She rinsed them out at WHF.
Soaking in cold water would remove the blood. Have you ever asked Bamber about the soaking clothes?
Now, the other truly amazing thing I stumbled upon very recently whilst reading through the papers in my possession, was that some human flesh or human tissue was found inside the threaded metal end cap of the silencer!
Ann Eaton raised the difference between the smell of one type of blood, as opposed to another, when she was being coached on what to say when she testified, if asked any awkward questions...
Seems like a somewhat odd thing to say, out of the blue, must have had something dodgy in her mind when she raised that comment...
She rinsed them out at WHF.
I was led to believe that she took the bucket away with her from the kitchen in the boot of her car, with the cold water that they had been soaking in still in the bucket!
In any event, simply rinsing such an item would not remove the clotted blood that must have been all over them. Everybody knows that heavily bloodstained garments such as blood soiled knickers from a ladies monthly cycle need a good soaking, and that a quick rinse would not have served to get rid of any blood evidence that the relatives might well have put to use later on...
I beleive its very significant that Ann Eaton took Sheila's rinsed knickers and the silencer away from the scene on the 10th August 1985. Why would anyone want to keep hold of such a personal garment belonging to a recently deceased lady?
Menstrual blood often contains flakes of clotted blood. I think its a very strong possibility that this is the type of blood flake that what was tested in the lab and this is what sealed JBs fate.
Yeah, I go along with that /this possibility - the flake in question was almost certainly exhibit 'DB/1' (23) that got sent to the Lab' on 30th August 1985 (not the silencer under an entirely new disguise)..
Also what about that "blob of jam" looking blood on the silencer?
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3251067-late-period-then-blood-clot-tmi-picture-warning (https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3251067-late-period-then-blood-clot-tmi-picture-warning)
:o
No, she said she rinsed them out at WHF. Ann said does not equate to Ann did.
:P
Menstrual blood often contains flakes of clotted blood. I think its a very strong possibility that this is the type of blood flake that what was tested in the lab and this is what sealed JBs fate.
Menstrual blood often contains flakes of clotted blood. I think its a very strong possibility that this is the type of blood flake that what was tested in the lab and this is what sealed JBs fate.
So she took the bucket home then? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Here https://www.plim.fr/en/content/19-about-menstrual-blood - educate yourself! Menstral blood is different from arterial blood! ::)
Mike, when AE took the witness stand, she claims to have put the clothing back in the soak and left them at WHF.
This contradicts he COLP statement where by she took them home. :-\
My understanding was that she put the silencer in the same bucket in the boot of her car...
Considering the discrepancies in her statements its difficult to know what exactly happened. I agree, because her evidence is all over the place..
In the 1986 trial she gives the impression the stuff in the soak was left at WHF. She does not actually mention the underwear at trial (unless its in that section cut out). I have not yet seen any mention during her trial transcript to Sheila's knickers, but she does mention then in some versions of her statements!
In 1991 she claims to have thrown the underwear into a bin. what was she referring to?Then latter in her statements describes taking the contents of the bin home with her. I always assumed this was reference to the bucket!Did she realise what her latter statement meant? there were two buckets with soak in them as I understood it..
Considering that the blood and paint was confirmed at the lab on the 13th of August. It narrows down the suspects. Sorry, but paint wasn't first noticed at the lab' until after the silencer was returned back to the Lab' after fingerprinting of it by the police, there are problems with the Lab' documentation insofar as the paint being mentioned on the silencer any time sooner than the second occasion that the silencer went back to the lab', because we don't yet really know whether or not exhibit DB/1(23) which police sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, was the silencer being sent back to the lab' on its second occasion, or whether or not, the silencer which the police sent to the lab' on 20th September 1985, was the second time the, or a second silencer had been sent to the lab'...
Ann Eaton
Peter Eaton
David Boutflour
Robert Boutflour
Stan Jones
Ron Cook
Allthough Stan Jones and Ron Cook handled the silencer prior to the 13th they have no motive or any realistic means. I don't think DS Jones and DI Cook had any involvement with the silencer the relatives took possession of in September 1985. It was HQ SOCO who had dealings with the second silencer (DC Oakley, DS Eastwood and DS Davison), and Witham SOCO (Cook, Davidson, Hammerless and Bird) who had dealings with the first one!And only handled it because the relavtives brought it to their attention and were doing their jobs. But what if the only silencer found by relatives was inSeptember 1985, and the Witham SOCO had nothing whatsoever to do with it?
This leaves us with -
Ann Eaton
Peter Eaton
David Boutflour
Robert Boutflour
There no evidence to show that PE,DB or RWB knew of the knickers being taken back to oak farm or where to find the scratch marks. Actually, I think there is mention in one version of a witness statement or some note or other where David About flour makes the connection between paint on the silencer and the red oak Ted kitchen aga surround..How ever AE does and considering the discrepancies in her statements and trial testimony, this is why she is my prime suspect. Brother and sister could have been in on it together..
Do I think AE had PE, DB or RWB in on it also? Thats very possible but i struggle to imagine them all agreeing and conspiring to do something so disgustingly evil. This to me is a one person crime.
Sorry, but paint wasn't first noticed at the lab' until after the silencer was returned back to the Lab' after fingerprinting of it by the police, there are problems with the Lab' documentation insofar as the paint being mentioned on the silencer any time sooner than the second occasion that the silencer went back to the lab', because we don't yet really know whether or not exhibit DB/1(23) which police sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, was the silencer being sent back to the lab' on its second occasion, or whether or not, the silencer which the police sent to the lab' on 20th September 1985, was the second time the, or a second silencer had been sent to the lab'...
The red paint did exist on the silencer on the 13th of August. Its the KM negative "red stain" on the knurled end of the silencer.
(https://i.ibb.co/7SKZm9s/20120930-213634.png)
Lab' document you posted up dated 13th August 1985 is a fake - the silencer taken to the lab on 13th of August had an exhibit reference of SJ/1 Lab' item no.22, neither SBJ/1 nor DB/1 had a lab' item no. Reference of 22, SBJ/1 in that configuration was never sent to the lab', and when DB/1 got sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, it had a lab' item no.23..
The reference to the silencer as exhibit DB/1, lab' item No.22, dated 13th August 1985 is therefore clearly a forgery, that was introduced as a result of the attempt to merge two silencers into the same one..
Also, I believe the red stain to which you are alluding to , to be a stain nestling in and around the aperture on silencers (SJ/1,22) end cap, which later on, After 13th August 1985, Glynis Howard tested Positive as human blood!
Mike, when AE took the witness stand, she claims to have put the clothing back in the soak and left them at WHF.
This contradicts he COLP statement where by she took them home. :-\
Its a document made up of Glyniss Howards handwriting. Not fake at all.Yes, it is fake, because it refers to a different silencer than she was presented with, and she didn't have possession of the silencer long enough to give such a detailed analysis - she took a swab from the aperture that's all she did on the 13th August 1985, she couldn't have thought that the silencer she examined on that day, was referred to previously by the different exhibit reference of SBJ/1, because the silencer bearing that configuration was never taken to the Lab', nor could she have known on 13th August 1985, that the next time the silencer would arrive at the Lab' let's say on 30th August 1985 that it would be referred to as exhibit DB/1 (23), and that by November 1985, somebody would be requesting the ballistic expert, to alter lab' item no.23, into no.22..
"red stain on gridded pattern - KM negative"
So, the document you have sought to rely upon by claiming that there was red paint noted on the first silencer on 13th August 1985, was created much later on by adding information onto it, which could not possibly have been noted until over a month later on a different silencer altogether..
Two completely different Silencers then , altogether...
The best way to proceed from here on in is to pay attention to what I am due to be saying here very shortly, and if at all possible try to let some of what I am about to say sink in, because it's the truth!
AE wrote in her notes that she brought the bloody knickers back with her to Oak farm.
Yes, it is fake, because it refers to a different silencer than she was presented with, and she didn't have possession of the silencer long enough to give such a detailed analysis - she took a swab from the aperture that's all she did on the 13th August 1985, she couldn't have thought that the silencer she examined on that day, was referred to previously by the different exhibit reference of SBJ/1, because the silencer bearing that configuration was never taken to the Lab', nor could she have known on 13th August 1985, that the next time the silencer would arrive at the Lab' let's say on 30th August 1985 that it would be referred to as exhibit DB/1 (23), and that by November 1985, somebody would be requesting the ballistic expert, to alter lab' item no.23, into no.22..
Information which Glynis Howard could not possibly have known about on 13th August 1985, was added Much later on with deception in mind..
I note that you deliberately did not post the first page of that document, also dated 13th August 1985, where it clearly states on the diagram that red paint particles noticed in knurled pattern of the silencers end cap after the silencer had been returned to the Lab' for fingerprinting of it by the police! This gives a clear indication that the red paint was only noticed on the silencer after it returned to the lab' on a second occasion! I don't believe that it was sent back to the lab' in the ' guise of exhibit DB/1, 23, (or 22) on 30th August 1985, I think the item sent to the lab' on that occasion was the source for the blood group results obtained afterwards, but certainly not prior to 20th September 1985 when a silencer arrived at the Lab' for the second time!
In view of there existing no fingerprint evidence pertaining to any silencer as alluded to by DI Cook on either 15th and 23rd August 1985 at the Sandridge police research and development centre, as confirmed by the COLP investigation, the only reliable information that a silencer did get fingerprinted, was that it got fingerprinted by DS Eastwood and DS Davison (HQ SOCO) on 13th September 1985. This being the now indisputable case, the silencer with the red pain particles upon it could only have been received at the Lab on some occasion after Eastwood and Davison had fingerprinted 'it'..
This fits in snugly with the now known fact that the silencer did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, which was the second time a silencer had been sent / taken to the Lab'. Indeed, when this silencer was eventually examined (26th September 1985), this was the occasion when the paint from the kitchen aga was first noted! Moreover, this wasn't the original silencer which Cook had taken to the Lab' on 13th August 1985, this was a different silencer (DRB/1) found at the scene in September 1985 by the relatives..
So, the document you have sought to rely upon by claiming that there was red paint noted on the first silencer on 13th August 1985, was created much later on by adding information onto it, which could not possibly have been noted until over a month later on a different silencer altogether..
It is the handwriting of Glynnis Howard. She must have realised that there were two silencers and that the one she had examined on August 13th was not the one with paint found on it. The cops must have asked her to help out and she agreed.
It is notable that the exhibit reference on the left has been changed from SBJ/1 to DB/1. I take it that there is proof that the reference which the silencer had at that stage, when sent to Huntingdon laboratory was SB/1 and not SBJ/1. There you see the dark arts being used, but with a mistake being made. They should have written SB/1 and crossed that out, if I have understood your point correctly.
The trouble with this case is that even when blatant skulduggery is exposed nothing happens, because there is no attempt to communicate the truth to the public. It's all about people agreeing not to reveal what they know and keeping the truth secret. The mentality goes something like this.
"It doesn't matter what the public think, all that matters is what the CCRC think"
There is now enough evidence to expose the conspirators. If the relatives were openly accused of perverting the course of justice by a national daily and challenged to sue, you would see that they wouldn't dare. But instead, the lawyers have asked the Guardian not to reveal what they have been told about two silencers.
Even worse, we can tell that the lawyers are sticking with outdated assumptions accepted by the Court of Appeal in 2002, like Sheila being shot twice twice in the master bedroom and PC West mistiming his log and PC Collins mistaking Nevill Bamber's body for that of a woman wearing pyjamas.
There WERE two silencers, but the relatives found BOTH of them on August 10th. As the saying goes, always bet on stupid.
Yes, it is fake, because it refers to a different silencer than she was presented with, and she didn't have possession of the silencer long enough to give such a detailed analysis - she took a swab from the aperture that's all she did on the 13th August 1985, she couldn't have thought that the silencer she examined on that day, was referred to previously by the different exhibit reference of SBJ/1, because the silencer bearing that configuration was never taken to the Lab', nor could she have known on 13th August 1985, that the next time the silencer would arrive at the Lab' let's say on 30th August 1985 that it would be referred to as exhibit DB/1 (23), and that by November 1985, somebody would be requesting the ballistic expert, to alter lab' item no.23, into no.22..
Information which Glynis Howard could not possibly have known about on 13th August 1985, was added Much later on with deception in mind..
I note that you deliberately did not post the first page of that document, also dated 13th August 1985, where it clearly states on the diagram that red paint particles noticed in knurled pattern of the silencers end cap after the silencer had been returned to the Lab' for fingerprinting of it by the police! This gives a clear indication that the red paint was only noticed on the silencer after it returned to the lab' on a second occasion! I don't believe that it was sent back to the lab' in the ' guise of exhibit DB/1, 23, (or 22) on 30th August 1985, I think the item sent to the lab' on that occasion was the source for the blood group results obtained afterwards, but certainly not prior to 20th September 1985 when a silencer arrived at the Lab' for the second time!
In view of there existing no fingerprint evidence pertaining to any silencer as alluded to by DI Cook on either 15th and 23rd August 1985 at the Sandridge police research and development centre, as confirmed by the COLP investigation, the only reliable information that a silencer did get fingerprinted, was that it got fingerprinted by DS Eastwood and DS Davison (HQ SOCO) on 13th September 1985. This being the now indisputable case, the silencer with the red pain particles upon it could only have been received at the Lab on some occasion after Eastwood and Davison had fingerprinted 'it'..
This fits in snugly with the now known fact that the silencer did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, which was the second time a silencer had been sent / taken to the Lab'. Indeed, when this silencer was eventually examined (26th September 1985), this was the occasion when the paint from the kitchen aga was first noted! Moreover, this wasn't the original silencer which Cook had taken to the Lab' on 13th August 1985, this was a different silencer (DRB/1) found at the scene in September 1985 by the relatives..
So, the document you have sought to rely upon by claiming that there was red paint noted on the first silencer on 13th August 1985, was created much later on by adding information onto it, which could not possibly have been noted until over a month later on a different silencer altogether..
Mike you have been claiming that DS Eastwood and DS Davison fingerprinted a second silencer on 13th September for over 10 years now! Jeremy has never seen any such documents, this is evident from this letter he sent you below in 09. I think its safe to say this simply never happened. I don't mean to sound like a jerk here but you filling his head with moonshine is probably what ultimatley led him to stop writing to you. It does not do him any favours even when you repeat this now.
(https://i.ibb.co/6mJ4xrQ/teskofiles3.jpg)
"Which is accentuated by the fact that they both have been interviewed in the kitchen where Ralph Nevill Bamber was killed, a site where they volunteered to be so interviewed"
And that's the exact place were PE also volunteered to be so interviewed for ITV in 2004. Sitting exactly where Nevil was killed.
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/31/46/14/31461489255dd77e17b66a6ec63fa193.jpg)
That's just creepy.
AE wrote in her notes that she brought the bloody knickers back with her to Oak farm.
(https://i.ibb.co/8bs9yL4/notesae11.png)
And? She brought them home as part of the rubbish - she said she threw them out in her WS.. She didn't have to admit to taking the rubbish home to search through - but she did. Might be a good idea to try and obtain a closer picture of those buckets! ;D
Why should anyone accept what you say that Ann Eaton did with arguably the source of the holy grail blood grouping results (A, EAP BA, AK1, and HP2-1) identified at the Lab' not on 13th August 1985, but on 12th, 13th, 18th, and 19th September 1985?
Hang in a minute, we can't go along and accept such a person's word, that although she took Sheila Caffell's originally badly bloodstained knickers away from the crime scene, that she subsequently threw this evidence away!
What?
Why would anyone be interested in taking some bodies heavily bloodstains knickers home away from a crime scene, where all the other bloodstained items of no apparent Inretest to the police, were burnt on a bonfire in the grounds of the farmhouse? It simply doesn't make any sense! All the bloodstained items should have either, (a) been taken by the police to facilitate their investigation, or as the case may be, (b) burnt on the bonfire!
Why (a) would you rinse out Sheila's bloodstained knickers, and then take them home with you as some sort of rubbish for you to simply throw away, when you could have simply allowed the blood stained knickers to be burnt on the crime scene pyre?
She took them as part of the rubbish - they were in the bin that she removed to look through later. I you don't to buy what I say - David posted her notes, HE is relying on what SHE said. The pair of you need to ask Bamber about the buckets if you want a REAL discrepancy! Or get yourselves a decent picture of them!
Hang on a minute, I am not interested in what Jeremy might be saying now, or what David believes, I can think for myself. I do not need anyone else to think for me, or adduce, or deduce something on my behalf! I am more than capable of doing all my own thinking, my own deductions and give my own opinions...
xxxxxx xxxx xxx, xxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxx xx xxx- I don't know why I have to put up with the amateurish way that you all are dealing with such a very serious matter...
You have all simply got very little idea of what the cops, its witnesses and the CPS are capable of doing - fabricating a case against anyone is what they do on an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis...
Sheila's heavily bloodstained knickers were soaking in one bucket, and the children's clothes were soaking in the other bucket - work the rest out for yourself. How do you know which of the two bucket contents Ann Eaton actually rinsed out? She doesn't say that she rinsed out the items in both buckets does she? Or does she?
As for Jeremy, if he isn't the killer that he has been convicted of being, then why should anyone think that he knows far more than anybody else about his case?
His arrogant attitude is what has incarcerated him in custody for the past 33 years or more...
The bottom line is that the alleged fabrication of the silencer evidence does not make Jeremy Bamber innocent.
It does because the relatives, cops, experts, and the CPS lied through their rotten teeth about when it was found, who found it, and what was found inside it...
Which fucking silencer was this then?
SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, AE/1, CAE/1 or DRB/1?
Why the need to change the fucking silencer exhibit reference on so many occasions?
Explain this folly to me, so that everybody else can share your opinion, why the need for the silencer to have all these different exhibit references?
None of you would be talking such bullshit, if you were incarcerated alongside convicted defendants in long term detention who were themselves a victim of a miscarriage of justice..
You people are all brainwashed by the system which fundamentally controls the vast majority of the general public...
You don't even know why you believe or accept that which you make out you believe in, or support..
YOU ARE ALL BRAINWASHED INDIVIDUALS, 'Wake up, get a fucking grip of yourselves, why would it take something like this to happen to you, and yours before it suddenly dawned on any of you, that what the system has done to you and yours, was / is wrong??
It does because the relatives, cops, experts, and the CPS lied through their rotten teeth about when it was found, who found it, and what was found inside it...
Which xxxxxxx silencer was this then?
SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, AE/1, CAE/1 or DRB/1?
Why the need to change the xxxxxxx silencer exhibit reference on so many occasions?
Explain this folly to me, so that everybody else can share your opinion, why the need for the silencer to have all these different exhibit references?
Who in their right mind would take Sheila Caffell's bloodstains knickers home with them from the scene of the shooting tragedy, to wash them when all the other bloodstains items at the scene which the police did not seize where destroyed on a bonfire on the farms land?
I suppose one could ask AE what she done with those panties. Better late than never but why bother? Can we trust anything that AE says? - It seems not.
For example. AE told the police that she heard Jeremy tell the police about June having a black eye when they took his statement. This is a lie, nowhere is this mentioned in Jeremy's statement. AE could only have known about Junes black eye via Julie Mugford after they visited the mortuary.
So what she done with Sheila's bloody panties that she took home the very night she worked out how important the silencer would be (contrary to what she told the trial jury). Will forever remain a mystery./s
Why did Ann Eaton tell the court she knew nothing about the silencers significance?
Why did Ann Eaton tell the court she left the knickers at WHF when she actually took them home?
She contaminated the silencer!
Didn't she say she put them in the bin at WHF after washing them out in the sink.
Then she later says that she took the black bags of rubbish away?
There has been a chunk of her testimony on this subject cut out. Other copies exist that dont have this stuff cut that are not on this forum. I would like to see what's been cut out. Someone has cut out crucial parts of both AE and DBs testimony despite the fact that other copies exist. Do you have any idea who done this?
All the parts of DBs testimony that have been cut out involve handling the silencer and what he saw on the shooting trip in Scotland. All the parts of AEs testimony that has been cut out involve handling the silencer and the buckets in the kitchen. This is not a random cutting out, they all revolve around very controversial subjects. I believe DB lied about the shooting trip in Scotland and I suspect AE lied about the buckets and whoever did this cutting knew it.
Mikes theory is that it was Jeremys lawyers, as they didnt want him to realise how much they failed him when he asked them for a copy the trial transcript. If the cuttings took place long before the internet. Then its not as farfetched as it sounds. That being Kingsley Napley would do that in order to save face. But I am open to other ideas.
(https://i.ibb.co/BzBHznq/ann1f.jpg)
Ann asked uncle Nevil for a clue.Do you think any of Ann Eaton's diaries would have seen the light of day had she had something to hide?
(https://i.ibb.co/GcmkxPK/nevclue.jpg)
But on the 10th of August Nevil was dead. Why did she ask a dead man for a clue? She believed in paranormal.
It seems Ann Eaton was not the only one doing a paranormal investigation because Julie Mugford was doing the exact same thing at the mortuary after Ann took her there.
How much of thier beliefs in Jeremys guilt was ascertained from contact with the victims from beyond the grave? What science would call thier imaginations.
There has been a chunk of her testimony on this subject cut out. Other copies exist that dont have this stuff cut that are not on this forum. I would like to see what's been cut out. Someone has cut out crucial parts of both AE and DBs testimony despite the fact that other copies exist. Do you have any idea who done this?
All the parts of DBs testimony that have been cut out involve handling the silencer and what he saw on the shooting trip in Scotland. All the parts of AEs testimony that has been cut out involve handling the silencer and the buckets in the kitchen. This is not a random cutting out, they all revolve around very controversial subjects. I believe DB lied about the shooting trip in Scotland and I suspect AE lied about the buckets and whoever did this cutting knew it.
Mikes theory is that it was Jeremys lawyers, as they didnt want him to realise how much they failed him when he asked them for a copy the trial transcript. If the cuttings took place long before the internet. Then its not as farfetched as it sounds. That being Kingsley Napley would do that in order to save face. But I am open to other ideas.
(https://i.ibb.co/BzBHznq/ann1f.jpg)
Sounds like nonsense to me.
Wasn't JB sitting in the same room whilst the testimony was being given.
Why did Ann Eaton tell the court she knew nothing about the silencers significance?
Why did Ann Eaton tell the court she left the knickers at WHF when she actually took them home?
She contaminated the silencer!
Sounds like nonsense to me.
Wasn't JB sitting in the same room whilst the testimony was being given.
So you have no idea who cut it? :-\
He won’t have a photographic memory of what was said. Hence why he asked for a copy.
I wonder why it is that everyone linked to this case -other than Jeremy- is required to have photographic memory?
I also have to wonder about the clearly unsanitary conditions inhabited by those who find it odd/strange that Ann washed Sheila's soiled knickers before disposing of them. Irrelevant of how, in what circumstances, or with which forms of human waste items are soiled, SURELY one would remove the worst of it prior to disposal? In the case of blood, pre-soaking, which was exactly what had occurred with Sheila's underwear, would have removed the worst, meaning that what Ann subsequently did was no more than what any other woman would have done automatically, rather than have the bin men come into contact with them.
Let it go David. Let it go. It was 34 years ago. Bamber is an inheritance killer.
You know AE didn't achieve an impossible frame of an innocent man, triggering an industrial frame involving hundreds of people. You said so yourself before you're quiet stance change.
You are still quite young. Go & enjoy yourself.
She took them home with her. She obviously found a good use for them.
PS: I once got vaginal blood all over a condom I had on. I didn’t wash it out before throwing it and neither did I take the bin home with me.
Regarding your unsavoury PS. Perhaps you need to think again about your bravado. There's little about any of it's contents to recommend your character. It also says -although not by any means the worst which MAY be said- that you're happy to leave it to someone else to to clean up your bodily fluids.
The only person that left it to others to clean up their bodily fluids was Sheila. Since she undoubtedly left her soiled panties in kitchen. And since she was found upstairs with no panties on but with a gun, its not the only bloody mess she left behind.
The only person that left it to others to clean up their bodily fluids was Sheila. Since she undoubtedly left her soiled panties in kitchen. And since she was found upstairs with no panties on but with a gun, its not the only bloody mess she left behind.
She took them home with her. She obviously found a good use for them.
PS: I once got vaginal blood all over a condom I had on. I didn’t wash it out before throwing it and neither did I take the bin home with me.
Hopefully Adam will provide an innocent explanation for why Ann Eaton took Sheila's bloody panties home with her along with the silencer. Why she feigned ignorance of the silencer in-front of the jury and told the jury that she left the knickers at WHF instead of taking them home.
So you're saying Ann and everyone else who gave evidence (SNIP)
No, I am just focusing on one witness here.
Ask yourself, 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."
She cannot be telling the truth on both occasions. There are probably posts of yours on this forum accepting/agreeing to this prior to your sudden change of mind along with Caroline anyway. Hence I wont be wasting much time debating this with you.
So you have no idea who cut it? :-\
He won’t have a photographic memory of what was said. Hence why he asked for a copy.
How could I possibly 'know'?
It looks like pieces of paper have been placed to cover up some text before scanning, rather than them being cut out.
I'd presumed that it was done by Mike.
The original post is below, there are a couple of pages with bits covered up/removed.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4069.0.html
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4069.0.html)
i think i need glases i read this thread as the boiled underwaer.
I just said that :P ;D
But you're highlighting two statements which bear no correlation to each other. (SNIP)
She was perfectly correct in saying that she didn't know if it was rabbit's blood because originally, (SNIP)
Wrong.David you're making a meal of this. How anyone can be expected to think coherently after five deaths beats me. As Jane says Ann Eaton was thinking why the silencer with blood was in the cupboard at all, the story Jeremy had concocted about the rabbits a few days previously still running through her mind.
They are both Ann Eaton describing the events surrounding the silencer on the evening of August the 10th. Same subject same time and same day. Anyone with a shade of sense can work out that at least one of these statements is a lie.
Wrong again.
She knew the silencer was not on the gun that night and she knew Jeremy didn't kill any rabbits. We know this because she wrote this in her notes. Thus her rabbit story is yet another lie on top of a lie.
Jane, you are without a doubt the most willfully ignorant person I have ever encountered on this forum!
David you're making a meal of this. How anyone can be expected to think coherently after five deaths beats me. As Jane says Ann Eaton was thinking why the silencer with blood was in the cupboard at all, the story Jeremy had concocted about the rabbits a few days previously still running through her mind.
Personal attacks are uncalled for on the forum also.
Ann Eaton’s was thinking coherently enough to take down all those notes. Notes that say the silencer was not on the gun and that Jeremy didn’t kill any rabbits only that he attempted to.
So the award for the second most willfully ignorant person I’ve encountered on this forum goes to?
Ann Eaton’s was thinking coherently enough to take down all those notes. Notes that say the silencer was not on the gun and that Jeremy didn’t kill any rabbits only that he attempted to.Well whilst we're about it how about an award for wilful orthographic mistakes..
So the award for the second most willfully ignorant person I’ve encountered on this forum goes to?
Ann Eaton’s was thinking coherently enough to take down all those notes. Notes that say the silencer was not on the gun and that Jeremy didn’t kill any rabbits only that he attempted to.
So the award for the second most willfully ignorant person I’ve encountered on this forum goes to?
How could I possibly 'know'?
It looks like pieces of paper have been placed to cover up some text before scanning, rather than them being cut out.
I'd presumed that it was done by Mike.
Ann Eaton didn't know the silencer wasn't on the gun or that the rabbit story was BS - she just knew (and noted down) what Jeremy said. That was her starting position, she jotted down things as she thought about them.
Her answer explicitly states "Jeremy said"
RIVLIN: How could you imagine that the blood at the end of the silencer might be a rabbits blood?
ANN EATON: I don't know.
RIVLIN: That is what you told the court. How could you imagine that it might be a rabbits blood?
ANN EATON: 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.
No, initially Jeremy said he HAD 'missed' the rabbits and when asked how any shots were fired, he seemed unsure - giving the impression that he fired at them but missed and they ran away. In other words, he was initially evasive//contradictory. I guess he realised that the police might look for evidence and there would be none, so he changed his recollection of events to mean that he 'missed' the rabbits because they were longer so no shots were fired. I posted evidence of this weeks ago!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9878.msg450212.html#msg450212
No, initially Jeremy said he HAD 'missed' the rabbits and when asked how any shots were fired, he seemed unsure - giving the impression that he fired at them but missed and they ran away. In other words, he was initially evasive//contradictory. I guess he realised that the police might look for evidence and there would be none, so he changed his recollection of events to mean that he 'missed' the rabbits because they were longer so no shots were fired. I posted evidence of this weeks ago!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9878.msg450212.html#msg450212
Stop trying to chance the subject again Caroline. What AE heard from JB in early August is what matters here.
The prosecution went throught all of JBs August statements and September interrogations. To date the only part of JBs September interrogations the prosecution have ever found useful and thus used against him in court, is his own admission he could enter the building through a locked window. They didn't find any serious discrepancies to bolster their case. They didn't bring up what you keep bringing up here because its their job to prosecute, not get laughed at.
No its been cut. look at the right hand side of the scan.
Mike has uploaded other copies of the testimony without anything missing. So it makes no sense for him to be behind this.
Not that it matters in any way, but I don't agree with you. I think it's bits of paper stuck on (probably by Mike).
I agree about the paper, you can see the straight line of the paper. Not sure who is responsible though.
I'm only thinking that it was Mike because he has scanned most of the documents in from paper copies.
Plus he can be quite mischievous and it's the sort of thing that I might expect him to do.
It might not be him though.
More to the point, he David knows what the statements contain and has or has seen copies, why isn 't he sharing this information?
I'll hazard a guess that it's because what's been removed is damaging to Jeremy's cause. Had it been otherwise he'd have only too happy to share.
Hmmm, not sure he's have highlighted it at all if that were the case. Storm in a tea cup most likely.
More to the point, he David knows what the statements contain and has or has seen copies, why isn 't he sharing this information?
If we're to believe David -who also appears to know something of what the missing parts contain claiming as being missing "crucial parts of AE and DB's testimony"-
Not that it matters in any way, but I don't agree with you. I think it's bits of paper stuck on (probably by Mike).
What are you talking about? All I have that I wont share are a few witness statements made in 2010/11 and some photos. And I wont share them because I promised those who gave them to me not to. Good enough reason?
You gave the impression that you had seen other versions of AE;s statement? If you haven't then fair enough but if not, your speculation is OTT.
Here is part of AEs September statement.
"I hoovered the kitchen floor and the remainder of the ground floor rooms. I then washed the kitchen floor. Whilst standing at the sink unit which is in front of the kitchen window I saw smudge marks on the inside of the glass and the window frame itself.
On the inside window sill I saw diluted blood marks which I assumed were what had been left after the kitchen had been cleaned. I cleaned these marks up. There were also three buckets in the kitchen containing washing in soak. One contained two pairs of bloodstained ladies knickers. I then locked up and returned to my home. About 3 p.m. that same day."
Here she never mentions washing the knickers out. In her handwritten notes she writes about washing the floor but nothing about washing the knickers either. Only that she brought them home with her.
Come Jeremy's trial she had apparently washed them out then left them at the WHF.
Come 1991 when the police go over her notes, she had to admit talking them home but does so indirectly. That being she mentions throwing them in the bin. Then a few pages off topic later before saying she took the bin home.
It seems AE does not want people to know she brought them home. But instead wants people to think she washed them out and left them at WHF. Why might that be? Had Jean Boutell not been in the kitchen with her. I would bet AE would deny the existence of them!
Here is part of AEs September statement.
"I hoovered the kitchen floor and the remainder of the ground floor rooms. I then washed the kitchen floor. Whilst standing at the sink unit which is in front of the kitchen window I saw smudge marks on the inside of the glass and the window frame itself.
On the inside window sill I saw diluted blood marks which I assumed were what had been left after the kitchen had been cleaned. I cleaned these marks up. There were also three buckets in the kitchen containing washing in soak. One contained two pairs of bloodstained ladies knickers. I then locked up and returned to my home. About 3 p.m. that same day."
Here she never mentions washing the knickers out. In her handwritten notes she writes about washing the floor but nothing about washing the knickers either. Only that she brought them home with her.
Come Jeremy's trial she had apparently washed them out then left them at the WHF.
Come 1991 when the police go over her notes, she had to admit talking them home but does so indirectly. That being she mentions throwing them in the bin. Then a few pages off topic later before saying she took the bin home.
It seems AE does not want people to know she brought them home. But instead wants people to think she washed them out and left them at WHF. Why might that be? Had Jean Boutell not been in the kitchen with her. I would bet AE would deny the existence of them!
Blood from soiled underwear has no place when/if testing for DNA etc as it contains dead tissue and mucous and would give a different result to that of arterial or venous blood.
ABO testing cannot distinguish between vaginal blood or blood from the rest of the body. (I actually looked into this)
As for the DNA tests done in 2000. The cells were so small they could not establish what the DNA was based on. They only found a partial DNA profile for Sheila. This was done 15 years after John Hayward removed all the blood inside for testing.
Yes they were both Blood Type A. At trial Geoffrey Rivlin QC suggested to him that he had cut his finger whilst handling the silencer. But as John Hayward stated years afterwards there was a lot of blood in the silencer, not just a few drops. It's strange because one would have thought the more blood visible the less likely Bamber would have been to replace it uncleaned in the gun cupboard.
If I remember rightly didn't RWB have similar blood results to Sheila ?
Yes they were both Blood Type A. At trial Geoffrey Rivlin QC suggested to him that he had cut his finger whilst handling the silencer. But as John Hayward stated years afterwards there was a lot of blood in the silencer, not just a few drops. It's strange because one would have thought the more blood visible the less likely Bamber would have been to replace it uncleaned in the gun cupboard.
If I remember rightly didn't RWB have similar blood results to Sheila ?
He didn't have similar blood. He had identical blood. They were both A, PGM 1+, EAP BA, AK-1, HP 2-1.
But regardless of that he is not my prime suspect. Allbeit he remains a possible one.
Its not plausible to me that he would know his blood would show up the same as Sheila's across five different areas of testing. But even then he does not have to, you could argue he was ignorant and took the risk. You can never really rule him out 100% :-\
Even identical twins don't have the same profiles in either bloods or DNA. Something's not right is it ?
That may be the case with modern forensic and medical testing.
But back then a large fraction of the world population would have the same blood results as what was found in the silencer.
Even identical twins don't have the same profiles in either bloods or DNA. Something's not right is it ?
Yes they do, they are from the same fertilized egg .......... (Edit) or at least initially. However, it seems subtle difference in DNA emerge throughout life. Same blood group though.
This is quite interesting;
https://www.biotechniques.com/omics/not-so-identical-twins/
Not with the AK1 profile.
There's only so much that you can discuss concerning soiled underwear :-\
Not in this case. obviously.
Is it relevant though David ?
Very much so
I asked the question because there are so many other factors to the way the case was handled and wasn't sure if this particular subject was as pressing as others.
In case you did not know. Quite a few people here suspect the soiled underwear is the source of the blood flake found in the silencer.
I'm struggling to understand how "quite a few people" thought/still think? such blood could be extricated from previously soaked garments, regardless of what the garments were. Eg, quite naturally, the garment, already having shed some blood content from having been soaked in water which may very possibly have had some sort of detergent added to it, would have needed to be dried prior to the removal of the 'material', after which the likelihood of collecting "a flake" becomes seriously diminished. Then there is the fact that dried blood oxidises very quickly and bears no resemblance to the "blob of jam" it was claimed to. Short of a family member having a Phd in science or being able to persuade a friendly scientist to do a bit of 'overtime' in a conveniently placed laboratory, I fail to see, without going into realms of the fantastic, how occurred anything like it.
I'm struggling to understand how "quite a few people" thought/still think? such blood could be extricated from previously soaked garments, regardless of what the garments were. Eg, quite naturally, the garment, already having shed some blood content from having been soaked in water which may very possibly have had some sort of detergent added to it, would have needed to be dried prior to the removal of the 'material', after which the likelihood of collecting "a flake" becomes seriously diminished. Then there is the fact that dried blood oxidises very quickly and bears no resemblance to the "blob of jam" it was claimed to. Short of a family member having a Phd in science or being able to persuade a friendly scientist to do a bit of 'overtime' in a conveniently placed laboratory, I fail to see, without going into realms of the fantastic, how occurred anything like it.
Menstrual blood is known to contain flakes of clotted blood among other bits that will form flakes once dry.
To say you need a scientist with a PHD is nonsense.
What do you believe to be the source of the blood?
Mmm. Blood of any description can't, because it's liquid, (snip)
The blood in DB/1 exhibit had been established years ago as not being that of Sheila's because a Buccal sample taken from Sheila's bio mother for DNA profiling which then proved that the blood in the silencer hadn't originated from Sheila unless Christine Jay hadn't been the natural mother.
This info was included in a letter from a forensic scientist to CCRC.
There was no certainty that the DNA profile found in the silencer originated from blood.
Sigh..... I didn't want to post this but here it is. What does the menstrual blood below resemble? Jam.
Can you see clotted bits of blood in it? Yes.
(https://i0.wp.com/i.imgur.com/yeZoh6C.jpg)
I dont think any women can honestly dispute this, unless they are infertile and never menstruated.
That is indeed, a fine specimen!!!!!, and although quite shocking to be faced with at lunch time, hardly common place, for most women. It could, in fact, be a ten week pregnancy. It may also be of interest that SO much material would have been weighty and gravity would have done it's bit. No sooner had it have left the body than it would have hit the floor if the female had been in a vertical position. Such a mass in a pail would most certainly have given rise to questions about a possible pregnancy having terminated. Expelling such would be painful. I think the fact must be accepted that whatever the size of any material which left Sheila's body, it would have been small enough to be held within the minimal confines of bikini pants. Also worth noting is that women with such 'extravagant' flows need far and away more protection than that afforded by tampons.
Your 'jammy' description can't be argued against. However, your 'specimen' hadn't, I assume, spent several hours soaking in water which may have had added detergent?
David, would you know if a silencer had 14 or 17 baffles without taking it apart ?
DNA is taken from the white cells, not red anyway and the illustration shows a " waste " product which contains tissue/endometrium/mucus/------contaminated products to which a result would be quite poor.
I wouldnt have thought so. Why do you ask?
Well because 2 silencers were involved and there was any jiggery-pokery going on as to which one was allegedly used, be it an AP one or a Bamber one the thing to do would be to find out who owned which one before " smearing " it. The only way of knowing would be to take it to bits and count the baffles and whichever belonged to the Bamber's, smear it and use it as evidence. Otherwise why take it to pieces ?
We know Cook( the corrupt one ) took one apart---why ? Also one of the relatives did too----why ?
That is indeed, a fine specimen!!!!!, and although quite shocking to be faced with at lunch time, hardly common place, for most women. It could, in fact, be a ten week pregnancy. It may also be of interest that SO much material would have been weighty and gravity would have done it's bit. No sooner had it have left the body than it would have hit the floor if the female had been in a vertical position. Such a mass in a pail would most certainly have given rise to questions about a possible pregnancy having terminated. Expelling such would be painful. I think the fact must be accepted that whatever the size of any material which left Sheila's body, it would have been small enough to be held within the minimal confines of bikini pants. Also worth noting is that women with such 'extravagant' flows need far and away more protection than that afforded by tampons.
Your 'jammy' description can't be argued against. However, your 'specimen' hadn't, I assume, spent several hours soaking in water which may have had added detergent?
You're right. it was taken from a web page specifically about blood clots not normal flow periods.
http://uniasartisuliopa.blogspot.com/2017/01/menstruation-period-blood-clots.html
Menstrual Blood clots are normal.
"Clots happen when the uterine lining sheds increased amounts of blood. When the blood pools in the uterus or vagina, it begins to coagulate, much like it would on an open skin wound."
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322707.php (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322707.php)
Since the knickers in question were bloody. Its a fact that Sheila was not wearing a tampon at the time. So this was unexpected. The blood would have been coagulating while she was asleep and prior waking up and putting the underwear in the bucket.
I have pointed out before. The idea that the water in the bucket would dematerialize the blood, only works if She was literally haveing her period over the bucket as it happens and not giving the blood a chance to dry. But even that does not work since the blood dries in vagina just like an open wound as the article states.
The more I look into this. The more possible it becomes.
Menstrual Blood clots are normal.
"Clots happen when the uterine lining sheds increased amounts of blood. When the blood pools in the uterus or vagina, it begins to coagulate, much like it would on an open skin wound."
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322707.php (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322707.php)
Since the knickers in question were bloody. Its a fact that Sheila was not wearing a tampon at the time. So this was unexpected. The blood would have been coagulating while she was asleep and prior waking up and putting the underwear in the bucket.
I have pointed out before. The idea that the water in the bucket would dematerialize the blood, only works if She was literally haveing her period over the bucket as it happens and not giving the blood a chance to dry. But even that does not work since the blood dries in vagina just like an open wound as the article states.
The more I look into this. The more possible it becomes.
It has recently come to my attention that all the samples of Sheila's blood (PV 12,13 and 16) were all sent to Huntingdon lab by Vanezis on the 9th of August once he had completed his work. Those samples remained at the lab over the weekend and the following week for drug testing.
So despite the silencer being in DS Jones possession for a day. He had no opportunity to plant the blood.
So via a process of elimination the the soiled underwear could very well be the answer. The only alternative being Robert Boutflour.
I should add that idea of the police and lab manufacturing the silencer, planting it at WHF then telling the relatives to go and find it for them and pretend they found it a month prior because they (the police) just made up a paper trail of hundreds of lab records and witnesses showing they found it in August for no apparent reason. Is not an acceptable nor feasible alternative. Its a crackpot idea based purely on misinterpreting two lines of an excel spread sheet written by Ewen Smith in 2001.
Mike Turner QC was also convinced that it was June and Nevill's blood " mixed " in the silencer.
I should add that Jeremy believes that AE and DB took Nevill and Junes blood still left at the scene and planted it the moderator. This is what Jeremy wrote to Mike about 10 years ago. You can find the letter posted on here somewhere.
Allthough there was Junes blood on the bedroom door and Nevills blood downstairs. The idea can only work if the lab disolved two sepertae blood flakes into one solution to conduct a test showing a mixture.
David, I think you're making this up as you go!
it will NOT dry in the vagina. Such only occurs post menopause.
He probably does because if anyone KNOWS the silencer wasn't used - it's Jeremy!
I quoted from a website.
I wont be taking your word over these people.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/authors (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/authors)
Read the letters. He cites the Fowler and Seuthurst material as the basis for this idea. The letter was written around the same time he told the Telegraph.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7884046/Jeremy-Bamber-claims-he-was-framed-for-murder-by-cousins.html (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7884046/Jeremy-Bamber-claims-he-was-framed-for-murder-by-cousins.html)
I quoted from a website.
I wont be taking your word over these people.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/authors (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/authors)
I suggest you contact the five female .com/authors -all very knowledgeable- to find out what are their individual menstrual experiences. I'll put money on that the only 100% commonality is that they (probably!!!) all menstruate. Times, crampings, mood swings, headaches, skin eruptions, viscosity of flow are unique to individual women. You may gain more knowledge of Sheila's 'pattern' by homing in on the picture which shows the box of tampons. That particular brand comes in regular, super, and super plus -all self explanatory. It's worth reiterating that women who expel the 'extravagances' in your pictures won't be successfully protected by a tampon. Other, more appropriate methods of protection are available to them. Menstrual cups were unavailable. I'm not certain -other than presenting yourself as an authority on menstruation- what is the point you wish to make here.
Also, clotting is less likely to cause leaks and given that Sheila had a tampon in place prior to her death and they were on the spare bed in her room, it is unlikely that she slept/walked about WHF without one!!
If the poor girl was in the state David is saying she was, perish the thought!!!! The story is there to be read, but of course, one has to understand the language.
What was your explanation for the blood in the silencer when you believed Sheila was responsible and shot herself?
There were lots of blood sources and there is no way the family would take on a task like tampering with evidence without having some idea of how to go about it - which they didn't. They would have risked their own reputation, freedom and the chance that Bamber would go free,
Then who was responsible for the "blob of jam" that was seen at Oak farm but not noticed by David Boutflour at WHF earlier that day?
Who was responsible for the hair that Peter Eaton pointed out to Jones that David Boutflour also did not notice when he tried to unscrew it two days before?
Why did AE contact the police about the silencer despite telling the court she didnt know how she came to suspect it was blood in the first place?
Any other samples of Sheila's blood was kept in huntingdon lab while Jones and Cook had possession of it.
Criminals risk their reputation and freedom whenever they commit the act. It never stops them. AE and PE faced bankruptcy due to Jeremy intending on selling the land they farmed to pay death duties. The reward far outweighed the risk (as we can now see). Besides I do not think they all acted together to plant the blood. I believe it was one person.
Unlike you David, I would rather not point fingers at specific people but you should keep your own words in mind when you think about Bamber - he risked a lot and just didn't pay off.
Also, remember, a dodgy silencer does not an innocent Bamber make!
There is no credible evidence to support that claim. Few here believe it for no good reason.
More to the point. A dodgy silencer does a guilty relative make.
Similarly, like the the case you are arguing on another thread, there is a mass of circumstantial evidence - other than the silencer however, you dismiss the circumstantial evidence in this case but argue for it on the other. You cherry pick and come up with outlandish theories (like the blood in the silencer coming from Sheila's knickers) and ignore any common sense arguments that shows your theory to be nonsense while claiming 'others' back you all the way - those mysterious 'others' eh? ::)
You cherry pick and come up with outlandish theories (like the blood in the silencer coming from Sheila's knickers) and ignore any common sense arguments that shows your theory to be nonsense while claiming 'others' back you all the way - those mysterious 'others' eh? ::)
There is no circumstantial evidence in this case, its just something you like to pretend is there (for whatever reason) but never explain or elaborate on once the question is put to you as to what exactly. (because it don't exist).
If there was a mass of circumstancial evidence like in the mitchel case. My position would be very different. The Judges summing up in the case would be very different also. What happened to all this alleged circumstancial evidence the Judge should have instructed the jury to carefully consider when reaching thier verdic? Did he forget to mention it?
No need for any psychological projections.
You know it 'do' exist but pretend it doesn't! The judge didn't need to, they had the silencer and JULIE'S testimony - oh I forgot, she's a liar and conspired with Robert Boutflour ::)
Seriously, is there any murder case where you don't consider yourself an expert? ::)
Have you changed your theory now you know that PE didn't find the hair on the silencer?
You know it dosent exist because you have nothing to talk about when asked. And thats how I know it dont exist. The whole thing is a myth you created.
As for PE and the hair on the screw cap. DB didnt notice a hair on the screw cap when he tried to open it two days before. Neither did he notice the "blob of jam" on it at WHF two days before. So the alterations have taken place at Oak farm over the weekend. Stan Jones pointing out the hair at oak farm makes no diffirence. He cant have stuck it on the moment it was given to him prior to pointing it out. The blood has been witnessesed (and reported) before he arrived to collected it. Thus it can only be one of the four people at Oak farm that weekend. Possibly five is AP was there, I dont know if he was or not
While you're on, perhaps you would like to explain how a housewife, a pensioner and a farmer managed to fool hardened police officers and the lab by faking Sheila's blood in the silencer via use of her menstrual blood - from underwear that had been soaking over night.
Who said they fooled the police and the lab? Ainsley wrote that he would leave it to the lab and legal council to decide how the blood got in the baffles. The lab said the blood could either be Sheila's or Robert Boutflours thus they cant have been that fooled by it if they introduced him as source.
As for how it was done. Well prior to scraping it against a shelf then reporting it to the police, they unscrew the baffles and contaminate them with the blood on Sheila's knickers. Or RWB contaminates them much the same way you put your blood on that tourch. :P
Who said they fooled the police and the lab? Ainsley wrote that he would leave it to the lab and legal council to decide how the blood got in the baffles. The lab said the blood could either be Sheila's or Robert Boutflours thus they cant have been that fooled by it if they introduced him as source.
As for how it was done. Well prior to scraping it against a shelf then reporting it to the police, they unscrew the baffles and contaminate them with the blood on Sheila's knickers. Or RWB contaminates them much the same way you put your blood on that tourch. :P
Just wondering how you believe it would be possible to scrape blood from any garment which had been soaking for several hours. The first thing which would have been necessary would have been to wring the garment out. Any residual blood still clinging to said garment would have ended up back in the water from which the garment had been removed.
When clothing is soaked, generally heavily stained areas would be rubbed to remove debris and then left to soak so not sure where this flake is coming from?
He was mentioned because he had the same blood type as SC or are you now saying the blood was his? Make your mind up!
I dripped the blood on the torch idiot! And that wasn't sent to a lab was it? Had it been sent, I'm sure they would have worked out how it got there! Looking through my old posts again? Or are those 'others' on the case? ;D ;D ;D
Just wondering how you believe it would be possible to scrape blood from any garment which had been soaking for several hours. The first thing which would have been necessary would have been to wring the garment out. Any residual blood still clinging to said garment would have ended up back in the water from which the garment had been removed.
No you actually pointed out your tourch experiment to me not long after joined this forum. (Dispute that and I will find the posts)
Since you don't believe the silencer was used on the night. You cant simultaneously argue the lab would not have been fooled by someone planting it when that must have happened had it not been used in murders in the first place and then gone to trial. Your argument is one big contradiction.
What 'others' working on the case ??? . I think someone has forgotten their pills this morning ;D
Its rather apparent now that Caroline has an agenda to defend the relatives, despite knowing the obvious.
I can only assume its because the poison they put in their statements (one in particular) is the foundation and sole basis for walletgate. After all the whole idea rests on them being honest witnesses.
Too bad most people here worked out long ago that walletgate was a smoke screen for the real reason she changed her mind.
I'd like to know what the necessity was in taking the silencer to bits as both Cook and DB attempted this. Was RWB ( cut finger,-escape of blood ?) anywhere near when DB took one to pieces ? I know now for a fact that one silencer had 14 baffles and the other had 17, so which of them belonged to who ?
Was this dismantling done to eliminate the one belonging to AP in order to use the other ( whatever it took ) to blame the Bamber one thus implicating Jeremy, ie. the alleged finding of the AK1 blood group ?
To my mind an " accident " ( cut ) in dismantling would account for the blood found further down the silencer when none was found at either end on the surfaces. A small fresh cut would have had the appearance of a " blob of jam " when it first bleeds as it oozes out.
It may or may not have inadvertantly happened during dismantling as I don't know if baffles have sharp edges.
This is my personal conclusion of how blood entered a silencer----no other reason.
It depends whether the plates are numbered----are they ? Or do they just fit/slot in in any order ?
It depends whether the plates are numbered----are they ? Or do they just fit/slot in in any order ?
An accidental blood contamination theory does not work when you factor in them alerting the police to the silencer and the scratches under the mantle.
The lab notes show traces of blood going down to the 8th of the 17 baffle plates. This was no accident. And It was not backspatter either. If it was backspatter how can the back of baffle plates 2 and 4 be negative for blood while the back of baffle plates 3 and 5 be positive for blood? How can baffle plate 7 (font and back) be negative while the front of baffle 8 is positive?
(https://i.ibb.co/BfTFFhM/diagram2.jpg)
PS: +ve and -ve are old school terms for positive and negative.
DB when asked why he took the silencer to bits couldn't come up with a logical answer so why do it in the first place ? Why did he take it home to take to pieces ? Right away it becomes a contaminated item anyway so why was it tested/examined ?
DB when asked why he took the silencer to bits couldn't come up with a logical answer so why do it in the first place ? Why did he take it home to take to pieces ? Right away it becomes a contaminated item anyway so why was it tested/examined ?
Well I didn't dream it because I'd mentioned DB taking a silencer to bits 5 years ago so I must have read it somewhere. I'll believe this rather than menstrual blood being pored down a silencer ::)
Gee, I spelt poured wrong too.
Well I didn't dream it because I'd mentioned DB taking a silencer to bits 5 years ago so I must have read it somewhere. I'll believe this rather than menstrual blood being pored down a silencer ::)
Where ever you read it from it was an unsubstanciated rumour.
David Boutflour at trial claimed he tried to unscrew but it was too tight to unscrew. That is it. None of the relatives ever made an admission to taking it apart.
Whoever took it apart other than the lab is not going to admit to such a thing.
It was Cook who dismantled a silencer on the 29/8/1985 ( DB/1 ) which was the same one in which Sheila's " blood appeared " on the 12/9/1985 when it was then sent to Fletcher at the lab. So if anyone tampered with evidence it was Cook, to whom Fletcher would have known but never let on as it still went through the lab------contaminated.
It was Cook who dismantled a silencer on the 29/8/1985 ( DB/1 ) which was the same one in which Sheila's " blood appeared " on the 12/9/1985 when it was then sent to Fletcher at the lab. So if anyone tampered with evidence it was Cook, to whom Fletcher would have known but never let on as it still went through the lab------contaminated.
Right, so how did the blood land on specific plates ? It drips down, not bounces.
Only by putting the baffles back in the wrong place would this happen----meaning that it was tampered/fiddled with.
Right, so how did the blood land on specific plates ? It drips down, not bounces.
Only by putting the baffles back in the wrong place would this happen----meaning that it was tampered/fiddled with.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here.
But to make things as simple as I can. If the silencer was on the gun that night, Jeremy is guilty of murder. If it wasn’t on the gun, then one or more of the relatives are guilty of fabricating the silencer.
It’s really that simple. Anyone can read through the evidence on this forum here and make their own minds up.
Some people have suggested alternative things like a 3rd party murderer or a police frame up. Those people need to put the crack pipe down and re-examine the evidence again.
Where ever you read it from it was an unsubstanciated rumour.
David Boutflour at trial claimed he tried to unscrew but it was too tight to unscrew. That is it. None of the relatives ever made an admission to taking it apart.
Whoever took it apart other than the lab is not going to admit to such a thing.
David Boutflour is not a good suspect for planting the silencer. For several reasons.
1) His property/farm is not at risk of being sold off to pay Bamber's death duties.
2) He would not be stupid enough to admit looking at the silencer at WHF and not noticing any blood or paint on it until later that evening at his sisters house.
3) He did not report it to the police or claim it was used the murders. No first hand guilty knowledge.
Ann Eaton is a good suspect for planting the silencer. For several reasons.
1) Her property/farm is at risk of being sold off to pay Bamber's death duties.
2) She went ballistic and tore down all the wallpaper in the toilet when she found out.
3) She called the police to report the silencer. And explained in her statement how it contradicted Jeremy's version of events. Contrary to telling the Jury she did not have a clue about it.
4) She would have seen the blue coat hanging over the mantle shelf on the 9th of August and that area would have been concealed from the police photos.
5) She alerted the police to the silencer scratch marks in the area she knew the coat would have covered from crime scene photos.
6) She admitted taking Sheila's bloody underwear home. But only in 1991 when the police made her go over her notes (that she was reluctant to do). She told the court in 1985 she left them at WHF.
7) With her brother having found the silencer. Any suspicion would naturally be on him (as it already does) rather than on her (unless one digs deeper)
All in all a very cunning woman.
David Boutflour is not a good suspect for planting the silencer. For several reasons.
1) His property/farm is not at risk of being sold off to pay Bamber's death duties.
2) He would not be stupid enough to admit looking at the silencer at WHF and not noticing any blood or paint on it until later that evening at his sisters house.
3) He did not report it to the police or claim it was used the murders. No first hand guilty knowledge.
Ann Eaton is a good suspect for planting the silencer. For several reasons.
1) Her property/farm is at risk of being sold off to pay Bamber's death duties.
2) She went ballistic and tore down all the wallpaper in the toilet when she found out.
3) She called the police to report the silencer. And explained in her statement how it contradicted Jeremy's version of events. Contrary to telling the Jury she did not have a clue about it.
4) She would have seen the blue coat hanging over the mantle shelf on the 9th of August and that area would have been concealed from the police photos.
5) She alerted the police to the silencer scratch marks in the area she knew the coat would have covered from crime scene photos.
6) She admitted taking Sheila's bloody underwear home. But only in 1991 when the police made her go over her notes (that she was reluctant to do). She told the court in 1985 she left them at WHF.
7) With her brother having found the silencer. Any suspicion would naturally be on him (as it already does) rather than on her (unless one digs deeper)
All in all a very cunning woman.
Although she was menstrating neither was there a tampon inserted..
An empty tampon package was found to be present in a different downsnstairs room..
downd
Why wasn't Sheila wearing any knickers beneath her nighty at the time of her death?
Although she was menstrating neither was there a tampon inserted..
Why wasn't Sheila wearing any knickers beneath her nighty at the time of her death?
Although she was menstrating neither was there a tampon inserted..
An empty tampon package was found to be present in a different downsnstairs room..
downd
What was your explanation for the blood in the silencer when you believed Sheila was responsible and shot herself?
JaneJ do you have any intention of answering this? :-\
What was your explanation for the blood in the silencer when you believed Sheila shot herself?