Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony

[Jan]

There is also a news report which said the neighbours heard a shot which was allegedly Sheila shooting herself . 

[mike tesko]

The silencer evidence came into existence on August 10th at oak farm and white house farm. Only people present were RWB, DB, AE and PE. The police have no motive and no opportunity to have done anything.

Police records confirm that DS Stan Jones took possession of a total of four exhibits at the scene, which included the seizure of a silencer on the morning of 7,the August 1985..

[David1819]

Nevertheless, it contains entries about the media reports regarding sound moderator.

What good is that?

[gringo]

     Whilst I don't doubt David's theory that the relatives were behind the framing, having both the means and the motive, there are aspects that, in my view, required collusion of some sorts. Probably,after the fact, but once set in motion the framing can only work with at least tacit collusion from within the police.
    One example being the photographic record. It is a matter of record that since the original trial, negative strips have been cut and some disposed of prior to inspections by photograpic experts. It is known that some of those negatives were of the gun cupboard, where the relatives allegedly "found" the silencer.
    This "curating" of the photographic record by EP over the last 30+ years didn't only start post trial. None of the relatives could guarantee that pictures showing the interior of the gun cupboard would not be in the record presented to the court. They have since gone missing and their removal led to the CCRC admitting that they are,"of significance to the safety of the conviction."
    Who could make sure that the photographic record presented to the court in 1986 did not include certain pictures of the gun cupboard?

[David1819]

     Whilst I don't doubt David's theory that the relatives were behind the framing, having both the means and the motive, there are aspects that, in my view, required collusion of some sorts. Probably,after the fact, but once set in motion the framing can only work with at least tacit collusion from within the police.
    One example being the photographic record. It is a matter of record that since the original trial, negative strips have been cut and some disposed of prior to inspections by photograpic experts. It is known that some of those negatives were of the gun cupboard, where the relatives allegedly "found" the silencer.
    This "curating" of the photographic record by EP over the last 30+ years didn't only start post trial. None of the relatives could guarantee that pictures showing the interior of the gun cupboard would not be in the record presented to the court. They have since gone missing and their removal led to the CCRC admitting that they are,"of significance to the safety of the conviction."
    Who could make sure that the photographic record presented to the court in 1986 did not include certain pictures of the gun cupboard?

DS Jones collected the silencer from the relatives. DS Jones then gave it to DI Cook to take to the lab. DI Cook assumed DS Jones found it and thus it was signed in as SBJ/1.

You could argue they colluded with DS Jones. That’s about it.

[Jan]

DS Jones collected the silencer from the relatives. DS Jones then gave it to DI Cook to take to the lab. DI Cook assumed DS Jones found it and thus it was signed in as SBJ/1.

You could argue they colluded with DS Jones. That’s about it.

So are you saying the blood was planted because the blood groups and dna tests were in fact ( as shown by documents) inconclusive?

If the silencer had no blood or scratch then there was no other evidence whatsoever to dhow it was on the rifle ?

[gringo]

DS Jones collected the silencer from the relatives. DS Jones then gave it to DI Cook to take to the lab. DI Cook assumed DS Jones found it and thus it was signed in as SBJ/1.

You could argue they colluded with DS Jones. That’s about it.

   Who was responsible for the photographic record presented to the court in 1986?
    Who "curated" the evidence to make certain that no photos were presented that were at odds with the relatives claims?
    I am largely in agreement with you. The relatives had a motive to frame Jeremy which is clear. It was they who "found" the silencer. Once the framing attempt was set in motion however, I don't believe that this would or could have been successful without at least some form of help/collusion.
 

[David1819]

   Who was responsible for the photographic record presented to the court in 1986?
    Who "curated" the evidence to make certain that no photos were presented that were at odds with the relatives claims?
    I am largely in agreement with you. The relatives had a motive to frame Jeremy which is clear. It was they who "found" the silencer. Once the framing attempt was set in motion however, I don't believe that this would or could have been successful without at least some form of help/collusion.

The negatives were not destroyed until sometime after 2001. Back in 1986 the photos were developed on sheets smaller than A4. You could not scrutinise the smaller detail unless the photographer focused on them in particular (such as the scratches)

In 2010 JBs defence had redeveloped the photos from the negatives using modern technology. We can now see no debris on the carpet under the mantle shelf.

This is probably why negatives got removed. There are also negatives missing of the windows. It’s very possible that they feared something would show up that preclude entry or exit such as cob webs. Without seeing what went missing we can only speculate as to why it was removed.