Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on June 05, 2020, 09:50:PM

Title: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Roch on June 05, 2020, 09:50:PM
Can somebody please just lay it on the line, that the original sound moderator evidence was fabricated?

These days, the authorities are very reliant upon other legal professionals (and the public) believing that the original sound moderator evidence was both genuine and "compelling".   

Somebody needs to bluntly point out, that it's not a kosher exhibit.  Otherwise, you're just going to be experiencing knock back after knock back, for the remainder of Jeremy Bamber's life.

Just say it. 


People understand things in simple terms.  They understand, if something is alleged to be dodgy.  Once you have got that message across, so that the seed is planted in people's minds, THEN you start going in to more detail. 

Instead of being seen to shore-up a genuine exhibit, the authorities have to be portrayed as shoring up a dodgy exhibit.  You have to introduce doubt, in order to have any chance of making them look dishonest.  Once they look dishonest (by defending an exhibit with so much doubt attached to it) it starts to get more and more uncomfortable for them to continue to defend it.   
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: ngb1066 on June 05, 2020, 10:14:PM
Can somebody please just lay it on the line, that the original sound moderator evidence was fabricated?

These days, the authorities are very reliant upon other legal professionals (and the public) believing that the original sound moderator evidence was both genuine and "compelling".   

Somebody needs to bluntly point out, that it's not a kosher exhibit.  Otherwise, you're just going to be experiencing knock back after knock back, for the remainder of Jeremy Bamber's life.

Just say it. 


People understand things in simple terms.  They understand, if something is alleged to be dodgy.  Once you have got that message across, so that the seed is planted in people's minds, THEN you start going in to more detail. 

Instead of being seen to shore-up a genuine exhibit, the authorities have to be portrayed as shoring up a dodgy exhibit.  You have to introduce doubt, in order to have any chance of making them look dishonest.  Once they look dishonest (by defending an exhibit with so much doubt attached to it) it starts to get more and more uncomfortable for them to continue to defend it.

Roch, you are right.  It is dodgy.


 
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: JackieD on June 05, 2020, 10:22:PM
Why are we where we are then ???
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Roch on June 05, 2020, 10:38:PM
Roch, you are right.  It is dodgy.

Thanks Neil.  Somebody needs to just come out with it.  Everyone will feel better afterwards, I know I will!
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: ngb1066 on June 05, 2020, 10:41:PM
Thanks Neil.  Somebody needs to just come out with it.  Everyone will feel better afterwards, I know I will!

There is so much I would like to say.  I know things which are really wrong.  However, I really hope that the legal team will progress things. i do not want to say more at this stage.



Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: lookout on June 05, 2020, 10:45:PM
They're all as bent as a five bob note and I'd tell the lot of them to their faces.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: lookout on June 05, 2020, 10:49:PM
That hearing made for excruciating reading, all covering each other. What are they all afraid of ? The truth ? 
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Steve_uk on June 05, 2020, 10:53:PM
There is so much I would like to say.  I know things which are really wrong.  However, I really hope that the legal team will progress things. i do not want to say more at this stage.
Well you've had 35 years. Colin has been deprived of his boys for that length of time. You are giving succour to a murderer, pure and simple, however you care to dress it up.

I do not want to say more at this stage.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Roch on June 05, 2020, 10:59:PM
Well you've had 35 years. Colin has been deprived of his boys for that length of time. You are giving succour to a murderer, pure and simple, however you care to dress it up.

I do not want to say more at this stage.

The crown are prepared to pay a QC £1K per hour (?) to prevent the release of documents, that apparently can have no bearing on the safety of the original conviction.

Would it not have been cheaper to just pay the wages of a clerk, to retrieve and release the said documents?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: lookout on June 05, 2020, 11:04:PM
If this doesn't make you lose faith in the justice system I don't know what does.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 05, 2020, 11:23:PM
There is so much I would like to say.  I know things which are really wrong.  However, I really hope that the legal team will progress things. i do not want to say more at this stage.

At what stage would you intend to say more?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Steve_uk on June 05, 2020, 11:35:PM
At what stage would you intend to say more?
A famous quote of the 20th century springs all too readily to mind..http://www.finfacts.ie/Irish_finance_news/articleDetail.php?In-the-long-run-we-are-all-dead---John-Maynard-Keynes-159
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Bill Robertson on June 06, 2020, 06:22:AM
Can somebody please just lay it on the line, that the original sound moderator evidence was fabricated?

Somebody needs to bluntly point out, that it's not a kosher exhibit.  Otherwise, you're just going to be experiencing knock back after knock back, for the remainder of Jeremy Bamber's life.

I am probably being naive, but for goodness sake why didn't Joe Stone just say that documentation that exists in the scientific examination records composed by forensic scientists proves beyond any doubt that one silencer examined measured 7 inches long and another measured 6.5 inches long. Malcolm Fletcher in particular documented several measurements that he attributed to what are clearly different silencers. As Roch says, the defence appear to be fannying around with doomed legalistic arguments.

It is also a red herring for anyone to insist that two silencers were recovered from WHF. Evidence points to the Boutflour family handing a silencer to the police in September 1985 which almost certainly was not found at WHF even if it was taken there for the purpose of damaging the Aga surround and impacting flakes of red paint into the knurled part of the silencer. Evidence suggests that the second silencer is not even a Parker-Hale, as Parker-Hale have never manufactured a 6.5 inch silencer. Having researched on the documentation for many years I came to the conclusion that the silencer that was handed to the police in September 1985 was 6.5 inches long and contained blood from Robert Boutflour, which indicates deliberate planting of the blood inside a silencer. This evidence is all available to Jeremy's defence team. Why don't they just come out with it?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: ngb1066 on June 06, 2020, 11:17:AM
At what stage would you intend to say more?

I am not sure.  I do not want to breach confidences and I do not want to stir things up with people undoubtedly trying to do their best to right an injustice.  There has been a lot of chopping and changing of personnel involved, including lawyers, and some good appeal avenues have only been explored to a partial extent.  Sometimes I believe poor arguments have been advanced which have harmed the efforts to secure a fresh appeal.  There are some good appeal points which in my view should be rigorously investigated and presented properly.  There has of course been a lack of resources but overall a lot of money has been raised and spent but very little has been progressed to a full conclusion.  Of course I am not in the loop now so I do not know what may be going on behind the scenes.  The situation may be more positive than I am suggesting.  I do not want to be more specific, certainly at this stage.  It is not my intention to cause any dissent between JB supporters and I want to avoid being critical of people who are putting in a lot of work and doing the best they can as they see it.
 
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 06, 2020, 11:41:AM
I am not sure.  I do not want to breach confidences and I do not want to stir things up with people undoubtedly trying to do their best to right an injustice.  There has been a lot of chopping and changing of personnel involved, including lawyers, and some good appeal avenues have only been explored to a partial extent.  Sometimes I believe poor arguments have been advanced which have harmed the efforts to secure a fresh appeal.  There are some good appeal points which in my view should be rigorously investigated and presented properly.  There has of course been a lack of resources but overall a lot of money has been raised and spent but very little has been progressed to a full conclusion.  Of course I am not in the loop now so I do not know what may be going on behind the scenes.  The situation may be more positive than I am suggesting.  I do not want to be more specific, certainly at this stage.  It is not my intention to cause any dissent between JB supporters and I want to avoid being critical of people who are putting in a lot of work and doing the best they can as they see it.
 

Fair enough, but if someone is invested in a dead end, it can be better to point it out than not to.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 06, 2020, 11:46:AM
I am probably being naive, but for goodness sake why didn't Joe Stone just say that documentation that exists in the scientific examination records composed by forensic scientists proves beyond any doubt that one silencer examined measured 7 inches long and another measured 6.5 inches long. Malcolm Fletcher in particular documented several measurements that he attributed to what are clearly different silencers. As Roch says, the defence appear to be fannying around with doomed legalistic arguments.

It is also a red herring for anyone to insist that two silencers were recovered from WHF. Evidence points to the Boutflour family handing a silencer to the police in September 1985 which almost certainly was not found at WHF even if it was taken there for the purpose of damaging the Aga surround and impacting flakes of red paint into the knurled part of the silencer. Evidence suggests that the second silencer is not even a Parker-Hale, as Parker-Hale have never manufactured a 6.5 inch silencer. Having researched on the documentation for many years I came to the conclusion that the silencer that was handed to the police in September 1985 was 6.5 inches long and contained blood from Robert Boutflour, which indicates deliberate planting of the blood inside a silencer. This evidence is all available to Jeremy's defence team. Why don't they just come out with it?

The 13th of August examination record has the silencer being 6.9 inches long. The 25th of September examination record has the silencer being 17.6cm long. 

6.9 inches = 17.526cm

I guess Joe Stone never brought it up because its fictional?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: ngb1066 on June 06, 2020, 12:49:PM
Fair enough, but if someone is invested in a dead end, it can be better to point it out than not to.

You may be right but I doubt if they would listen to me and in fairness I no longer have any link with what is going on and I may be wide of the mark in my views. 



 
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 06, 2020, 02:12:PM
You may be right but I doubt if they would listen to me and in fairness I no longer have any link with what is going on and I may be wide of the mark in my views.

Someone needs to put together a dossier on the sound moderator
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Roch on June 06, 2020, 02:18:PM
Someone needs to put together a dossier on the sound moderator

There needs also to be simpler, paired down message for press and public, based upon the salient points of the dossier. 

Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Bill Robertson on June 06, 2020, 02:54:PM
The 13th of August examination record has the silencer being 6.9 inches long. The 25th of September examination record has the silencer being 17.6cm long. 

6.9 inches = 17.526cm

I guess Joe Stone never brought it up because its fictional?

In their promotional literature for the Standard MM1 type sound moderator Parker Hale give the specifications as:
   “Length - 175 mm (6 9/10ths of an inch)”
On 25 September 1985, forensic scientist Brian Elliott from Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory created an examination record of the: “silencer for rifle SBJ/1”. The description he wrote of the silencer stated :
   “1 metal gun silencer – sound moderator. Length 17.6 cm [6 9/10 inch].”
On 29 and 30 April 1986, Malcolm Fletcher a forensic scientist from Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory conducted various tests on a .22 rifle (taken from the scene) and a silencer and a sound moderator. The tests results referred to the length of the rifle barrel. Malcolm Fletcher stated :
   “Barrel length 23 ¾  inches (60.3 mm)
On 5 November 1993 Malcolm Fletcher stated :
   “.22 rifle with silencer attached was 28 ¾ + 6 9/10 = 35 13/20 inches or 175.2 mm”
On a JW/16 Laboratory examination form dated 12 September 1985 for an examination of the rifle and silencer, Malcolm Fletcher details :
   “O.L. [overall length] 43 inches. With silencer attached 49 ½ inches,
   Length of sound moderator measured 6 ½ inches 165.1 mm”
Malcolm Fletcher then measured the M.T. [Muzzle to trigger length] he stated:
   “M.T. 28 ½ inches with the sound moderator 35 inches.
   Sound moderator’s length 6 ½ inches or 65.1 mm.”
Malcolm Fletcher then measured the rifle’s barrel length and stated:
   “B   23 7/8 inches with sound moderator attached 30 3/8 inch: 165 mm”
Glynis Howard and Lesley Tucker examined a “silencer for rifle” SBJ/1 on 13 August 1985 :
o   “Silencer for rifle dated 13.08.85, SBJ/1 crossed out DB/1 inserted. Description One black metal silencer 6 and 4/10ths of an inch long. 166.1 mm”
A General Examination Record completed by Malcolm Fletcher dated 12 September 1985 stated:   
   “DB/1 was 7 inches long or 177.8 mm”
In 2002 Forensic Scientist for the Crown Martyn Ismail gave evidence in his 23 August 2002 witness statement that :
“The moderator was a black tube, 177 mm in length”
   [177 mm = 7 inches]
In undated notes taken at around the table meeting Malcolm Fletcher stated :
“The rifle (sic) [presumably he meant the silencer]was 6 ½ inches in length, photographed and referred to as photograph 65 (Never disclosed).
also :
“Length of weapon. 43” long 49 ½  inches with silencer. (i.e. 6 ½ inch silencer)

Therefore numerous examinations of the silencer by various forensic scientists showed that two different silencers were being examined at various times during the process of investigation. Malcolm Fletcher and Essex Police convinced the Defence and the Courts that the case featured a single silencer/sound moderator and yet the above documentation shows that there were two silencers, one 7 inches long and one 6.5 inches long. Presumably, the 6.5 inch silencer was not a Parker-Hale. Malcolm Fletcher handled both silencers and therefore knew about the deception before the case went to trial.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 06, 2020, 03:43:PM
In their promotional literature for the Standard MM1 type sound moderator Parker Hale give the specifications as:
   “Length - 175 mm (6 9/10ths of an inch)”
On 25 September 1985, forensic scientist Brian Elliott from Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory created an examination record of the: “silencer for rifle SBJ/1”. The description he wrote of the silencer stated :
   “1 metal gun silencer – sound moderator. Length 17.6 cm [6 9/10 inch].”
On 29 and 30 April 1986, Malcolm Fletcher a forensic scientist from Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory conducted various tests on a .22 rifle (taken from the scene) and a silencer and a sound moderator. The tests results referred to the length of the rifle barrel. Malcolm Fletcher stated :
   “Barrel length 23 ¾  inches (60.3 mm)
On 5 November 1993 Malcolm Fletcher stated :
   “.22 rifle with silencer attached was 28 ¾ + 6 9/10 = 35 13/20 inches or 175.2 mm”
On a JW/16 Laboratory examination form dated 12 September 1985 for an examination of the rifle and silencer, Malcolm Fletcher details :
   “O.L. [overall length] 43 inches. With silencer attached 49 ½ inches,
   Length of sound moderator measured 6 ½ inches 165.1 mm”
Malcolm Fletcher then measured the M.T. [Muzzle to trigger length] he stated:
   “M.T. 28 ½ inches with the sound moderator 35 inches.
   Sound moderator’s length 6 ½ inches or 65.1 mm.”
Malcolm Fletcher then measured the rifle’s barrel length and stated:
   “B   23 7/8 inches with sound moderator attached 30 3/8 inch: 165 mm”
Howard and Lesley Tucker examined a “silencer for rifle” SBJ/1 on 13 August 1985 :
o   “Silencer for rifle dated 13.08.85, SBJ/1 crossed out DB/1 inserted. Description One black metal silencer 6 and 4/10ths of an inch long. 166.1 mm”
A General Examination Record completed by Malcolm Fletcher dated 12 September 1985 stated:   
   “DB/1 was 7 inches long or 177.8 mm”
In 2002 Forensic Scientist for the Crown Martyn Ismail gave evidence in his 23 August 2002 witness statement that :
“The moderator was a black tube, 177 mm in length”
   [177 mm = 7 inches]
In undated notes taken at around the table meeting Malcolm Fletcher stated :
“The rifle (sic) [presumably he meant the silencer]was 6 ½ inches in length, photographed and referred to as photograph 65 (Never disclosed).
also :
“Length of weapon. 43” long 49 ½  inches with silencer. (i.e. 6 ½ inch silencer)

Therefore numerous examinations of the silencer by various forensic scientists showed that two different silencers were being examined at various times during the process of investigation. Malcolm Fletcher and Essex Police convinced the Defence and the Courts that the case featured a single silencer/sound moderator and yet the above documentation shows that there were two silencers, one 7 inches long and one 6.5 inches long. Presumably, the 6.5 inch silencer was not a Parker-Hale. Malcolm Fletcher handled both silencers and therefore knew about the deception before the case went to trial.


The 13th of August SBJ/1 examination record states the moderator is 6 and 9/10ths of an inch long. It might look like a 4 at a distance but look closely its a 9.

lol



Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Adam on June 06, 2020, 04:45:PM
In their promotional literature for the Standard MM1 type sound moderator Parker Hale give the specifications as:
   “Length - 175 mm (6 9/10ths of an inch)”
On 25 September 1985, forensic scientist Brian Elliott from Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory created an examination record of the: “silencer for rifle SBJ/1”. The description he wrote of the silencer stated :
   “1 metal gun silencer – sound moderator. Length 17.6 cm [6 9/10 inch].”
On 29 and 30 April 1986, Malcolm Fletcher a forensic scientist from Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory conducted various tests on a .22 rifle (taken from the scene) and a silencer and a sound moderator. The tests results referred to the length of the rifle barrel. Malcolm Fletcher stated :
   “Barrel length 23 ¾  inches (60.3 mm)
On 5 November 1993 Malcolm Fletcher stated :
   “.22 rifle with silencer attached was 28 ¾ + 6 9/10 = 35 13/20 inches or 175.2 mm”
On a JW/16 Laboratory examination form dated 12 September 1985 for an examination of the rifle and silencer, Malcolm Fletcher details :
   “O.L. [overall length] 43 inches. With silencer attached 49 ½ inches,
   Length of sound moderator measured 6 ½ inches 165.1 mm”
Malcolm Fletcher then measured the M.T. [Muzzle to trigger length] he stated:
   “M.T. 28 ½ inches with the sound moderator 35 inches.
   Sound moderator’s length 6 ½ inches or 65.1 mm.”
Malcolm Fletcher then measured the rifle’s barrel length and stated:
   “B   23 7/8 inches with sound moderator attached 30 3/8 inch: 165 mm”
Glynis Howard and Lesley Tucker examined a “silencer for rifle” SBJ/1 on 13 August 1985 :
o   “Silencer for rifle dated 13.08.85, SBJ/1 crossed out DB/1 inserted. Description One black metal silencer 6 and 4/10ths of an inch long. 166.1 mm”
A General Examination Record completed by Malcolm Fletcher dated 12 September 1985 stated:   
   “DB/1 was 7 inches long or 177.8 mm”
In 2002 Forensic Scientist for the Crown Martyn Ismail gave evidence in his 23 August 2002 witness statement that :
“The moderator was a black tube, 177 mm in length”
   [177 mm = 7 inches]
In undated notes taken at around the table meeting Malcolm Fletcher stated :
“The rifle (sic) [presumably he meant the silencer]was 6 ½ inches in length, photographed and referred to as photograph 65 (Never disclosed).
also :
“Length of weapon. 43” long 49 ½  inches with silencer. (i.e. 6 ½ inch silencer)

Therefore numerous examinations of the silencer by various forensic scientists showed that two different silencers were being examined at various times during the process of investigation. Malcolm Fletcher and Essex Police convinced the Defence and the Courts that the case featured a single silencer/sound moderator and yet the above documentation shows that there were two silencers, one 7 inches long and one 6.5 inches long. Presumably, the 6.5 inch silencer was not a Parker-Hale. Malcolm Fletcher handled both silencers and therefore knew about the deception before the case went to trial.

That's what I thought.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: lookout on June 06, 2020, 05:45:PM
Especially when you have a clown like Elmer Fudd ( Fletcher ) thinking he knows everything about ballistics whose experience of a toy gun taught him everything he knows  ::)
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 06, 2020, 05:51:PM
That's what I thought.

What’s what you thought?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Bill Robertson on June 07, 2020, 06:13:AM

The 13th of August SBJ/1 examination record states the moderator is 6 and 9/10ths of an inch long. It might look like a 4 at a distance but look closely its a 9.
On 29 April 1986 at 11:30 am a sound moderator was examined by forensic scientist Glynis Howard and Detective Inspector Ronald Cook.  A diagram was drawn by them to indicate the location of an additional blood group discovered in the sound moderator, on the fourth and/or fifth baffle plates . This diagram can be viewed at http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.15.html  (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.15.html)diagram 14, the diagram is at the bottom of the page.
                                 

The blood group discovered (EAP  BA  HP2) exactly matches that of David Boutflour and Pamela Boutflour and not any of the deceased. The 1986 Jury were not advised of the discovery of this second blood group inside a sound moderator.

The question of course is, how did blood belonging to either of those two individuals come to be found inside the sound moderator unless it was planted there deliberately?

 
Based on the physical appearance of the sound moderator examined on 29 April 1986 it was not a Parker-Hale sound moderator at all because the drawing lacks the central groove found on Parker-Hale silencers. Scientific results pertaining to it would later be merged with the genuine Parker-Hale sound moderator to make a composite exhibit used in Court to bring about the conviction of Jeremy Bamber.

It seems that DI Ron Cook remained puzzled by the origin of blood inside a silencer right up until the start of the trial. Cook created ‘Action 1627’ on 19 September 1986. With the Trial just weeks away, DI Cook asked for blood samples to be taken from relatives Robert and David Boutflour and David and Christine (Ann) Eaton, for the purpose “to prove the origin of the sample inside the silencer". Why he would do this if the blood inside the silencer had been identified as belonging to Sheila Caffell in August 1985 is a mystery. Clearly, Cook had suspicions that there was blood in a silencer that did not belong to Sheila. Therefore, it would appear that the Boutflour family contributed at least two drops of blood inside one or more silencers in an attempt to frame Jeremy Bamber, one sample coming from Robert Boutflour and one from either David or Pamela Boutflour. My money would be on David.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: mike tesko on June 07, 2020, 07:32:AM
Can somebody please just lay it on the line, that the original sound moderator evidence was fabricated?

These days, the authorities are very reliant upon other legal professionals (and the public) believing that the original sound moderator evidence was both genuine and "compelling".   

Somebody needs to bluntly point out, that it's not a kosher exhibit.  Otherwise, you're just going to be experiencing knock back after knock back, for the remainder of Jeremy Bamber's life.

Just say it. 


People understand things in simple terms.  They understand, if something is alleged to be dodgy.  Once you have got that message across, so that the seed is planted in people's minds, THEN you start going in to more detail. 

Instead of being seen to shore-up a genuine exhibit, the authorities have to be portrayed as shoring up a dodgy exhibit.  You have to introduce doubt, in order to have any chance of making them look dishonest.  Once they look dishonest (by defending an exhibit with so much doubt attached to it) it starts to get more and more uncomfortable for them to continue to defend it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-52940026
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Steve_uk on June 07, 2020, 08:23:AM
On 29 April 1986 at 11:30 am a sound moderator was examined by forensic scientist Glynis Howard and Detective Inspector Ronald Cook.  A diagram was drawn by them to indicate the location of an additional blood group discovered in the sound moderator, on the fourth and/or fifth baffle plates . This diagram can be viewed at http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.15.html  (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.15.html)diagram 14, the diagram is at the bottom of the page.
                                 

The blood group discovered (EAP  BA  HP2) exactly matches that of David Boutflour and Pamela Boutflour and not any of the deceased. The 1986 Jury were not advised of the discovery of this second blood group inside a sound moderator.

The question of course is, how did blood belonging to either of those two individuals come to be found inside the sound moderator unless it was planted there deliberately?

 
Based on the physical appearance of the sound moderator examined on 29 April 1986 it was not a Parker-Hale sound moderator at all because the drawing lacks the central groove found on Parker-Hale silencers. Scientific results pertaining to it would later be merged with the genuine Parker-Hale sound moderator to make a composite exhibit used in Court to bring about the conviction of Jeremy Bamber.

It seems that DI Ron Cook remained puzzled by the origin of blood inside a silencer right up until the start of the trial. Cook created ‘Action 1627’ on 19 September 1986. With the Trial just weeks away, DI Cook asked for blood samples to be taken from relatives Robert and David Boutflour and David and Christine (Ann) Eaton, for the purpose “to prove the origin of the sample inside the silencer". Why he would do this if the blood inside the silencer had been identified as belonging to Sheila Caffell in August 1985 is a mystery. Clearly, Cook had suspicions that there was blood in a silencer that did not belong to Sheila. Therefore, it would appear that the Boutflour family contributed at least two drops of blood inside one or more silencers in an attempt to frame Jeremy Bamber, one sample coming from Robert Boutflour and one from either David or Pamela Boutflour. My money would be on David.
I can't find this photograph. I suggest that you provide a link. I didn't know Pamela Boutflour provided any blood sample in 1986 but obliged for the 2002 appeal. Wasn't the AK-1 enzyme present in the silencer anyway in 1986, matching Sheila, Nevill, Nicholas and Daniel?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: lookout on June 07, 2020, 12:51:PM
I'm sure that I read that all the Boutflour's had that enzyme. It would stand to reason since RWB had it himself which must have been a genetic structure in their blood.

Then again, rabbits and some other vermin have it too which would account for it being on the rifle since it was AP who'd used it last when he killed a couple of rabbits.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Caroline on June 07, 2020, 02:41:PM
I can't find this photograph. I suggest that you provide a link. I didn't know Pamela Boutflour provided any blood sample in 1986 but obliged for the 2002 appeal. Wasn't the AK-1 enzyme present in the silencer anyway in 1986, matching Sheila, Nevill, Nicholas and Daniel?

(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4477)
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Caroline on June 07, 2020, 03:00:PM
On 29 April 1986 at 11:30 am a sound moderator was examined by forensic scientist Glynis Howard and Detective Inspector Ronald Cook.  A diagram was drawn by them to indicate the location of an additional blood group discovered in the sound moderator, on the fourth and/or fifth baffle plates . This diagram can be viewed at http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.15.html  (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.15.html)diagram 14, the diagram is at the bottom of the page.
                                 

The blood group discovered (EAP  BA  HP2) exactly matches that of David Boutflour and Pamela Boutflour and not any of the deceased. The 1986 Jury were not advised of the discovery of this second blood group inside a sound moderator.

The question of course is, how did blood belonging to either of those two individuals come to be found inside the sound moderator unless it was planted there deliberately?

 
Based on the physical appearance of the sound moderator examined on 29 April 1986 it was not a Parker-Hale sound moderator at all because the drawing lacks the central groove found on Parker-Hale silencers. Scientific results pertaining to it would later be merged with the genuine Parker-Hale sound moderator to make a composite exhibit used in Court to bring about the conviction of Jeremy Bamber.

It seems that DI Ron Cook remained puzzled by the origin of blood inside a silencer right up until the start of the trial. Cook created ‘Action 1627’ on 19 September 1986. With the Trial just weeks away, DI Cook asked for blood samples to be taken from relatives Robert and David Boutflour and David and Christine (Ann) Eaton, for the purpose “to prove the origin of the sample inside the silencer". Why he would do this if the blood inside the silencer had been identified as belonging to Sheila Caffell in August 1985 is a mystery. Clearly, Cook had suspicions that there was blood in a silencer that did not belong to Sheila. Therefore, it would appear that the Boutflour family contributed at least two drops of blood inside one or more silencers in an attempt to frame Jeremy Bamber, one sample coming from Robert Boutflour and one from either David or Pamela Boutflour. My money would be on David.

Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: lookout on June 07, 2020, 04:47:PM
It was the DNA which mattered most in the 2002 appeal in which there was found to be both male and female DNA inside the baffle plates. The female DNA was a match for June but so far as I know, the male DNA wasn't named----though it wasn't JB's.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 07, 2020, 05:51:PM
On 29 April 1986 at 11:30 am a sound moderator was examined by forensic scientist Glynis Howard and Detective Inspector Ronald Cook.  A diagram was drawn by them to indicate the location of an additional blood group discovered in the sound moderator, on the fourth and/or fifth baffle plates . This diagram can be viewed at http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.15.html  (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.15.html)diagram 14, the diagram is at the bottom of the page.
                                 

The blood group discovered (EAP  BA  HP2) exactly matches that of David Boutflour and Pamela Boutflour and not any of the deceased. The 1986 Jury were not advised of the discovery of this second blood group inside a sound moderator.

The question of course is, how did blood belonging to either of those two individuals come to be found inside the sound moderator unless it was planted there deliberately?

 
Based on the physical appearance of the sound moderator examined on 29 April 1986 it was not a Parker-Hale sound moderator at all because the drawing lacks the central groove found on Parker-Hale silencers. Scientific results pertaining to it would later be merged with the genuine Parker-Hale sound moderator to make a composite exhibit used in Court to bring about the conviction of Jeremy Bamber.

It seems that DI Ron Cook remained puzzled by the origin of blood inside a silencer right up until the start of the trial. Cook created ‘Action 1627’ on 19 September 1986. With the Trial just weeks away, DI Cook asked for blood samples to be taken from relatives Robert and David Boutflour and David and Christine (Ann) Eaton, for the purpose “to prove the origin of the sample inside the silencer". Why he would do this if the blood inside the silencer had been identified as belonging to Sheila Caffell in August 1985 is a mystery. Clearly, Cook had suspicions that there was blood in a silencer that did not belong to Sheila. Therefore, it would appear that the Boutflour family contributed at least two drops of blood inside one or more silencers in an attempt to frame Jeremy Bamber, one sample coming from Robert Boutflour and one from either David or Pamela Boutflour. My money would be on David.

What does this have to do with two silencers?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: lookout on June 07, 2020, 06:57:PM
I thought there were supposed to have been 3 silencers in the 2002 appeal ?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: mike tesko on June 08, 2020, 04:22:AM
I thought there were supposed to have been 3 silencers in the 2002 appeal ?

Actually, a total of five different silencers

(1) Bamber owned Parker Hale silencer
(2) Pargeter owned Parker Hale silencer
(3) D Boutflour owned silencer
(4) RW Boutflour owned silencer
(5) Peter Eaton owned silencer

For the purpose of simplicity, I should add that silencers (1) and (2) became interchangeable in so far as the scientific examination of one or other. The other two/three silencers (3), (4) and (5) were used in Lab' experimentation, two of which were produced to the court at the commencement of Jeremy's trial!

The two silencers produced at court at the start of Jeremy Bamber trial belonged to (4) RW Boutflour and his son, (3) David Boutflour
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Bill Robertson on June 08, 2020, 04:23:AM
What does this have to do with two silencers?
On 29 April 1986 a silencer was identified as having blood on the 4th or 5th baffle plates that did not match the blood group of Sheila Caffell, but did match the blood group of David or Pamela Boutflour. This surely implies that the police were in possession of at least two silencers?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 08, 2020, 04:32:AM
On 29 April 1986 a silencer was identified as having blood on the 4th or 5th baffle plates that did not match the blood group of Sheila Caffell, but did match the blood group of David or Pamela Boutflour. This surely implies that the police were in possession of at least two silencers?

They found traces of blood going down to the 6th baffle plate in September 1985. So no.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Roch on June 08, 2020, 06:34:AM
They found traces of blood going down to the 6th baffle plate in September 1985. So no.

What exactly does this mean? You need to flesh your answers out a bit.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: lookout on June 08, 2020, 11:49:AM
Which means, as I've already mentioned before, that because the baffles had been removed, they weren't put back in the order that they were removed.
If this procedure was the cause of RWB's " injured " finger then it would also account for his blood being found which was a perfect match for Sheila's.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: mike tesko on June 08, 2020, 11:57:AM
Actually, a total of five different silencers

(1) Bamber owned Parker Hale silencer
(2) Pargeter owned Parker Hale silencer
(3) D Boutflour owned silencer
(4) RW Boutflour owned silencer
(5) Peter Eaton owned silencer

For the purpose of simplicity, I should add that silencers (1) and (2) became interchangeable in so far as the scientific examination of one or other. The other two/three silencers (3), (4) and (5) were used in Lab' experimentation, two of which were produced to the court at the commencement of Jeremy's trial!

The two silencers produced at court at the start of Jeremy Bamber trial belonged to (4) RW Boutflour and his son, (3) David Boutflour

There has clearly been some sort of collusion between relatives, police and lab' experts to promote the false premis that 'there was / is only one sound moderator / silencer in this investigation' (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, AE/1, CAE/1, and DRB/1)..

Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 08, 2020, 07:10:PM
What exactly does this mean? You need to flesh your answers out a bit.

What else do I need to add?  :-\
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: mike tesko on June 08, 2020, 11:03:PM
There has clearly been some sort of collusion between relatives, police and lab' experts to promote the false premis that 'there was / is only one sound moderator / silencer in this investigation' (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, AE/1, CAE/1, and DRB/1)..

Please, how many times did police and the lab make so many repeated mistakes in altering the exhibit reference to the so called solitary sound Moderator/silencer?

I don't buy into such a fictional tale!

Let's get the facts right, and list all the various exhibit references attributed to 'the sound moderator/ silencer' in sequential order..

SBJ/1 (Stan Jones retrieves 'it' from scene on morning of 7th August 1985)

SJ/1 (sound moderator/ silencer handed to Stan Jones by 'Peter Eaton' on evening of 12th August 1985, and allegedly taken to Huntington Lab' on 13th August 1985, examined by  )

DB/1 (resubmitted to Huntingdon Lab' by Essex police, on 30th August 1985)

AE/1 (the sound moderator/silencer handed over to Essex police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985)

CAE/1 (confirmation that Ann Eaton handed over this sound moderator / silencer to Essex Police on 11th September  1985)

DRB/1 ( sound moderator/ silencer, sent to lab' at Huntington on 20th August 1985)
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: mike tesko on June 08, 2020, 11:47:PM
Five consecutive alterations to the exhibit references to an alleged alteration to the exhibit reference of the sound moderator/silencer in sequential order, unacceptable, and dishonest!
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Jan on June 09, 2020, 07:50:PM
Can some one confirm ( sorry have been busy with other matters) a quick sum up of the decision was , they did not say the evidence did not exist , but that even if it did show two silencers it would not affect the case ?

Or did I get that wrong ?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Jan on June 09, 2020, 07:58:PM
But surely if two silencers were misrepresented as one it is relevant ? Because someone somewhere was presenting misleading facts that were put before a jury ? Especially as it was really the only evidence that convicted him? The rest was circumstantial and supposition.

I just don’t understand the ruling ?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 09, 2020, 09:53:PM
But surely if two silencers were misrepresented as one it is relevant ? Because someone somewhere was presenting misleading facts that were put before a jury ? Especially as it was really the only evidence that convicted him? The rest was circumstantial and supposition.

I just don’t understand the ruling ?

"At [15] he said the value to the prosecution of the moderator was drawn from the
evidence of John Hayward that, first, it had paint on it (from a fight with Nevill
Bamber) and Sheila Caffell’s blood in it (from when she was shot). Second, Sheila
Caffell could not have shot herself with the silencer attached to the gun. Saini J said
that this conclusions were not weakened by the presence of a second moderator (if
there were one)."


So, like Saini J, I am unable to say that the CPS erred in law in refusing to make the
disclosure sought. Like him, I am not on the material I have seen readily able to accept
the premise that the existence of a second sound moderator is capable of affecting the
safety of the Claimant’s convictions in any meaningful way, notwithstanding what Mr
Ferguson said in May 2018. The facts are that the moderator which was found had Ms
Caffell’s blood in it, and she could not have shot herself when the sound moderator was
attached to the rifle. I acknowledge Mr Boyce’s expertise and the detail in his report,
but it needs to be evaluated against the whole corpus of evidence that has been
gathered in this case. As I have said, the Court is handicapped in doing that.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Jan on June 09, 2020, 10:24:PM
Thank you David .
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Jan on June 09, 2020, 10:27:PM
Preferred your old Avatar btw
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Roch on June 10, 2020, 06:31:PM
"At [15] he said the value to the prosecution of the moderator was drawn from the
evidence of John Hayward that, first, it had paint on it (from a fight with Nevill
Bamber) and Sheila Caffell’s blood in it (from when she was shot). Second, Sheila
Caffell could not have shot herself with the silencer attached to the gun. Saini J said
that this conclusions were not weakened by the presence of a second moderator (if
there were one)."


So, like Saini J, I am unable to say that the CPS erred in law in refusing to make the
disclosure sought. Like him, I am not on the material I have seen readily able to accept
the premise that the existence of a second sound moderator is capable of affecting the
safety of the Claimant’s convictions in any meaningful way, notwithstanding what Mr
Ferguson said in May 2018. The facts are that the moderator which was found had Ms
Caffell’s blood in it, and she could not have shot herself when the sound moderator was
attached to the rifle. I acknowledge Mr Boyce’s expertise and the detail in his report,
but it needs to be evaluated against the whole corpus of evidence that has been
gathered in this case. As I have said, the Court is handicapped in doing that.


This is simply another way of saying that the sound moderator evidence used to convict JB is presumed to be genuine - therefore, we will not support the release of documents that is claimed would assist in ascertaining that there were in fact two sound moderators.

Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Roch on June 10, 2020, 06:40:PM
On 29 April 1986 at 11:30 am a sound moderator was examined by forensic scientist Glynis Howard and Detective Inspector Ronald Cook.  A diagram was drawn by them to indicate the location of an additional blood group discovered in the sound moderator, on the fourth and/or fifth baffle plates . This diagram can be viewed at http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.15.html  (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.15.html)diagram 14, the diagram is at the bottom of the page.
                                 

The blood group discovered (EAP  BA  HP2) exactly matches that of David Boutflour and Pamela Boutflour and not any of the deceased. The 1986 Jury were not advised of the discovery of this second blood group inside a sound moderator.

That is most intriguing.  I cannot imagine PB providing a sample.  That kind of narrows it down.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 18, 2020, 03:50:PM
Preferred your old Avatar btw

 8)

Don't you like Machine Gun Kelly?  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp0BScQSSvg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp0BScQSSvg)
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 18, 2020, 04:46:PM
8)

Don't you like Machine Gun Kelly?  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp0BScQSSvg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp0BScQSSvg)

Maybe I should do a rap like this for JB?  ;D ;D
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 18, 2020, 05:59:PM
That is most intriguing.  I cannot imagine PB providing a sample.  That kind of narrows it down.

PB gave a blood sample in 1985/6.

PB and AE also gave DNA samples in 2001. It didn't match any of the profiles found in the silencer.

Its been alleged by the CT that RWB refused to give a DNA sample in 2001. Since there is mention of BP and AEs DNA being compared to the profile but not RWB. That somewhat supports the claim I guess.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Roch on June 18, 2020, 08:53:PM
PB gave a blood sample in 1985/6.

PB and AE also gave DNA samples in 2001. It didn't match any of the profiles found in the silencer.

Its been alleged by the CT that RWB refused to give a DNA sample in 2001. Since there is mention of BP and AEs DNA being compared to the profile but not RWB. That somewhat supports the claim I guess.

OK, we may be at cross purposes here. Where are PB and DB blood groups recorded?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 18, 2020, 09:12:PM
OK, we may be at cross purposes here. Where are PB and DB blood groups recorded?

Here.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Roch on June 18, 2020, 10:57:PM
Here.


(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10278.0;attach=56769;image)

Aye, that's what I meant. I cant imagine PB providing the sample for THIS... and therefore that narrows it down.

Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 19, 2020, 12:02:AM
Aye, that's what I meant. I cant imagine PB providing the sample for THIS... and therefore that narrows it down.

That’s something John Hayward scribbled down in a meeting a year after the testing was done. It’s difficult to the know what this is supposed to mean.

Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 19, 2020, 10:49:AM
That’s something John Hayward scribbled down in a meeting a year after the testing was done. It’s difficult to the know what this is supposed to mean.

Its worth mentioning that its not necessary to establish to precise method of how the silencer was contaminated.

Muzzle imprints on the contact wounds to under Sheila's chin show the silencer was not attached when the wounds were inflicted. There was no trace of the Nicholas Caffel inside the moderator despite suffering two contact wounds and and one near contact wound. AE and RWB knew the silencer contained blood and also paint from the mantle shelf before the lab confirmed that was the case. AE pointed out the scratch marks to the police.There is no trace of the scratch marks in the crime scene prior to the relatives being given access to crime scene. The bone in Nevils left arm had split in two fragments from a gun shot upstairs,making it impossible to use and hence there could be no altercation over the weapon the cause the scratches in the first place. The muzzle marks on Nevills back were caused by end of the rifle barrel, tests could not replicate these marks with a silencer attached on the gun.

From these facts we can infer that the relatives or a relative contaminated the silencer to incriminate JB. The origin of the blood, whether from RWB, menstrual blood or from the crime scene? Its not necessary to narrow down what the true scenario is. It will probably be taken to the grave.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Roch on June 19, 2020, 09:30:PM
That’s something John Hayward scribbled down in a meeting a year after the testing was done. It’s difficult to the know what this is supposed to mean.

Is it possible to confirm this?

It would appear to mean that different baffle plates contained blood that belonged to different blood groups. What else could it mean?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Steve_uk on June 19, 2020, 09:37:PM
Its worth mentioning that its not necessary to establish to precise method of how the silencer was contaminated.

Muzzle imprints on the contact wounds to under Sheila's chin show the silencer was not attached when the wounds were inflicted. There was no trace of the Nicholas Caffel inside the moderator despite suffering two contact wounds and and one near contact wound. AE and RWB knew the silencer contained blood and also paint from the mantle shelf before the lab confirmed that was the case. AE pointed out the scratch marks to the police.There is no trace of the scratch marks in the crime scene prior to the relatives being given access to crime scene. The bone in Nevils left arm had split in two fragments from a gun shot upstairs,making it impossible to use and hence there could be no altercation over the weapon the cause the scratches in the first place. The muzzle marks on Nevills back were caused by end of the rifle barrel, tests could not replicate these marks with a silencer attached on the gun.

From these facts we can infer that the relatives or a relative contaminated the silencer to incriminate JB. The origin of the blood, whether from RWB, menstrual blood or from the crime scene? Its not necessary to narrow down what the true scenario is. It will probably be taken to the grave.
No, and there could have been no use of the kitchen telephone by him either to call his beloved son.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: lookout on June 20, 2020, 11:52:AM
His other arm/hand was free Steve ?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 20, 2020, 02:47:PM
Is it possible to confirm this?

It would appear to mean that different baffle plates contained blood that belonged to different blood groups. What else could it mean?

Unfortunately its not that simple. Interpretations of blood are subjective as Mark Webster pointed out in 1996.

Hayward could have taken a closer look and changed his mind and vise versa.

Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Roch on June 20, 2020, 05:10:PM
Unfortunately its not that simple. Interpretations of blood are subjective as Mark Webster pointed out in 1996.

Hayward could have taken a closer look and changed his mind and vise versa.

David, which baffle plates were said to be contaminated with blood that matched Sheila's blood group?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: David1819 on June 20, 2020, 06:36:PM
David, which baffle plates were said to be contaminated with blood that matched Sheila's blood group?

None. There were loose blood flakes that matched Sheila between them. The blood traces actually on the baffles were too small to yield any meaningful results with the exception that it was human blood.



Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Steve_uk on June 20, 2020, 07:45:PM
His other arm/hand was free Steve ?
Then he had one hand to grab the murder weapon.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: lookout on June 21, 2020, 11:30:AM
Then he had one hand to grab the murder weapon.




No---the phone when he rang JB.
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: Steve_uk on June 21, 2020, 08:06:PM



No---the phone when he rang JB.
But with an etiolated limb or hand why is there no blood on the telephone?
Title: Re: FAO Jeremy's legal team and campaign
Post by: lookout on June 21, 2020, 10:18:PM
But with an etiolated limb or hand why is there no blood on the telephone?





Because there may not have been blood on his hand ?