal Justice system has the same exhibit (a silencer) had so many different exhibit references, or identifying marks, and Lab' item reference numbers, which just all happen to fall under the Court Exhibit No.9 (the continuity of the silencer evidence stands in tatters, as does any dodgy evidence that the perpetrators associated to it, in the form of the blood, the paint, the grey hair, the shiny elongated scratch mark, How can the self same piece of evidence in the form of the silencer, have so many different exhibit references SBJ/1, SJ/1(22), DB/1 (23) and (22), AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1(22)?
It's possible to break the periods when the silencer took on one of these many disguises:-
SBJ/1 - 7th - 9th August 1985 (Silencer)
SJ/1(22) - 13th August 1985 Silencer)
DB/1 (23) - 30th August 1985 (Flake)
AE/1 - 11th September 1985 (Silencer)
CAE/1 - 11th September 1985 (Silencer)
DRB/1(75) - 20TH September 1985 (Silencer)
DB/1(22) - November 1985 (Silencer)
DRB/1 (22) Court Exhibit No.9 - October 1986 (Silencer)
-
Never before in the history of the Criminal Justice system has the same exhibit (a silencer) had so many different exhibit references, or identifying marks, and Lab' item reference numbers, which just all happen to fall under the Court Exhibit No.9 (the continuity of the silencer evidence stands in tatters, as does any dodgy evidence that the perpetrators associated to it, in the form of the blood, the paint, the grey hair, the shiny elongated scratch mark, How can the self same piece of evidence in the form of the silencer, have so many different exhibit references SBJ/1, SJ/1(22), DB/1 (23) and (22), AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1(22)?
It's possible to break the periods when the silencer took on one of these many disguises:-
SBJ/1 - 7th - 9th August 1985 (Silencer)
SJ/1(22) - 13th August 1985 Silencer)
DB/1 (23) - 30th August 1985 (Flake)
AE/1 - 11th September 1985 (Silencer)
CAE/1 - 11th September 1985 (Silencer)
DRB/1(75) - 20TH September 1985 (Silencer)
DB/1(22) - November 1985 (Silencer)
DRB/1 (22) Court Exhibit No.9 - October 1986 (Silencer)
Mike there was no AE/1 or CAE/1. There is no documents that show a silencer under the references of AE/1 CAE/1.
The silencer was changed from DB/1 to DRB/1 because it conflicted with the exhibits collected by David Bird. Hence they put David's middle name into the reference. The only reference that has no official explanation is SJ/1.
-
Considering it involves an exhibit that she is a key witness to, an exhibit that if taken at face value implicates a man in the murder of five members of his family. This contradiction coming out at this mans murder trial with the Judge telling the jury they can convict him on this evidence alone. Its extremely important. Should go without saying really.
Why do you think I post this stuff on here? This is not a game of trivial pursuit.
You post for the same reason as everyone else - you have an interest in the case.
The point you have made is weak because once again, you don't look at both sides and go off half cocked. Read her statement in which she recounts what Jeremy told the police about the rabbit shoot. When he said he 'missed them' - you could take that two ways. The first is the way you have taken it, meaning that they were gone when he went out to find them - or it could mean that he fired at them, but didn't hit them. Read the next part she states that Bamber didn't know how many shots he fired? Hmmmmmm! I can believe he might not remember how many shots he fired BUT not that he couldn't remember if he had fired any or not! I think he changed his story from having fired some shots, to never having fired it at all because he knew there would be no evidence of the fired shots - spent cartridges or bullets. He also seems to have forgotten if he removed the magazine or not. This is the day after the incident and I guess he didn't anticipate what he would be asked - so he's winging it and will tie up the lose ends later.
And yes, he said the silencer wasn't attached but she obviously didn't believe him.
-
I am well aware of many discrepancies in Jeremy's fluctuating account on the rabbit shooting saga. You see, he told me at the beginning when I first met him at Full Sutton Prison in 1989, that when he loaded up the ammunition magazine in the kitchen prior to leaving the house to hopefully get a shot off at a rabbit or two, something which has always puzzled me? He thinks I have forgot what he told me, but he would be mistaken in taking that attitude with me, because I had a habit of making notes about everything he told me. There has not yet been any explanation for the absence of the piece of evidence that he told me about. There's an old saying 'the devil is in the detail'.
What did he tell you?
-
Mike there was no AE/1 or CAE/1. There is no documents that show a silencer under the references of AE/1 CAE/1.
The silencer was changed from DB/1 to DRB/1 because it conflicted with the exhibits collected by David Bird. Hence they put David's middle name into the reference. The only reference that has no official explanation is SJ/1.
No, in the original Police Property Book Register, the silencer was originally SBJ/1 - this related to the seizure of the first silencer by DS Jones at the scene on 7th August 1985. DS Jones it was who seized a total of four exhibits at the scene on that first morning, the other three items bearing the exhibit references, SBJ/4, SBJ/3 and SBJ/2. The relatives did not know anything at all about the seizure of this silencer, until the evening of 9th August 1985, when DS Jones and DCI Jones returned the silencer (SBJ/1)) to the family, along with (I presume) Anthony Pargeters Brno bolt action rifle. I am satisfied that the Pargeter rifle and its silencer was the rifle which was captured in one of the crime scene photographs taken in the kitchen (which police officers were warned not to make any mention of, or about in their statements or reports, etc..
In point of fact, Ann Eaton makes reference in some sort of handwritten note, that on the evening of 9th August 1985, that her husband Peter had put the gun back - this in fact was the Pargeter rifle and its silencer..
One of the two silencers recovered by David Boutflour from the cupboard in the den, must have been the same silencer (SBJ/1) which police had originally taken on 7th August, but had been returned by evening of 9th August 1985. Obviously, David Boutflour didn't know anything about that, neither did he know that that silencer had originally had the exhibit reference SBJ/1.
I am satisfied that on Saturday 10th August 1985, when David Boutflour found one of the silencers, and after it, or one of the two silencers he did find, had been left with his sister and her husband for safe keeping, that neither David Boutflour or his father Robert Boutflour knew anything about a police involvement with one of the two silencers already, that silencer being SBJ/1. Therefore, on the Monday afternoon (12th August 1985) when Robert Boutflour went along to Witham police station and he drew the attention of the police to the fact that his son David had found a silencer which could have been used in the shootings, this startled DS Jones because nobody was supposed to know that police had taken the silencer originally but that they had returned it to the family on the 9th August 1985 (other than Peter and Ann Eaton , and of course the police officers themselves). So, along went DS Jones that Monday evening to see Peter Eaton and to recollect the silencer which had already been in police possession, found its way back to the farmhouse, and was subsequently seized again for the second time.
However, in order to save face, the silencer couldn't be given its original exhibit reference of SBJ/1, because that would have given the game away, considering that David Boutflour and Robert Boutflour were insisting that David had found the silencer, a few days after the shooting tragedy, not the police. In any event, DS Jones handed the silencer he had received from Peter Eaton to DI Cook, who took it along to the Lab' at Huntingdon on 13th August 1985. Now, it should be remembered that Cook had been in charge of the crime scene on the morning of 7th August 1985, when DS Jones had returned to the farmhouse from Jeremy's cottage and had seized the silencer, originally. So when Jones receives the silencer from DS Jones on that Tuesday morning (13th August 1985), he had no idea that the silencer had been replaced back at whf, or that David Boutflour had rediscovered it three days earlier. So when Cook arrives at the Lab' he notices that there was no exhibit label attached to the silencer, so Cook attaches one of his own, which he gives the exhibit reference SJ/1..
He clearly explains in full to the COLP Investigators, his reason for why he gave the silencer he had taken there to the lab' on that occasion, he said that he thought DS Jones had been the person responsible for finding it, and that he didn't know that Jones had a middle christian name, he only knew DS Jones, as 'Stan Jones', hence why he gave this silencer the identifying mark of SJ/1. Not only that / this, but he and Glynis Howard both signed this exhibit label (SJ/1) at positions two and three. Cook telling COLP that he left the first space on the exhibit label belonging to this silencer, blank so that the finder of the silencer could sign it later on and that he believed DS Jones to have been the finder...
So, here is the official explanation, for how the silencer which started off life as originally being exhibit SBJ/1, became transformed into exhibit reference SJ/1, at the stroke of a pen, or two...
Now, before we get carried away with ourselves this silencer (SJ/1) only ended up with a completely different exhibit reference (from SBJ/1 to SJ/1) not because there had been a clash of names, but rather because of a clash of interests, involving Cook being kept in the dark about the handing back of the silencer to the family which Jones himself had seized at the scene on the first morning of the police investigation. Cook knew nothing about David Boutflour finding it afterwards, hence why he chose to attribute it the designated identifying mark SJ/1 (Lab' Item No.22) when he did..
Why would a silencer bearing an exhibit label SJ/1 (22) as of and from 13th August 1985, suddenly take on a new identity and become exhibit DB/1 (23) by 30th August 1985? Where is the evidence that it was necessary to do this at any stage during this entire 17 day period?
Lets not forget, that David Boutflour did not telephone the police until 11th September 1985, to inform them that he had found the silencer to the gun!
Why would David Boutflour be telephoning the police on the 11th September 1985, to inform them that he had found the silencer to the gun, if they already knew that he had found the silencer to the gun? It simply doesnt make any sort of sense..
Unless, of course, you are not referring to a silencer (SJ/1, 22) already in police possesion, where it had been since the evening of 12th August 1985, but were in fact referring to a different silencer, a second one which in fact did belong to the gun believed to have fired all the shots during the tragedy. A second silencer which David Boutflour had noticed at the scene on 10th August 1985, in a box in the cupboard of the den, a box which he had left behind including one of the two silencers he came upon at that time. David Boutflour only took one of the two silencers he found on that occasion, leaving the other in the box he had found it in. He knew that both silencers could not possibly have been used on the barrel of the same gun, if the same gun had fired all the bullets. Hence why he took one silencer at that time, and discarded the other...
I have no doubt whatsoever that the two silencers at the farmhouse on that occasion were the ones belonging to (a) Anthony Pargeters rifle, and (b) Jeremy Bambers rifle..
For what its worth, I believe that the silencer belonging to Anthony Pargeters rifle at one time or another had the exhibit references SBJ/1, and SJ/1 (22)..
I do not believe that exhibit DB/1 (23) was a silencer at all, I believe that this related to a small flake of dried blood which David Boutflour scraped from the outside of the Pargeter Silencer after it had already been allocated the exhibit reference SBJ/1. The silencer in this disguise (SBJ/1) was never submitted to the lab' to be examined. Only in the disguise of SJ/1 (22) and that was on one time only, 13th August 1985...
DB/1 (23) was the source from which the blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP2-1 said to be unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell were subsequently obtained on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985..
Once this blood group activity was obtained, it became of vital importance that police submit the silencer associated with it to the Lab', so that additional tests could be carried out upon it. The silencer that police sent to the lab' on 20th September 1985, was not the Pargeter silencer (SJ/1, 22), but rather the Bamber one (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1)
Furthermore, that the silencer belonging to the Bamber rifle, at one time or another, had the exhibit references AE/1, CAE/1 and DRB/1(22). It arrived at the Lab' on 20th September 1985 and was duly tested as having human blood upon it that same day..
When David Boutflour telephoned the police to tell them that he had found the silencer to the gun, he knew that police had got the wrong silencer (the Pargeter one), and he knew by that stage that the gun used in the shootings was the Bamber owned rifle. Hence why when he contacted police on 11th September 1985, he was confident in saying that he had found the siklencer to the gun, not any gun, but the gun...
It would have been a sorry tale, if the Pargeter silencer (SBJ/1), SJ/1 (22) had not been switched, with the Bamber silencer
-
What did he tell you?
He told me several times that prior to loading the ammunition magazine up with bullets that he had gone to the gun cupboard and picked up a new box of bullets for his gun, and that he removed the cellophane wrapping from around the box of ammunition and then proceeded to load the gun up with bullets...
My concern was that no cellophane wrapping was discovered on the kitchen side, or in the waste paper bin, or anywhere at all in the kitchen, which struck me as being odd in view of the box itself and 30 corresponding live bullets were still resting there on the kitchen worktop where he said he had tipped the ammunition out during the preloading stage...
Why would the cellophane wrap for the box of ammunition be missing?
(fingerprints)?
Makes you wonder what happened to that wrapper?
-
The Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1, 22) was originally known as AE/1, then it got altered to CAE/1, and finally ended up as DRB/1 (22)..
At one time, for example, all the 'DRB' exhibits, had 'CAE' exhibit references, and prior to that / this, some of the same items had 'AE' exhibit references, and then by jove, some of these items ended up with DC Oakeys exhibit references HGO/1(a), HGO/2(a), etc, etc, etc. The blighters put a smoke screen around all these exhibits trying to stop people finding out exactly what they had done. They thought that by confusing everybody with the constant changing and alteration of the exhibit references that they could pull off the deception without much chance of anyone ever being able to catch them out...
-
There was neither the Pargeter silencer SBJ/1, (SJ/1, 22) or the Bamber silencer (DRB/1, 22) at the lab' at any stage between 13th August 1985 and 20th September 1985...
Exhibit DB/1 (23) was the flake of dried blood sent to the lab' by Essex police on 30th August 1985, which Boutflour used as leverage to convince the police that they had been looking at the wrong silencer...
-
There was neither the Pargeter silencer SBJ/1, (SJ/1, 22) or the Bamber silencer (DRB/1, 22) at the lab' at any stage between 13th August 1985 and 20th September 1985...
Exhibit DB/1 (23) was the flake of dried blood sent to the lab' by Essex police on 30th August 1985, which Boutflour used as leverage to convince the police that they had been looking at the wrong silencer...
Worse still, and something worth considering for sure - David Boutflour admitted that he owned two identical looking parker hale silencers, and that his father, Robert Boutflour, also owned one of his own!
How do any of us know, that the silencer(s) at the heart of this prosecution did not belong to the Boutflours themselves? Seems such a remarkable coincidence that the relatives owned identical looking parker hale silencers as owned by Pargeter and Bamber, and that they introduced the silencer evidence, along with the paint and the blood evidence associated with it...
During the trial David Boutflour talked about his fingerprints being all over the silencer he had found, but couldn't he have said that because the silencer he helped to introduce belonged to himself, or to his father?
-
If all these silencers belonging to the Boutflours, Pargeter and Bamber were all identical looking parker hales, how was it possible to distinguish one from the other in the absence of any serial numbers?
-
If all these silencers belonging to the Boutflours, Pargeter and Bamber were all identical looking parker hales, how was it possible to distinguish one from the other in the absence of any serial numbers?
It would have been the easiest thing in the world to do, for the relatives with the identical looking parker hale silencer, to deliberately contaminate one of their own silencers with blood from the scene and paint from the kitchen aga, and then a month into the investigation, up pops David Boutflour who telephones the police on 11th September 1985, to tell them that he has found the silencer to the gun...
His silencer, not the Bamber owned one, and certainly not the Pargeter one SBJ/1, SJ/1 (22)…
Funny how the relatives had all the answers on how to solve the mystery of these shootings, involving a silencer, a substituted silencer, one of their own which they had a whole month to plot, and scheme, and plan, and plunder with...
I wonder why it was never suggested during the trial that it had not been established who owned the contaminated silencer in question?
Bambers AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1(22)
Pargeter SBJ/1, (SJ/1, 22)
David Boutflour
Robert Boutflour
-
Oh, and then there's the business of David Boutflour unsuccessfully trying to unscrew the silencers end cap off the sleeve of the silencer?
During the trial I think it was Rivlin QC who pointed out that it was a relatively simple thing to do, unscrew the end cap off the silencer (DRB/1, 22) exhibited during the trial?
Maybe, that's because the silencer which David Boutflour had been trying to unscrew had been the Pargeter silencer (SBJ/1), SJ/1 (22) exposed to superglue treatment by Cook on the 23rd August 1985, swapped over after David Boutflour had contacted police on 11th September 1985, informing them that he had found the silencer to the gun..
How did David Boutflour know that the silencer he claims he had found at the time of his 11th September 1985 phone call to the police belonged to the gun?
And, there's the little matter of the missing grey hair, did that strand of grey hair belong to Robert Boutflour, and could this mean that the blood and paint evidence was found inside and upon his own, or his sons parker hale silencer?
-
You post for the same reason as everyone else - you have an interest in the case.
The point you have made is weak because once again, you don't look at both sides and go off half cocked. Read her statement in which she recounts what Jeremy told the police about the rabbit shoot. When he said he 'missed them' - you could take that two ways. The first is the way you have taken it, meaning that they were gone when he went out to find them - or it could mean that he fired at them, but didn't hit them. Read the next part she states that Bamber didn't know how many shots he fired? Hmmmmmm! I can believe he might not remember how many shots he fired BUT not that he couldn't remember if he had fired any or not! I think he changed his story from having fired some shots, to never having fired it at all because he knew there would be no evidence of the fired shots - spent cartridges or bullets. He also seems to have forgotten if he removed the magazine or not. This is the day after the incident and I guess he didn't anticipate what he would be asked - so he'd winging it and will tie up the lose ends later.
And yes, he said the silencer wasn't attached but she obviously didn't believe him.
Caroline you seem to be forgetting the subject here and what I have brought up for discussion. Its not what Jeremy said in August compared to what he said in September. Its not even about whether he done the crime or not. The question is -
Why did Ann Eaton tell the police this -
"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."
But then later tell the Jury this -
"At the time I did not know whether it was rabbit blood or what. and I thought the jewellery was the most important thing, turns out I was wrong."
The only time when what Jeremy said comes into the equation here is what she heard in August and what she wrote down that contradicts the answer she gave under cross examination in relation to the discepancy above.
-
Oh, and then there's the business of David Boutflour unsuccessfully trying to unscrew the silencers end cap off the sleeve of the silencer?
During the trial I think it was Rivlin QC who pointed out that it was a relatively simple thing to do, unscrew the end cap off the silencer (DRB/1, 22) exhibited during the trial?
Maybe, that's because the silencer which David Boutflour had been trying to unscrew had been the Pargeter silencer (SBJ/1), SJ/1 (22) exposed to superglue treatment by Cook on the 23rd August 1985, swapped over after David Boutflour had contacted police on 11th September 1985, informing them that he had found the silencer to the gun..
How did David Boutflour know that the silencer he claims he had found at the time of his 11th September 1985 phone call to the police belonged to the gun?
And, there's the little matter of the missing grey hair, did that strand of grey hair belong to Robert Boutflour, and could this mean that the blood and paint evidence was found inside and upon his own, or his sons parker hale silencer?
That reminds me...
I think it was on or about the 11th August 1985, that Jeremy realised that his relatives were taking valuables from the farmhouse back to Ann and Peter Eaton's house, on the pretence that they were doing this for safe keepings sake. But at any rate, Jeremy told me that he went to the Eaton house and took back everything they had taken that did not belong to them! Come to think of it, that was how the second silencer, ended up back at the farmhouse. I remember Jeremy telling me about the BSA air rifle which the relatives had taken, and how he reclaimed it together with other valuables. I feel sure that because of Jeremy's attitude on this occasion, the relatives would have handed the second silencer back to him if they had taken it from whf on Sunday 11th August 1985...
I think this could explain a mix up between when David Boutflour and his father Robert Boutflour, regarding the date a silencer found its way into the possession of the relatives - David only took one of the two silencers on the 10th August, but took the second silencer belonging to the Bamber gun on the following day (11th August 1985), same day that Jeremy had a few choice words with them, and got everything back off them..
-
That reminds me...
I think it was on or about the 11th August 1985, that Jeremy realised that his relatives were taking valuables from the farmhouse back to Ann and Peter Eaton's house, on the pretence that they were doing this for safe keepings sake. But at any rate, Jeremy told me that he went to the Eaton house and took back everything they had taken that did not belong to them! Come to think of it, that was how the second silencer, ended up back at the farmhouse. I remember Jeremy telling me about the BSA air rifle which the relatives had taken, and how he reclaimed it together with other valuables. I feel sure that because of Jeremy's attitude on this occasion, the relatives would have handed the second silencer back to him if they had taken it from whf on Sunday 11th August 1985...
I think this could explain a mix up between when David Boutflour and his father Robert Boutflour, regarding the date a silencer found its way into the possession of the relatives - David only took one of the two silencers on the 10th August, but took the second silencer belonging to the Bamber gun on the following day (11th August 1985), same day that Jeremy had a few choice words with them, and got everything back off them..
This would then seem to make some sort of sense as to why on 14th September 1985, David Boutflour made a statement to police stating the two places inside the gun cupboard where he had found a silencer, not one silencer in two different places, but two silencers, one being in each of the two places...
-
Jeremy confronted the relatives either on the day he had been to see the Executor of his parents estate, or the day after. By which stage, the police were already satisfied that the silencer had not been fitted to the gun he left out because Jones and Jones had spoken to him about that matter on the afternoon of 9th August 1985. I think that because Jeremy confronted his relatives about the things they had been taking from whf that they wouldn't dared have clung onto his silencer even for a day longer. This makes me believe that the Bamber silencer must have been returned in its box, along with the telescopic sight, and everything to whf after Jeremy confronted the relatives...
Jeremy didn't know anything at all about the silencer having blood or paint upon it at any stage between the shooting incident involving his family, or the date of his second arrest at the end of September 1985. He was never formally interviewed about it, or its possible usage in the shootings, he was simply intercepted at Dover and arrested taken back to Chelmsford and charged with the five murders - buy then of course, the police, relatives and experts had all got their acts together and after altering a few exhibit references here, and a few there, the way had been paved for Bamber to be prosecuted...
Everything of any significance evidence wise occurred during the period from the moment of his first arrest at the beginning of September 1985 until the day of his second arrest at Dover on 30th September 1985....
Lets recap here:-
(1) - introduction of second silencer (DRB/1) by relatives on 11th September 1985
(2) - blood group activity (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP2-1) obtained through examination of flake, 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985 at Lab', subject of DB/1(23)
(3) - fingerprinting of silencer by DS Eastwood and DS Davison on 13th September 1985
(4) - Bullets and cartridge cases from crime scene batch positively associated to riflr that fired all bullets, during unofficial test firing of the anshuzt rifle with control ammunition, and comparison tests beimng carried out at the lab' on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985 (whereas, the ballistic expert Fletcher claims not to have test fired any control rounds inside the rifle until on 20th & 25th September, and 1st & 2nd October 1985 - his signature appears on the Lab' recordsserving to confirm that he knew that there had been an earlier test firing of the weapon with control ammunition)..
(5) - the contents of witness statements were prepared ranging from dates 10th, 12th, 17th and 20th September 1985, making out the case that relatives had only found one silencer, and that police only received one silencer from them, and that the lab' had only examined one silencer in connection with the intended prosecution..
-
Jeremy confronted the relatives either on the day he had been to see the Executor of his parents estate, or the day after. By which stage, the police were already satisfied that the silencer had not been fitted to the gun he left out because Jones and Jones had spoken to him about that matter on the afternoon of 9th August 1985. I think that because Jeremy confronted his relatives about the things they had been taking from whf that they wouldn't dared have clung onto his silencer even for a day longer. This makes me believe that the Bamber silencer must have been returned in its box, along with the telescopic sight, and everything to whf after Jeremy confronted the relatives...
This would have paved the way for the relatives to return to whf once Jeremy was in custody on the first occasion (8th September, onwards), to recover the second silencer (the Bamber one) and enable David Boutflour on 11th September 1985 to contact the police by telephone as he had done to inform them that he had found the silencer to the gun, and on the same date his sister hand over to police the second silencer (the Bamber owned one). Lo and behold the day after Jeremy got bailed on a burglary charge (Osea Road Camp Site), the cops take the first photographs of the scratch marks on the kitchen aga surround...
These photographs taken to support the ballistic evidence being prepared at around the same time, including the dodgy blood group evidence and the corresponding paint evidence associated with and to the second silencer (DRB/1) presumably only noticed by anyone at the Lab, once the silencer had allegedly been returned to the lab' on some second occasion (when in fact each of the two silencers got submitted to the lab' only once, SJ/1 (22) on the 13th August 1985, and DRB/1 (22) on 20th September 1985). The difference between these two silencers as of 13th August 1985, was negligible, other than the first silencer to arrive at the lab' on 13th August 1985 did have human blood on the flat face of its metal end cap and partially inside the 1/4" aperture. There was no grey coloured hair clinging to it, and there was no paint ingrained into the knurled pattern around the circumference of its end cap, oh and there was no damaged gun blue or any 1" long elongated scratch along the outside of the first silencers sleeve..
-
This would have paved the way for the relatives to return to whf once Jeremy was in custody on the first occasion (8th September, onwards), to recover the second silencer (the Bamber one) and enable David Boutflour on 11th September 1985 to contact the police by telephone as he had done to inform them that he had found the silencer to the gun, and on the same date his sister hand over to police the second silencer (the Bamber owned one). Lo and behold the day after Jeremy got bailed on a burglary charge (Osea Road Camp Site), the cops take the first photographs of the scratch marks on the kitchen aga surround...
These photographs taken to support the ballistic evidence being prepared at around the same time, including the dodgy blood group evidence and the corresponding paint evidence associated with and to the second silencer (DRB/1) presumably only noticed by anyone at the Lab, once the silencer had allegedly been returned to the lab' on some second occasion (when in fact each of the two silencers got submitted to the lab' only once, SJ/1 (22) on the 13th August 1985, and DRB/1 (22) on 20th September 1985). The difference between these two silencers as of 13th August 1985, was negligible, other than the first silencer to arrive at the lab' on 13th August 1985 did have human blood on the flat face of its metal end cap and partially inside the 1/4" aperture. There was no grey coloured hair clinging to it, and there was no paint ingrained into the knurled pattern around the circumference of its end cap, oh and there was no damaged gun blue or any 1" long elongated scratch along the outside of the first silencers sleeve..
The damaged gun blue and the 1" elongated scratch mark along the sleeve of the silencer only applied to the second silencer (Bamber owned one) which between them the Boutflour brother and sister introduced into the equation from 11th September 1985, onward...
-
The damaged gun blue and the 1" elongated scratch mark along the sleeve of the silencer only applied to the second silencer (Bamber owned one) which between them the Boutflour brother and sister introduced into the equation from 11th September 1985, onward...
I would like to talk some more about the relevance of this damaged gun blue and the 1" elongated scratch mark along the sleeve of the second silencer...
David Boutflour and the cops which helped to introduce the second silencer (DRB/1), from 11th September 1985, onward got too clever for their own good..
You see, that distinctive shiny 1" elongated scratch mark existed on the outer sleeve of the Bamber owned silencer, visible to David Boutflours naked eye when it was recovered from the scene on 11th September 1985 - but, one thing they didn't bargain for is the fact that by that stage the first silencer (the Pargeter) owned one (SBJ/1, SJ/1, 22) had already been exposed to superglue treatment by DI Cook at Sandridge on 23rd August 1985, and therefore as of the recovery of the second silencer (DRB/1 (22) by 11th September 1985, the damaged gun blue including the 1" long elongated scratch mark on the sleeve of it wouldn't have been noticeable on the first silencer (the Pargeter one) even if there had been a corresponding mark upon it because it would have been coated over with superglue!
Hence why, in the recently discovered 43 page witness statement, made out in David Boutflours name, had the relevant portion on page 12 cut out of the page before police / CPS disclosed it to Bamber after his failed 2002 appeal...
The Cops, CPS, and experts at the lab' who were all involved in this deception all knew (along with the relatives who were behind the scheme) that there was no 1" elongated scratch mark along the sleeve of the first silencer SJ/1 (22) that got brought to the lab' on 13th August 1985. Furthermore, Cook and everybody else knew that he had superglued the first silencer on 23rd August 1985, and that there hadn't been a 1" elongated scratch mark along the outer sleeve of that particular silencer at that time / stage, otherwise he would almost certainly not have destroyed such a key piece of evidence..
(1) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9872.0;attach=54789;image
(2) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9872.0;attach=54795;image
The silencer which David Boutflour contacted police about on the 11th September 1985, was the second silencer which Cook had no direct involvement with, he didn't expose this second silencer to superglue treatment (only the first silencer). The silencer used at the trial was the second silencer (Bamber owned one) DRB/1 (22), Court Exhibit No.9...
-
Here are the missing contents that were cut out from page 12 of David Boutflours 43 page witness statement dated 17th September 1985:-
it seems so obvious that when he is referring to the silencer on this occasion, and that he noticed the elongated scratch mark on the sleeve of the silencer, and the paint, and that Ann later informed the police, that he is talking about the hand over of the second silencer to the police (the Bamber owned Silencer)on 11th September 1985, because Ann Eaton didn't contact the police in connection with the hand over of the first silencer on 12th August 1985, her father Robert Boutflour did, and she didn't hand over that silencer (SJ/1, 22) to DS Jones on that particular evening, her husband Peter Eaton had and did! The other clue rests with the fact that nobody at the lab' saw any red paint ingrained into the knurl of the silencers end cap on the first occasion a silencer (SJ/1, 22) was taken to the lab', in fact there is a clear handwritten note of the silencer diagram dated 13th August 1985, that after the return of the silencer to the lab' because of fingerprinting paint was first noticed to be present in the knurl...
Well, second time any silencer got sent or taken to the lab' after 13th August 1985, was on 20th September 1985 - on each if these two occasions a second lab' diagram of a silencer was made out..
Exhibit DB/1 (23) was not a silencer, otherwise there would have existed another diagram, dated 30th August 1985...
DB/1 (23) was the flake of blood, which subsequently produced the blood grouping results!
-
The clue capable of showing that there had been two silencers which the relatives came upon, or knew about it by 10th August 1985, rests in the contents of page 11 and page 12 of David Boutflours 43 page witness statement, dated, 17th September 1985...
contents reproduced here for reference (with cut out missing contents)..
-
The rather ambiguous terms reported in this version of David Boutflours witness statement, serve to mask the existence of both silencers..
He clearly mentions that he put the cardboard box containing the bag and other thing including the silencer back in the cupboard, after he goes on to describe other items which he makes out the case for removing them all to Ann Eaton's house! But if he placed the cardboard box back in the cupboard, how could he possibly have taken the entire contents of that box away with him to his sisters house? Surely he would have also taken the box that everything was contained inside of?
I have no doubt that he did take away a silencer, but it wasn't the Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1), it was the Pargeter silencer (SBJ/1), SJ/1 (22). He did not return to collect the Bamber silencer (DRB/1) until after Jeremy had been taken into custody on the first occasion. I believe I am right in saying that at around this time, the relatives knew that the silencer the police had got, handed to them by Peter Eaton on13th August 1985, was the silencer belonging to Anthony Pargeters gun (SJ/1, 22), and they found out that cops were saying that the same gun had fired all the shots, that gun being the Bamber owned Anshutz rifle..
It must have puzzled the relatives and the police, how come the Pargeter owned silencer had got human blood upon it, and perhaps even inside it, and how come all the bullets used in the shooting of the five victims had been fired from the Bamber owned anshuzt rifle?
I feel sure that because of this disparity that the Boutflour / Eaton clan must have thought that perhaps either Jeremy was responsible Alone for the killings, or that he could have been in cahoots with Jeremy in a joint enterprise for them to benefit from the parents estate(s), and perhaps later on, also take a share in Mabel Speakmans estate?
-
The overall impression I get of the relatives stance, is that they got themselves wound up thinking that Jeremy had manipulated himself into the prime position of beneficiary in the case of his parents estate(s), and that this entitlement would overspill into the estate of Mabel Speakman, taking a vast chunk out of their anticipated wealth. I think they thought that Jeremy was going to sell up, forcing them to put Osea Road Camp site up for sale, etc, etc, etc and that it would ruin their lifestyle..
-
The overall impression I get of the relatives stance, is that they got themselves wound up thinking that Jeremy had manipulated himself into the prime position of beneficiary in the case of his parents estate(s), and that this entitlement would overspill into the estate of Mabel Speakman, taking a vast chunk out of their anticipated wealth. I think they thought that Jeremy was going to sell up, forcing them to put Osea Road Camp site up for sale, etc, etc, etc and that it would ruin their lifestyle..
They also had grave concerns that Anthony Pargeter might also stand to benefit from the Bamber estate, and they were worried that his silencer (SJ/1, 22) had got the human blood found upon it, and perhaps inside it..
-
A rather telling piece of information which helps to build up a true profile about what was going on behind the scene, involved Anthony Pargeter telling COLP that David Boutflour had told him that police had given the silencer back to the family! When COLP looked into this, and asked David Boutflour about it, he denied having ever said such a thing!
But, of course, he would say that, and of course, depending upon which version of the COLP report the statement from Boutflour went into, COLP would go along with what he had to say in that instance..
Anthony Pargeter told the truth about the return of the silencer to the family, because he knows that police originally had his silencer SBJ/1, SJ/1 (22), and that on or after 11th September 1985, it got replaced by the Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1) at the heart of the five murders investigation (when the case had been one of four murders and a suicide it didn't matter that his silencer was implicated)...
Hence, why the swap over of the silencers, since had a silencer been used by Jeremy in the guise of him being the killer, it would look somewhat odd and suspicious that the prosecutions case involved the fact that somebody else's silencer had been used on the Bamber owned rifle when the murders had been carried out?
So, the decision to prosecute Bamber had to involve a switch of silencers, out with the Pargeter one, in with Bambers...
-
Don't forget, that both silencers couldn't be fitted not the barrel of the Anshuzt rifle at one and the same time!
-
Don't forget, that both silencers couldn't be fitted not the barrel of the Anshuzt rifle at one and the same time!
Nevertheless, we can't get away from the fact that human blood was found on the outside of the Pargeter silencer (SJ/1, 22), and in its 1/4" aperture. Also rest assured that the blood group results obtained at the Lab' on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, were produced from the examination of a flake of dried blood which David Boutflour had scraped off the outside of the Pargeter silencer (SJ/1, 22) before Peter Eaton handed that silencer over to DS Jones on 12th August 1985..
It begs the question - how on earth did the Pargeter silencer become contaminated with human blood? Moreover, considering that the examination of the flake had produced individual blood grouping results (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP2-1), how was it possible (notwithstanding the fact that the AK/1 element of the results may have been animal blood) for the unique and exclusive blood belonging to Sheila Caffell have got into the outside of the Pargeter silencer, or as the case, inside it as well?
I think the overriding feelings I have on the matter, is that I can see some form of cross contamination having taken place involving the handling of blood stained items at the scene by relatives, without them wearing any protective clothing or gloves, and the transportation of many items some of which might have been, or were heavily bloodstains, in the boot of Ann Eaton's car during the journey from the scene to her house, could explain how the Pargeter silencer got contaminated with human blood, without it having been used at all in the shootings..
But, the manner with which the silencers were swapped over, on or after 11th September 1985 and the way the flake of blood taken from the outside of the Pargeter silencer (SJ/1, 22), and spoken about thereafter in terms of it having been discovered inside the Bamber silencer (DRB/1, 22) was a criminal act, and all those involved in its execution ought to be sought out and prosecuted...
-
Caroline you seem to be forgetting the subject here and what I have brought up for discussion. Its not what Jeremy said in August compared to what he said in September. Its not even about whether he done the crime or not. The question is -
Why did Ann Eaton tell the police this -
"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."
But then later tell the Jury this -
"At the time I did not know whether it was rabbit blood or what. and I thought the jewellery was the most important thing, turns out I was wrong."
The only time when what Jeremy said comes into the equation here is what she heard in August and what she wrote down that contradicts the answer she gave under cross examination in relation to the discepancy above.
No, I know what the topic is I just don't see the same importance as you're applying to it.
-
No, I know what the topic is I just don't see the same importance as you're applying to it.
Her statements tells us she knew all about the silencer, how it could play a role in the case. Before the lab even confirmed anything. Yet come trial she tells the jury a version of events whereby she was ignorant and empty-headed over the whole thing.
The importance here is that this is a misrepresentation under oath, AKA perjury. Involving the centrepiece of the prosecutions case.
Secondly there is enough evidence (to my mind) to infer that someone is guilty of maliciously installing this evidence into the case. And I would like to know who that person or persons is.
-
Her statements tells us she knew all about the silencer, how it could play a role in the case. Before the lab even confirmed anything. Yet come trial she tells the jury a version of events whereby she was ignorant and empty-headed over the whole thing.
The importance here is that this is a misrepresentation under oath, AKA perjury. Involving the centrepiece of the prosecutions case.
Secondly there is enough evidence (to my mind) to infer that someone is guilty of maliciously installing this evidence into the case. And I would like to know who that person or persons is.
Well - Jeremy should just come out and say that he didn't use the silencer during the murders and those guilty of perjury might face the court ;).
-
Her statements tells us she knew all about the silencer, how it could play a role in the case. Before the lab even confirmed anything. Yet come trial she tells the jury a version of events whereby she was ignorant and empty-headed over the whole thing.
The importance here is that this is a misrepresentation under oath, AKA perjury. Involving the centrepiece of the prosecutions case.
Secondly there is enough evidence (to my mind) to infer that someone is guilty of maliciously installing this evidence into the case. And I would like to know who that person or persons is.
I think the the potential use of the silencer in the shootings was Bourne out of the fact that blood ended up on the end of the first silencer after it had been man handled by the relatives and transported to Ann and Peters home in the boot of Ann Eaton's car - a first silencer which turned out to be exhibit SJ/1 (22)...
What I would like to do is to ask everyone to consider the following criteria...
If the first silencer (SBJ/1) was the silencer which DS Jones seized at the scene on the 7th of August 1985, and was the first silencer handed over by Peter Eaton to DS Jones on the evening of 12th August 1985, which in turn Cook had taken to the lab' at Huntingdon on 13th August 1985, SJ/1 (22) where it was examined by Glynis Howard, that date, it remains to be seen why DS Jones and DCI Jones failed to notice any blood like substance, or any red paint ingrained into the knurl of that silencers end cap during the three or so days that 'it' was in the possession of the police?
Now, I do not consider myself to be easily fooled by any other fool, and the way I see it, is that if there had been anything at all clinging to the outside sleeve, or in the knurl around the circumference of the silencers end cap, or anything which could possibly resemble blood deposited in the silencers 1/4" end cap aperture, when that silencer was sat on top of DCI Jones desk throughout that original three day period (7th, 8th and 9th August 1985) the police would not have returned that silencer back at the farmhouse come the evening of 9th August 1985, without first of all getting that silencer checked out at the lab'..
Let's get the facts right, before police returned the silencer to the farmhouse, they spoke with Jeremy during that same afternoon and questioned him as to whether or not the silencer belonging to the anshuzt rifle had been attached to the end of the guns barrel when he last handled it? It becomes clear that DCI Jones, and DS Jones were satisfied after speaking with Jeremy that the silencer they had got possession of had no evidential value!
It was therefore returned back to the farmhouse that same evening!
On the following day (Saturday, 10th August 1985) David Boutflour came across two Parker Hale silencers in the cupboard in the downstairs office. One of them he took away to Ann Eaton's home, the other he left in a cardboard box which was left in the same cupboard...
I have the following observation to make at this juncture:-
-
Rivlin deprived his client the right to a fair and effective legal process.
He failed to produce that part of Ann Eatons september 8th statement during cross examination and ask her to explain herself.
He failed to inform the jury that Jeremy intended to sell their farm to pay death duties.
He failed to point out to the jury that the evidence was produced by those who had a lot to lose or a lot to gain depending on their verdict.
He failed his client by persuing a defence strategy of Sheila using the silencer and that resulted in the Judge instructing the jury to convict him.
-
Let's get the facts right, before police returned the silencer to the farmhouse, they spoke with Jeremy during that same afternoon and questioned him as to whether or not the silencer belonging to the anshuzt rifle had been attached to the end of the guns barrel when he last handled it? It becomes clear that DCI Jones, and DS Jones were satisfied after speaking with Jeremy that the silencer they had got possession of had no evidential value!
It was therefore returned back to the farmhouse that same evening!
On the following day (Saturday, 10th August 1985) David Boutflour came across two Parker Hale silencers in the cupboard in the downstairs office. One of them he took away to Ann Eaton's home, the other he left in a cardboard box which was left in the same cupboard...
I have the following observation to make at this juncture:-
It must be true, that one or other of the two identical looking silencers which David Boutflour did stumble upon inside the cupboard in the downstairs office on the afternoon of Saturday 10th August 1985, must have been the very same silencer that DS Jones had original seized and taken to the police station where it was deposited on DCI Jones desk in his office at Witham police station..
My question is this..
Which of the two silencers which David Boutflour stumbled upon that afternoon, had been the same silencer police already had had possession of?
-
It must be true, that one or other of the two identical looking silencers which David Boutflour did stumble upon inside the cupboard in the downstairs office on the afternoon of Saturday 10th August 1985, must have been the very same silencer that DS Jones had original seized and taken to the police station where it was deposited on DCI Jones desk in his office at Witham police station..
My question is this..
Which of the two silencers which David Boutflour stumbled upon that afternoon, had been the same silencer police already had had possession of?
It could have been either of them in my submission..
-
What if, and pots and pans, and all that..
The silencer which David Boutflour decided to take away from the scene on the afternoon of Saturday 10th of August 1985 as a result of being transported away from the scene in the boot of Ann Eatons car to her house, that that silencer got contaminated with blood during that journey? we know for example that there were other blood stained items which had been recovered from the Farmhouse and placed inside the same boot of that car to be carted off..
It is not outside the realms of possibility that there came a point during the journey from the scene to Ann Eatons House that the silencer and a bloodstained item came into contact with one another or they were resting against each other in the boot and that when this occurred there was a transfer of blood from one item to the other...
-
What if, and pots and pans, and all that..
The silencer which David Boutflour decided to take away from the scene on the afternoon of Saturday 10th of August 1985 as a result of being transported away from the scene in the boot of Ann Eatons car to her house, that that silencer got contaminated with blood during that journey? we know for example that there were other blood stained items which had been recovered from the Farmhouse and placed inside the same boot of that car to be carted off..
It is not outside the realms of possibility that there came a point during the journey from the scene to Ann Eatons House that the silencer and a bloodstained item came into contact with one another or they were resting against each other in the boot and that when this occurred there was a transfer of blood from one item to the other...
At any event, this was the silencer which Peter Eaton handed over to DS Jones on the evening 12th August 1985. This was the same silencer from which David Boutflour scraped the flake of blood (DB/1, 22) from the outside of that silencer, prior to the occasion that Peter Eaton handed it over to Jones. Seems somewhat obvious to me, as I say that if there had been any blood on the outside of the silencer which Jones had seized at the farmhouse on the first morning of the police investigation, that not only DS Jones would have seen it, but so too would DCI Jones, and I doubt that the police would have returned that particular silencer to the farmhouse, until a thorough investigation into how that silencer had become bloodstained had been carried out..
So, either the first silencer which David Boutflour took away from the scene on 10th August 1985, wasn't the same silencer the police already had had possession of (between 7th - 9th August 1985), in which case the other silencer left behind at the scene in the cardboard box was that silencer, or the first silencer must have been accidentally, innocently, or deliberately contaminated with blood and paint. The only other alternative is that the first silencer which started out life as exhibit SBJ/1, but which later became SJ/1, (22) was used in the shootings!
-
The silencer which DS Jones seized at the scene on the 7th of August 1985, became subject of an enquiry by Ewen Smith Jeremy's then solicitor in 2004. At this time, and to my knowledge, Ewen Smith made contact with an informant who I understood was a serving police officer at Essex police, who had the Christian name 'David'. They had a meeting in London. The informant told Ewen Smith that DCI Jones had kept the original silencer that police seized at the scene on his desk in his Witham police station office, and that he was using it as a paper weight. He told Ewen Smith that it was a long time afterwards that a silencer was submitted to the lab' which produced the evidence relied upon to eventually prosecute Jeremy Bamber!
At the conclusion of that meeting in London the informant tapped Ewen Smith for his travel expenses to and from the rendezvous!
Ewen Smith is now a CCRC Commissionaire, he knows that what I have just reported is true, because when he was Jeremy's solicitor I used to visit his office almost weekly and we used to update one another on developments...
-
Imagine that...
DCI Jones keeping the original Parker Hale silencer that DS Jones had seized on the first morning of the police investigation on his desk in his Witham police station office, using it as a paper weight!!
If there had been any blood or paint on the outside of this silencer at that time, I ask you would DCI Jones have been treating such a valuable piece of evidence as a paper weight on his office desk?
-
Let me report all of the known facts arising out of the meeting between Ewen Smith and that police informant for what it's worth - the informant said that whilst DCI Jones still had been keeping that silencer on his office desk an officer he named as PC Widdon snook into his office when DCI Jones was off duty and took possession of the said silencer and he took it away to the property store to see if it fitted onto the thread on the end of the Bamber owned Anshuzt rifles barrel? The informant told Ewen Smith that PC Widdon found that it could be attached and a photograph of his little experiment was taken before he returned the silencer back onto DCI Jones desk...
-
Let me report all of the known facts arising out of the meeting between Ewen Smith and that police informant for what it's worth - the informant said that whilst DCI Jones still had been keeping that silencer on his office desk an officer he named as PC Widdon snook into his office when DCI Jones was off duty and took possession of the said silencer and he took it away to the property store to see if it fitted onto the thread on the end of the Bamber owned Anshuzt rifles barrel? The informant told Ewen Smith that PC Widdon found that it could be attached and a photograph of his little experiment was taken before he returned the silencer back onto DCI Jones desk...
Ewen never told me any date that this must have taken place, but it must have occurred sometimes between 7th and 9th August 1985. DCI Jones worked on the day of the shooting tragedy, and again on the afternoon and evening of 9th August 1985, so I kind of settled it in my mind that the reported incident involving PC Whiddon probably occurred on 8th August 1985..
-
This got me thinking..
-
This got me thinking..
Maybe, just maybe, this was the informants way of trying to tell Ewen Smith that the silencer which DCI Jones had on His desk at such an early stage, was the replacement silencer which found it's way back into police possession on 11th September 1985? Because the informant had told Ewen Smith that it was a long time afterwards, after DCI Jones had the silencer on his desk that 'it' was sent to the lab'..
Well, the first time a silencer was sent or taken to the lab' was on 13th August 1985 - the silencer Cook labelled SJ/1 (22), but that took place only a matter of days after DCI Jones kept a silencer on his desk, so I reasoned that the informant wasn't referring to that / this particular silencer! Instead my thoughts turned to the date when the second silencer (DRB/1) was sent to the lab'?
This took place on 20th September 1985, a longish time after the latest occasion that DCi Jones could have kept the silencer he was using as a paper weight on his office desk. So I settled for the explanation given by the informant that the silencer which DCI Jones had been using as a paperweight on his office desk between 7th - 9th August 1985, had been and was in fact the so called second silencer which David Boutflour had left behind at the scene on 10th August 1985, in a box in the cupboard in the den that same date, which in turn Ann Eaton had handed over to police on 11th September 1985..
-
With this in mind, and in all probability or at least a possibility, is the fact that the first silencer to go to the lab' (13th August 1985) was (a) either used on the barrel of a gun during the shootings, and got contaminated with blood as a result, or (b) any blood found on the outside or the inside of it got there by accidental or innocent contamination during its handling and or transportation from one person to another, and from place to place..
-
With this in mind, and in all probability or at least a possibility, is the fact that the first silencer to go to the lab' (13th August 1985) was (a) either used on the barrel of a gun during the shootings, and got contaminated with blood as a result, or (b) any blood found on the outside or the inside of it got there by accidental or innocent contamination during its handling and or transportation from one person to another, and from place to place..
I am satisfied that there was no red paint ingrained into the knurl of the silencers end cap when it got sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985...
-
Paint from the scratched kitchen aga ended up in parts of the knurl of the second silencers (DRB/1) end cap!
-
Paint from the scratched kitchen aga ended up in parts of the knurl of the second silencers (DRB/1) end cap!
I have devised a scheme which may bear fruit, and help to try and establish that the paint which ended up ingrained in such a strategic position on one end of one of the silencers could be proven to be suspicious..
-
What I have in my minds eye, is an image of the knurled pattern around the circumference of the silencers metal end cap. This knurled pattern is formed of evenly spayed ridges and troughs - it would be difficult to seal off all the minature ridges / troughs with tape during a super glue treatment of the silencer!
What if when the silencer (SJ/1, 22) was exposed to super glue treatment and the silencer being tested already had paint ingrained onto and into the ridges and troughs of the knurl, the paint particles got coated in super glue residue?
Alternatively..
A silencer minus any such paint particles getting itself exposed to the same type of super glue treatment?
-
To my knowledge, no such traces of super glue residue were mentioned as being present upon any crushed paint particle said to have been present creating the possibility of being able to prove that the crushed paint particles were added to the silencer on an occasion after the first silencer was super glued (23rd August 1985)..
-
Well - Jeremy should just come out and say that he didn't use the silencer during the murders and those guilty of perjury might face the court ;).
He should only say that if that is actually what happened. Moreover who would take him seriously after making such a claim? People would be more inclined to believe he did use the silencer and that he is only trying to smear and upset his relatives. And so would I. Ronald DeFeo admits to killing his family, however his version of events has changed over time. In one version he claims someone helped him and has named this person. The authorities never took this seriously for obvious reasons. The same would happen to Jeremy in such scenario.
Moreover. had he committed the murders without the silencer I would not have expected him to allow his defence to persue the strategy that they did. Knowing full well someone must have planted it. Letting his defence counsel do that strikes me as someone naively putting faith in the justice system thinking they have nothing to worry about because they have done nothing wrong. Not someone trying to get away with murder.
It was not until 2010 that Jeremy publicly accused DB and AE of fabricating the silencer. Had he committed the murders without the silencer and thus known this all along. I would have expected these accusations to come from him in 25 days rather than 25 years.
It makes no sense. The argument for Jeremy doing the crime without the silencer is much like the argument for Jeremy and Sheila both being involved. Its endorsed by those who for whatever ulterior motives they have, want to keep Jeremy involved regardless of the evidence.
-
He should only say that if that is actually what happened. Moreover who would take him seriously after making such a claim? People would be more inclined to believe he did use the silencer and that he is only trying to smear and upset his relatives. And so would I. Ronald DeFeo admits to killing his family, however his version of events has changed over time. In one version he claims someone helped him and has named this person. The authorities never took this seriously for obvious reasons. The same would happen to Jeremy in such scenario.
Moreover. had he committed the murders without the silencer I would not have expected him to allow his defence to persue the strategy that they did. Knowing full well someone must have planted it. Letting his defence counsel do that strikes me as someone naively putting faith in the justice system thinking they have nothing to worry about because they have done nothing wrong. Not someone trying to get away with murder.
It was not until 2010 that Jeremy publicly accused DB and AE of fabricating the silencer. Had he committed the murders without the silencer and thus known this all along. I would have expected these accusations to come from him in 25 days rather than 25 years.
It makes no sense. The argument for Jeremy doing the crime without the silencer is much like the argument for Jeremy and Sheila both being involved. Its endorsed by those who for whatever ulterior motives they have, want to keep Jeremy involved regardless of the evidence.
Don't be silly - you're always banging on about 'ulterior motives' - I fully believe he killed the family but didn't use the silencer now what 'ulterior motive' could I possibly have to say this? ::)
-
Rivlin deprived his client the right to a fair and effective legal process.
He failed to produce that part of Ann Eatons september 8th statement during cross examination and ask her to explain herself.
He failed to inform the jury that Jeremy intended to sell their farm to pay death duties.
He failed to point out to the jury that the evidence was produced by those who had a lot to lose or a lot to gain depending on their verdict.
He failed his client by persuing a defence strategy of Sheila using the silencer and that resulted in the Judge instructing the jury to convict him.
He was going to sell the farm come what may, without the red herring of death duties. As for the Defence strategy they didn't want to show the police in a bad light, and whose trial was it after all?
-
Rivlin deprived his client the right to a fair and effective legal process.
He failed to produce that part of Ann Eatons september 8th statement during cross examination and ask her to explain herself.
He failed to inform the jury that Jeremy intended to sell their farm to pay death duties.
He failed to point out to the jury that the evidence was produced by those who had a lot to lose or a lot to gain depending on their verdict.
He failed his client by persuing a defence strategy of Sheila using the silencer and that resulted in the Judge instructing the jury to convict him.
He failed to mention the sale because he was TOLD the money was for death duties. He probably had more sense that to believe what Jeremy told him.
I'm sure you could have done a much better job once you'd read a book on it ::) ::)
-
Don't be silly - you're always banging on about 'ulterior motives' - I fully believe he killed the family but didn't use the silencer now what 'ulterior motive' could I possibly have to say this? ::)
What you believe doesn't concern me. What's important to me is the evidence and the facts of the case.
-
What you believe doesn't concern me. What's important to me is the evidence and the facts of the case.
I believe I said 'likewise'. What you are posting are your own theories! Given your love of facts and evidence, where is the fact and evidence in respect o the death duties that Jeremy was supposed to pay? He started selling stuff off before the estate had gone through probate! But then again, he already knew what was in the will!
-
I believe I said 'likewise'. What you are posting are your own theories! Given your love of facts and evidence, where is the fact and evidence in respect o the death duties that Jeremy was supposed to pay? He started selling stuff off before the estate had gone through probate! But then again, he already knew what was in the will!
-
Thanks for that Mike but there is no mention of death duties. I have also done some reading and there is relief on death duties (inheritance tax)for agricultural business's. This was also the case in 1985 - relief for agricultural property (land etc.) can be as much as 100% and has been so since 1982.
-
Thanks for that Mike but there is no mention of death duties. I have also done some reading and there is relief on death duties (inheritance tax)for agricultural business's. This was also the case in 1985 - relief for agricultural property (land etc.) can be as much as 100% and has been so since 1982.
Jeremy was put in charge of his parents affairs at an early stage - nothing could be clearer..
-
Jeremy was put in charge of his parents affairs at an early stage - nothing could be clearer..
I don't think anything has ever been suggested to the contrary.
-
I don't think anything has ever been suggested to the contrary.
I beg your pardon?
its been suggested that Jeremy was selling everything off before he had the authority to do so...
But, he did have the authority, and he did what he did acting on the advice of the family solicitor, and executor of his parents estate(s)...
-
I beg your pardon?
its been suggested that Jeremy was selling everything off before he had the authority to do so...
But, he did have the authority, and he did what he did acting on the advice of the family solicitor, and executor of his parents estate(s)...
I don't think it was his legal authority which was being questioned -it's widely known that he quickly made appointments with accountants and solicitors- it was more about his MORAL authority, which was, if not non existent, certainly sadly lacking.
-
I don't think it was his legal authority which was being questioned -it's widely known that he quickly made appointments with accountants and solicitors- it was more about his MORAL authority, which was, if not non existent, certainly sadly lacking.
He was raising cash to pay toward expected or anticipated death duties, which the relatives took exception too..
-
He was raising cash to pay toward expected or anticipated death duties, which the relatives took exception too..
He SAID he was raising cash for that reason. Actions being more telling than words, it's very likely the relatives saw for themselves what he wanted the money for.
-
He SAID he was raising cash for that reason. Actions being more telling than words, it's very likely the relatives saw for themselves what he wanted the money for.
You obviously mean, that he was only doing what the relatives eventually all did for themselves - get Bamber convicted we get his inheritance to boot...
-
You obviously mean, that he was only doing what the relatives eventually all did for themselves - get Bamber convicted we get his inheritance to boot...
THEY hadn't massacred their family. You COULD say that it was entirely Jeremy's fault that they got his inheritance.
-
THEY hadn't massacred their family. You COULD say that it was entirely Jeremy's fault that they got his inheritance.
Its all too convenient for the relatives to find the silencer with the blood and paint associated with it and to it, it was they who pointed out the scratch marks to the police, they who knew all about the importance of the silencer, before the police and their lab' experts knew anything. Oh, and they even had identical parker hale silencers to boot...
For all anybody really knows the relatives could have killed the Bamber family, and tried to implicate Jeremy, but when cops set their stall out as four murders and a suicide, the relatives had to go to another level to make sure that they got their hands on the booty...
-
Its all too convenient for the relatives to find the silencer with the blood and paint associated with it and to it, it was they who pointed out the scratch marks to the police, they who knew all about the importance of the silencer, before the police and their lab' experts knew anything. Oh, and they even had identical parker hale silencers to boot...
For all anybody really knows the relatives could have killed the Bamber family, and tried to implicate Jeremy, but when cops set their stall out as four murders and a suicide, the relatives had to go to another level to make sure that they got their hands on the booty...
I can't see how on the 11th August 1985 when Jeremy turned up at the Eaton residence and demanded that they return everything they had taken from whf, that the relatives handed everything back except the silencer belonging to the anshuzt rifle...
Jeremy was adamant take everything back, put everything that you have taken back...
I can't see the relatives being so brazen enough to hang onto a silencer which did not belong to them, until the following evening - Jeremy wanted everything they had taken from whf putting back there and rest assured that even if David Boutflour had taken the second silencer in the box from the cupboard on 11th August 1985, he would have been forced to return it because otherwise he stole it...
-
I can't see how on the 11th August 1985 when Jeremy turned up at the Eaton residence and demanded that they return everything they had taken from whf, that the relatives handed everything back except the silencer belonging to the anshuzt rifle...
Jeremy was adamant take everything back, put everything that you have taken back...
I can't see the relatives being so brazen enough to hang onto a silencer which did not belong to them, until the following evening - Jeremy wanted everything they had taken from whf putting back there and rest assured that even if David Boutflour had taken the second silencer in the box from the cupboard on 11th August 1985, he would have been forced to return it because otherwise he stole it...
The Eatons still had the Pargeter silencer which Peter Eaton handed over to DS Jones on the evening of 12th August 1985. It it rather significant that when Peter Eaton handed over that silencer to DS Jones, that he did not say to the police 'this is the silencer to the gun' (anshuzt rifle). He didn't say such a thing, because it wasn't the silencer to the gun, it was the Anthony Pargeter silencer..
Fast forward to 11th September 1985...
Jeremy already in custody, locked up and being questioned, step forward the brother / sister detectives, Ann Eaton and David Boutflour. Ann hands over the second silencer (the Bamber one), David telephones the police on the very same day to tell them that he has found the silencer to the gun...
By 11th September 1985, the relatives knew the difference between the silencer police already had possession of, and the one belonging to 'the' gun...
-
By 11th September 1985, the relatives knew the difference between the silencer police already had possession of, and the one belonging to 'the' gun...
Between 11th August 1985, and the confrontation they had with Jeremy over them taking things from whf and him demanding that they return everything, until after 8th September 1985, when Jeremy was arrested the relatives had no opportunity to get their hands on the silencer to the gun...
But, after his first arrest, they then took the opportunity to seize it and introduce it into the investigation, in the knowledge that the police would go along with their plan because they knew the truth surrounding the death of Sheila Caffell ( Sheila had only been shot once when DS Jones and DC Clark visited the main bedroom and viewed Sheila's demise). The big deception had been carried over onto the following day (8th August 1985) when Julie Mugford had been taken along to Chelmsford hospital mortuary to identify the deceased. On this occasion the wounds to Sheila's neck and throat had been disguised to make it appear that Sheila had only been shot once beneath the chin. Mugford would report this back to the relatives and Jeremy on that day...
Rather somewhat uncannily the relatives knew that Sheila had been shot twice, without anyone officially telling them that this was the case!
-
By far the most telling event in this saga, related to the coming forward of Julie Mugford, and the visit to ACC Peter Simpson by Robert Woodwis Boutflour at about the same time...
-
By far the most telling event in this saga, related to the coming forward of Julie Mugford, and the visit to ACC Peter Simpson by Robert Woodwis Boutflour at about the same time...
to suggest that these two events were merely 'random' beggars belief...
-
Jeremy was put in charge of his parents affairs at an early stage - nothing could be clearer..
I didn't say he wasn't
-
I beg your pardon?
its been suggested that Jeremy was selling everything off before he had the authority to do so...
But, he did have the authority, and he did what he did acting on the advice of the family solicitor, and executor of his parents estate(s)...
The only thing that statement indicates is that Jeremy was appointed director of the company and that other affairs would be sorted out after the funeral. As executor, BC was assessing the value of the estate for probate and nothing is supposed to be sold until after probate has been settled.
-
He was raising cash to pay toward expected or anticipated death duties, which the relatives took exception too..
He would have no idea about how much death duties would be at that time and there was/is massive relief on inheritance tax for agricultural business's. However it was far too early in the day. Also where did the money go from the sale of these items? Saving for death duties? Or holidays in the sun?
-
He would have no idea about how much death duties would be at that time and there was/is massive relief on inheritance tax for agricultural business's. However it was far too early in the day. Also where did the money go from the sale of these items? Saving for death duties? Or holidays in the sun?
I have no doubt that either/both the accountant and solicitor would have advised him of the relief available.
-
He would have no idea about how much death duties would be at that time and there was/is massive relief on inheritance tax for agricultural business's. However it was far too early in the day. Also where did the money go from the sale of these items? Saving for death duties? Or holidays in the sun?
You have not seen the bank account details to the business (N & J Bamber Ltd) so your surely and simply speculating...
-
You have not seen the bank account details to the business (N & J Bamber Ltd) so your surely and simply speculating...
I doubt it follows that simply seeing bank account details would mean that one was cognisant of what death duties would be.............but, of course, if one was aware of when death might take place..............
-
I doubt it follows that simply seeing bank account details would mean that one was cognisant of what death duties would be.............but, of course, if one was aware of when death might take place..............
Divert your attention onto the activities of the dodgy relatives, who stood to inherit everything...
You are showing your true colours like Caroline, the two of you are simply not following the true facts...
-
You have not seen the bank account details to the business (N & J Bamber Ltd) so your surely and simply speculating...
That is immaterial given that there was 100% relief for agricultural business's then and now.
-
Divert your attention onto the activities of the dodgy relatives, who stood to inherit everything...
You are showing your true colours like Caroline, the two of you are simply not following the true facts...
Jeremy stood to inherit everything prior to the murders and I do stick to the facts!
-
Jeremy stood to inherit everything prior to the murders and I do stick to the facts!
No, you don't..
Neither of you do!
The fresh evidence which I am raising is evidence which was deliberately withheld from the defence at the time e of the trial! If this information and evidence was withheld from the defence it was withheld from the jury which tried the matter! Stop pretending that the jury ever heard this withheld information or evidence! You are not interested in the truth in this case, your just here to make the prosecutions case look good! You don't even back owlege the truth about the involvement of the other SOCO team, you should hang your head in shame, you are a supporter of dishonesty perpetrated by Essex police, the CPS, the relatives, and the so called experts at the lab'. I doubt that you can count beyond the number 1, because there were clearly two different identical looking silencers. It doesn't seem to bother you that false witness statements have been banded about left right and centre.
You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face..
-
Divert your attention onto the activities of the dodgy relatives, who stood to inherit everything...
You are showing your true colours like Caroline, the two of you are simply not following the true facts...
Why are they "dodgy"? They'd known Jeremy since he was a child. They'd seen his MO. They were aware of his work ethic -or rather, lack of it- and truth be known, they may have had a better handle on him than Nevill and June. As for what you refer to as my "true colours"? It's not I who has tried to incriminate everyone, however loosely connected to the Bambers, by posting untrue things about them -and we both know who I'm talking about here- in attempt to show that Jeremy is innocent. You've created incriminating scenario's for all of them but it stands to reason that they can't all be guilty. Perhaps you could take a closer look at Jeremy? Personally, I think he's an arch manipulator who grew up having it all, but because of his belief in his own entitlement, wanted more and wanted it now.
-
No, you don't..
Neither of you do!
The fresh evidence which I am raising is evidence which was deliberately withheld from the defence at the time e of the trial! If this information and evidence was withheld from the defence it was withheld from the jury which tried the matter! Stop pretending that the jury ever heard this withheld information or evidence! You are not interested in the truth in this case, your just here to make the prosecutions case look good! You don't even back owlege the truth about the involvement of the other SOCO team, you should hang your head in shame, you are a supporter of dishonesty perpetrated by Essex police, the CPS, the relatives, and the so called experts at the lab'. I doubt that you can count beyond the number 1, because there were clearly two different identical looking silencers. It doesn't seem to bother you that false witness statements have been banded about left right and centre.
You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face..
I feel the same about you!
-
I feel the same about you!
You are corrupt!
-
You are corrupt!
Oh here we go with the name calling! Mike if you can't debate without descending to this BS then I will go back to ignoring your posts! I couldn't give a stuff what you think about me but whatever thoughts you have - times them by a thousand and you will get somewhere close to my thoughts about your tactics! I can't be bothered with this shite!
-
No, you don't..
Neither of you do!
The fresh evidence which I am raising is evidence which was deliberately withheld from the defence at the time e of the trial! If this information and evidence was withheld from the defence it was withheld from the jury which tried the matter! Stop pretending that the jury ever heard this withheld information or evidence! You are not interested in the truth in this case, your just here to make the prosecutions case look good! You don't even back owlege the truth about the involvement of the other SOCO team, you should hang your head in shame, you are a supporter of dishonesty perpetrated by Essex police, the CPS, the relatives, and the so called experts at the lab'. I doubt that you can count beyond the number 1, because there were clearly two different identical looking silencers. It doesn't seem to bother you that false witness statements have been banded about left right and centre.
You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face..
It doesn't actually sound like fresh evidence at all. It sounds more like that which you were saying when I first joined, but said slightly differently. If this really was false evidence, it certainly wouldn't be privy only to members of a forum. I don't believe that ANY evidence of worth was withheld from the jury.
-
It doesn't actually sound like fresh evidence at all. It sounds more like that which you were saying when I first joined, but said slightly differently. If this really was false evidence, it certainly wouldn't be privy only to members of a forum. I don't believe that ANY evidence of worth was withheld from the jury.
Good luck Jane - that's me done with this!
-
Good luck Jane - that's me done with this!
He was frightfully rude to you, Caroline. Perhaps he'll apologize?
-
It doesn't actually sound like fresh evidence at all. It sounds more like that which you were saying when I first joined, but said slightly differently. If this really was false evidence, it certainly wouldn't be privy only to members of a forum. I don't believe that ANY evidence of worth was withheld from the jury.
Of course it was!
God strewth..
You can't even work that out, what happened to the missing 358 crime scene photographs? When did they get disclosed? Did the jury get to see them all secretly?
Of course not..
And what about the missing 26th bullet case?
Oh, it's irrelevant according to you!
Why didn't cops do any ballistic tests when the investigation was one of four murders and a suicide?
They got rid of all the bodies before they did any ballistic tests!
It was a dishonest prosecution, they made out a false case in order to prosecute Jeremy Bamber for killing somebody that the cops killed themselves!
-
You are showing your true colours like Caroline, the two of you are simply not following the true facts...
That has been the case ever since their sudden change of minds in chorus with Paul Harrison years back. From what I have heard the only people that ever seem to have taken them seriously since then were Maggie and Susan. Who have now come to their senses.
Why give these two the time of day Mike?
-
That has been the case ever since their sudden change of minds in chorus with Paul Harrison years back. From what I have heard the only people that ever seem to have taken them seriously since then were Maggie and Susan. Who have now come to their senses.
Why give these two the time of day Mike?
Wow! How sad is that? ::) Two faced? This from the same guy who wrote the post below ..... Of course this was before he learned who to brown nose!
-
That has been the case ever since their sudden change of minds in chorus with Paul Harrison years back. From what I have heard the only people that ever seem to have taken them seriously since then were Maggie and Susan. Who have now come to their senses.
Why give these two the time of day Mike?
I can't believe that so called ordinary people can't see what's been happening in this case!
It's a really serious situation that there was a 26th bullet fired, but only 25 bullet cases recovered!
What happened to the 26th bullet case?
Surely, the cops in Essex as thick and corrupt as they are, should have dealt with this anomaly!
There must have been a second gun used in these shootings, and the missing bullet case (the 26th one) was obviously whisked away from the scene in the other gun from which the 26th bullet had been fired!
-
Operation eliminate the Cuckoo
Step one: Frame him for murder.
"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."
Step two: Swindle the remaining inheritance (possibly by implying he died in the shootings)
"Ann concedes that the conversations regarding Mabel’s will were conducted partly ‘to stop Jeremy benefitting through aunt June’ but the family were unanimous that Jeremy showed no interest in calling on his grandmother.
Two days after Mabel was told about the murders, Robert asked her solicitor to call at Vaulty. Six persons were present: Mabel, Robert, Pamela, Dr Ellis and Mr Peek and his secretary. Robert recalled that the meeting ‘resulted in a solicitor from this firm and myself being made joint executors to her estate. The new form of the will was that Pam was made the sole beneficiary.’ Why Jeremy’s name didn’t come up at the meeting, and particularly why Mabel apparently failed to ask about him at this point (given that Ann recollected she made no mention of Jeremy until December), is unclear."
Step three: Get Ainsley on the case because Taff Jones had a brain.
"The 1986 internal review affirmed that ‘it was known to the Boutflours that had Jeremy inherited the estate he intended to sell what he could, thereby disposing of what had been part of the Speakman family estate. In addition to this, he would also have sold an area of land which [Nevill] Bamber had purchased intending to sell it at a later date to Peter and Ann Eaton when they had sufficient funds.’ The review noted that while it was not suggested that this interest had in any way influenced the Boutflours in their statements to the police, it was known to DCI Jones during the initial stages ‘and may have been a factor which affected the level of credence he placed upon the information given by the relatives’".
Step Four? It would not suprise me if once they heard Julie and Jeremy broke up they took the first opportunity to con her into believing what they wanted people to believe also.
-
Operation eliminate the Cuckoo
Step one: Frame him for murder.
"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."
Step two: Swindle the remaining inheritance (possibly by implying he died in the shootings)
"Ann concedes that the conversations regarding Mabel’s will were conducted partly ‘to stop Jeremy benefitting through aunt June’ but the family were unanimous that Jeremy showed no interest in calling on his grandmother.
Two days after Mabel was told about the murders, Robert asked her solicitor to call at Vaulty. Six persons were present: Mabel, Robert, Pamela, Dr Ellis and Mr Peek and his secretary. Robert recalled that the meeting ‘resulted in a solicitor from this firm and myself being made joint executors to her estate. The new form of the will was that Pam was made the sole beneficiary.’ Why Jeremy’s name didn’t come up at the meeting, and particularly why Mabel apparently failed to ask about him at this point (given that Ann recollected she made no mention of Jeremy until December), is unclear."
Step three: Get Ainsley on the case because Taff Jones had a brain.
"The 1986 internal review affirmed that ‘it was known to the Boutflours that had Jeremy inherited the estate he intended to sell what he could, thereby disposing of what had been part of the Speakman family estate. In addition to this, he would also have sold an area of land which [Nevill] Bamber had purchased intending to sell it at a later date to Peter and Ann Eaton when they had sufficient funds.’ The review noted that while it was not suggested that this interest had in any way influenced the Boutflours in their statements to the police, it was known to DCI Jones during the initial stages ‘and may have been a factor which affected the level of credence he placed upon the information given by the relatives’".
Step Four? It would not suprise me if once they heard Julie and Jeremy broke up they took the first opportunity to con her into believing what they wanted people to believe also.
Operation Poppycock more like! You give these people far too much power than they could possibly ave held!
-
If the silencer was used on the guns barrel when Sheila was shot dead on the main bedroom floor, and if the gun which fired the fatal shot was the anshuzt rifle, then how could the anshuzt rifle which was spotted leaning against the inside of a first floor box room window just before the raid team entered the premises, Jeremy Bamber have shot dead his sister, and staged her death scene on the bedroom floor shot twice in the neck any time sooner than the rifle in question being seen by Julia Jeapes resting at the box room window?
How did the only rifle found upstairs get moved from its position at the first floor box room window, and did it end up on the body of Sheila Caffell, and Jeremy Bamber be her killer?
-
Cops would have known if there was a silencer fitted to the end of the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot dead on the bedroom floor!
-
Cops would have known if there was a silencer fitted to the end of the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot dead on the bedroom floor!
I believe DS Jones seized the Pargeter silencer (SBJ/1) on the first morning of the police investigation (7th August 1985), and that there was no silencer at all fitted to the anshuzt rifle..
-
Who contaminated the silencer with blood and who created those scratch marks?
My prime suspect = Ann Eaton.
I am not the first to arrive at this conclusion and I won’t be the last either.
-
Who contaminated the silencer with blood and who created those scratch marks?
My prime suspect = Ann Eaton.
I am not the first to arrive at this conclusion and I won’t be the last either.
Not a chance! ::)
-
Not a chance! ::)
Not much point trying to distract the forum from the obvious Caroline. You need credibility in order to achieve that.
:P
-
Not much point trying to distract the forum from the obvious Caroline. You need credibility in order to achieve that.
:P
It's absolutely stupid to suggest that AE would have the thought and confidence to not only attempt to falsify evidence but succeed in fooling both EP and the lab. It would take someone with knowledge of such things.
What credibility do you IMAGINE you have here or anywhere else for that matter? By the way, do tell us where AE might have managed to acquire enough of Sheila's blood to contaminate the silencer?