Lest We Forget...................

[Jane]

Well that should dampen down his bumptiousness Jane 

 

[guest29835]

I'm not sure how much more pompous you can be, but I expect you'll show us! You award yourself a bogus title which epitomises pomposity and sit in selfrighteous judgement with biblical condemnation. Your claims of impartiality look more like the vengeful playing of both ends against the middle.

We now have the juxtaposition of the offender, who seems to believe it's his God-given right to name posters as ignorant and ignoramuses, being offended. Is it not reasonable to accept that which you throw out shall come back in abundance?

Possibly, it's the effects of the bogus title adding flatulence to your ego -and you have the temerity to accuse others of dishonesty!!!!!- enabling you to hide behind it, but whilst you accuse, deride, poke fun, and demand answers, you refuse to answer questions about accusations you throw out. Just to remind you:- "Guilters deodorize Julie and Colin.............". Despite numerous requests for you to provide incidences of such, you decline to answer. For one who's spent so much time trolling through past posts to use against others, I wouldn't have thought, despite the likelihood of the post being years old, it would have been beyond you to find something.

B.O.L.L.O.C.K.S.

You're an Aunt Sally.  You know nothing about the law and the legal process and your posts are mostly content-free.  You've spent years on this Forum and the other one attacking people haughtily.  You're sad and weird.

[guest29835]

Blimey, who rattled your cage ?
Now how did I know you were going to answer in such a way ? Mmm. True colours spring to mind in a character such as yourself !

Where has all this abuse come from towards a person you know nothing about ?What's your problem ?

I'm not irrational.
I'm not dishonest.
I don't pretend.

Is it that you feel superior against us mere mortals on this forum ? Because that's what it looks like from where I'm sitting. Do you have to know everything to avoid going into a strop ?

If I wish to know what evidence is the right evidence I'll await the answer from the proper quarters and it's not yours.

My problem is that you insulted me.  I did not insult you.  I asked you reasonable questions and I agree with you that the paint could have been planted (that's the irony of this!).

Take your blinkers off and look back at the thread and see.  I asked you to explain how the paint got on the silencer and you couldn't and can't.  I asked you to confirm you had seen the relevant forensic document and you haven't.  I wasn't attacking you, I was asking you to think, which you clearly can't because you won't.

Instead of being reasonable, you became defensive and insulted me.

When people insult me, I go to war.

From now on, I will insult you.

[guest29835]

Thanks Caroline---the paint is still on the edge as I'd stated.

No, the paint is not on the edge.  You just can't accept that you're wrong.  Ironically, what I am saying helps Jeremy! 

You just haven't really looked at it and thought about it.

[guest29835]

I don’t follow you I’m sorry, why would the silencer need to be held flat to the arga surround?  It’s showing the paint on the side of the silencer the knurled edge, the part that would be more abrasive than a flat surface?  This means it could have glanced down sideways past the aga in a struggle?

At which end of the silencer is the paint?  Where on the silencer is the paint?

[guest29835]

At which end of the silencer is the paint?  Where on the silencer is the paint?

Actually, to answer my own question, having looked at the General Examination Record again and compared it again to stock photographs of a Parker Hale silencer, it does look like the knurled ribbon ('gridded pattern') is at the open end rather than the muzzle end, so I could be mistaken on that fact.  That means in principle it could be possible to make those scratches and leave that paint on the silencer without having to hold it flat to the surface, but I would still maintain it would be very difficult, at the very least, to leave the paint traces where they were found while making those marks.  I'm still sceptical about it. 

One problem we have here is that we don't have forensic photographs of the actual silencer, other than very poor photography during (I think) Cook's examination, and those photographs don't show any of the forensic findings.  I'm also not aware of any FSS or SOCO video in existence showing the examinations in progress.

Anyway, all I'm doing is asking questions.  I've raised this twice before and my view is that this needs to be tested, with the correct silencer, to see if and how the scratch marks could have been made and how the paint is 'captured' by the silencer housing.

[guest29835]

Actually, to answer my own question, having looked at the General Examination Record again and compared it again to stock photographs of a Parker Hale silencer, it does look like the knurled ribbon ('gridded pattern') is at the open end rather than the muzzle end, so I could be mistaken on that fact.  That means in principle it could be possible to make those scratches and leave that paint on the silencer without having to hold it flat to the surface, but I would still maintain it would be very difficult, at the very least, to leave the paint traces where they were found while making those marks.  I'm still sceptical about it. 

One problem we have here is that we don't have forensic photographs of the actual silencer, other than very poor photography during (I think) Cook's examination, and those photographs don't show any of the forensic findings.  I'm also not aware of any FSS or SOCO video in existence showing the examinations in progress.

Anyway, all I'm doing is asking questions.  I've raised this twice before and my view is that this needs to be tested, with the correct silencer, to see if and how the scratch marks could have been made and how the paint is 'captured' by the silencer housing.

Sorry, but thinking about it more, I confused because I've used guns and silencers and the knurled ribbon is at the muzzle end, and the 'end cap' end is the open end.  Yet looking at the General Examination Record ('GER') again, it says that the knurling is at the "extreme end" with the end cap, which I am now reinterpreting to mean the open end. 

I must be going loony or it doesn't make sense, but Cook or the FSS or whoever has filled out that GER has not used what I understand to be the correct terminology.  If I understand correctly, he should have said muzzle end or open end.

Plus, we don't have a photographic or video forensic record.

I remain sceptical and I think we should not be accepting any of the prosecution's assumptions on this point.  It needs more investigation and the actual process of putting the scratch marks on such a surface and 'collecting' the paint traces in the knurling using friction from the brim needs to be tested/re-enacted.

[JackieD]

B.O.L.L.O.C.K.S.

You're an Aunt Sally.  You know nothing about the law and the legal process and your posts are mostly content-free.  You've spent years on this Forum and the other one attacking people haughtily.  You're sad and weird.

Absolutely spot on

[JackieD]

Sorry, but thinking about it more, I confused because I've used guns and silencers and the knurled ribbon is at the muzzle end, and the 'end cap' end is the open end.  Yet looking at the General Examination Record ('GER') again, it says that the knurling is at the "extreme end" with the end cap, which I am now reinterpreting to mean the open end. 

I must be going loony or it doesn't make sense, but Cook or the FSS or whoever has filled out that GER has not used what I understand to be the correct terminology.  If I understand correctly, he should have said muzzle end or open end.

Plus, we don't have a photographic or video forensic record.


I remain sceptical and I think we should not be accepting any of the prosecution's assumptions on this point.  It needs more investigation and the actual process of putting the scratch marks on such a surface and 'collecting' the paint traces in the knurling using friction from the brim needs to be tested/re-enacted.

[/color][/size][/b]

Thank you

[guest29835]

[/color][/size][/b]

Thank you

For a moment, I thought I was going loony, but I may still be wrong and somebody who knows more may come along and correct me. 

So far, it does look to me like there's a serious problem.  I wonder if the GER diagram is just wrong?  That's one possible explanation.  The other explanation really doesn't bear thinking about, but I will summarise it below. 

The difficulty we seem to have is: How do you collect paint in the knurling at the muzzle end while scratching at the muzzle end with the brim?  The muzzle end is on the rifle barrel side, and that being the case, it's actually a really difficult thing to do, if not impossible.  You would have to hold the silenced rifle flat to the aga surround and then somehow the friction with the brim causes the paint to collect in the knurling. 

I suppose the paint could curl off the brim and be 'squashed' between the silencer housing and the aga surround surface, thus ending up embedded in the knurling, but even then, you still have the issue of how the silenced rifle can be pivoted to produce the effect.  I really don't see it happening.

The more disturbing alternative scenario is as follows:

(i). The scratch marks are made on purpose with something else (maybe the Pargeter gun, hence why it was removed).

(ii). The paint traces are collected up (with a false nail?) and then implanted in the silencer knurling, in the mistaken belief that the knurled ribbon is at the open end.  If - a big 'if' - Ann Eaton did this, maybe she didn't realise which way round the paint should go, or maybe the knurled ribbon was the only place the paint would 'stick', or maybe she just didn't think about what she was doing. 

This is all speculation, let me stress.  I'm not alleging anything.

[lookout]

My dilemma has always been that I've never believed that the silencer had been deliberately tampered with on the Aga to have got paint on it.
It seemed an honest enough argument that it had been done on the night of the murders when there'd been a struggle, or as my thoughts went, a cross-threaded silencer half-cocked on the end of the rifle with a skew-wiff Sheila on the other end while rifle and wonky silencer fell against the Aga thus causing the marks that are seen.

Since " learning " that it could have been deliberate, I await proof of who it was, when it was and how it was done.

So, QC, how can I answer something that none of us know anything about ?? Even you !

[guest7363]

My dilemma has always been that I've never believed that the silencer had been deliberately tampered with on the Aga to have got paint on it.
It seemed an honest enough argument that it had been done on the night of the murders when there'd been a struggle, or as my thoughts went, a cross-threaded silencer half-cocked on the end of the rifle with a skew-wiff Sheila on the other end while rifle and wonky silencer fell against the Aga thus causing the marks that are seen.

Since " learning " that it could have been deliberate, I await proof of who it was, when it was and how it was done.

So, QC, how can I answer something that none of us know anything about ?? Even you !

To be honest Lookout, the paint on the silencer could have happened pre murders, it was used mainly to bolster the blood on the silencer, the defence could have and should have argued this case?  In a nutshell it was used as a secondary piece of evidence.  Now if the defence could prove the paint was deliberate and after the murders, which I think they tried in an appeal, this could have been damaging for the prosecution?

[lookout]

To be honest Lookout, the paint on the silencer could have happened pre murders, it was used mainly to bolster the blood on the silencer, the defence could have and should have argued this case?  In a nutshell it was used as a secondary piece of evidence.  Now if the defence could prove the paint was deliberate and after the murders, which I think they tried in an appeal, this could have been damaging for the prosecution?

RJ, unless someone does come up with some substantial evidence I'll always remain sceptical. 

[guest7363]

RJ, unless someone does come up with some substantial evidence I'll always remain sceptical.

I wouldn’t want it any different my friend 👍. You are a pleasure to debate with and I love your humour 👍

[guest29835]

My dilemma has always been that I've never believed that the silencer had been deliberately tampered with on the Aga to have got paint on it.
It seemed an honest enough argument that it had been done on the night of the murders when there'd been a struggle, or as my thoughts went, a cross-threaded silencer half-cocked on the end of the rifle with a skew-wiff Sheila on the other end while rifle and wonky silencer fell against the Aga thus causing the marks that are seen.

Since " learning " that it could have been deliberate, I await proof of who it was, when it was and how it was done.

So, QC, how can I answer something that none of us know anything about ?? Even you !

I think the 'how' and 'when' can be proved.  The 'who' is more a matter of probability.  The question of who discovered these scratch marks and/or what initiated the closer examination of the aga surround is a whole topic in its own right as there are inconsistencies in the accounts between Ann Eaton, Stan Jones and Ron Cook. 

I would rule out Cook as a suspect.