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

[guest29835]

Ron is very much alive.

I was reliably told he was gone.  Well that's good news and my apologies.

He may now say, as Mark Twain did, 'Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated'.

[JackieD]

I was reliably told he was gone.  Well that's good news and my apologies.

He may now say, as Mark Twain did, 'Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated'.

Does that mean Ron can be prosecuted or does he get a pass too

[guest29835]

Does that mean Ron can be prosecuted or does he get a pass too

I suppose anybody who is still alive can be prosecuted.  Even if somebody is in their 70s/80s, if they perverted the course of justice, then they are fair game for the authorities; but, at that age it sort of becomes academic, doesn't it.

To be honest, I can't really picture Ron deliberately planting evidence or engaging in funny business to that extent, but - assuming it happened - he might have known about it and kept his mouth shut, if you see what I mean.  Who knows?

I can imagine Ann doing this, on the basis of a 'vital interest', as I call it.

I can just about imagine Stan doing it, if he thought Jeremy was guilty and wanted to nail the case.

But first thing's first: How did that paint get on the silencer?  That must be established before we start pointing the finger at people. 

The prosecution say it happened in a struggle, but I don't see how it could have.  I think that GER is wrong and it's also not good enough, as one or two people have said above, to suggest it must have happened before the incident.  If Sheila deliberately put those scratches there at some point beforehand, June must have noticed and Jeremy must have known about it and would speak up.  That's before we get into how the brim of the silencer could make those scratches and collect the paint traces in the knurled ribbon.  Is that possible?  And what would Sheila be doing with the silencer in the first place?  And does that then lend credence to Jeremy's original defence at the 1986 trial?

As a first step, I would say somebody needs to take a look at the same model of Parker Hale silencer and then think about how the scenario claimed by the Crown could be tested in a reliable and scientific way.  You'd probably need to start by scratching a painted surface with it similar to the aga surround of that time, to see how the scratching occurs and where the paint goes.  If that's consistent with the prosecution theory, then maybe stage a reconstruction to see if the silencer could have impacted the surround and made those scratches while flat to the surface. 

Are there experts who undertake such tests?

[David1819]

I suppose anybody who is still alive can be prosecuted.  Even if somebody is in their 70s/80s, if they perverted the course of justice, then they are fair game for the authorities; but, at that age it sort of becomes academic, doesn't it.

To be honest, I can't really picture Ron deliberately planting evidence or engaging in funny business to that extent, but - assuming it happened - he might have known about it and kept his mouth shut, if you see what I mean.  Who knows?

I can imagine Ann doing this, on the basis of a 'vital interest', as I call it.

I can just about imagine Stan doing it, if he thought Jeremy was guilty and wanted to nail the case.

But first thing's first: How did that paint get on the silencer?  That must be established before we start pointing the finger at people. 

The prosecution say it happened in a struggle, but I don't see how it could have.  I think that GER is wrong and it's also not good enough, as one or two people have said above, to suggest it must have happened before the incident.  If Sheila deliberately put those scratches there at some point beforehand, June must have noticed and Jeremy must have known about it and would speak up.  That's before we get into how the brim of the silencer could make those scratches and collect the paint traces in the knurled ribbon.  Is that possible?  And what would Sheila be doing with the silencer in the first place?  And does that then lend credence to Jeremy's original defence at the 1986 trial?

As a first step, I would say somebody needs to take a look at the same model of Parker Hale silencer and then think about how the scenario claimed by the Crown could be tested in a reliable and scientific way.  You'd probably need to start by scratching a painted surface with it similar to the aga surround of that time, to see how the scratching occurs and where the paint goes.  If that's consistent with the prosecution theory, then maybe stage a reconstruction to see if the silencer could have impacted the surround and made those scratches while flat to the surface. 

Are there experts who undertake such tests?

Ann is my prime suspect.

[guest29835]

Ann is my prime suspect.

It was Essex CID's idea to examine the aga surround, not Ann Eaton's.  The story is that Stan Jones noticed that the aga surround paint colour seemed to match the paint on the silencer.  They then went to examine the aga surround.  I believe those present were D.S. Jones,. D.I. Cook, D.I. Miller and Ann Eaton.

Of those four, I think we'd both probably agree we have two likely and obvious suspects, Stan and Ann, but given that police already had custody of the silencer, how can it be Ann Eaton?  Are you saying you think she put the paint on the silencer before Peter Eaton handed it over to Stan, and this tipped off Stan?  That ties Stan in on it as well.  Or are you saying that Ann assumed the police would notice the similarity, and if they did not, she planned to tell Stan, and maybe did tell him?

Another explanation would be that there was more than one silencer.

Having looked at a couple more GERs, I'm thoroughly confused.  It does very much look like Essex Police/FSS had possession of at least two different silencers.  I've found a GER for a different model of silencer with it stated that there is no red paint.  It could be that this is an updated GER compiled after examination and removal of the paint, but it looks like a different silencer and it has a different exhibit reference.

Second, there's the problem of explaining how the paint got on the silencer.  I am virtually certain that the silencer in the GER posted in this thread could not have made those marks in a struggle, or at all (though this would have to be verified in testing).  I am also close to certain that the paint could not have got into the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end of the silencer due to a struggle.  For this to happen, it would require the silenced rifle to be held flat to the aga surround and pivoted around in order to make two or three separate scratches. The paint traces could not have fallen into the knurled ribbon from the brim of the open end if the silencer is flat to the surface.  The threaded muzzle end of the silencer nearest to the knurled ribbon could not have made the scratches and collected the paint in the knurling as the brim is downward from the knurled ribbon when the silencer is threaded.

[David1819]

It was Essex CID's idea to examine the aga surround, not Ann Eaton's.  The story is that Stan Jones noticed that the aga surround paint colour seemed to match the paint on the silencer.  They then went to examine the aga surround.  I believe those present were D.S. Jones,. D.I. Cook, D.I. Miller and Ann Eaton.

Of those four, I think we'd both probably agree we have two likely and obvious suspects, Stan and Ann, but given that police already had custody of the silencer, how can it be Ann Eaton?  Are you saying you think she put the paint on the silencer before Peter Eaton handed it over to Stan, and this tipped off Stan?  That ties Stan in on it as well.  Or are you saying that Ann assumed the police would notice the similarity, and if they did not, she planned to tell Stan, and maybe did tell him?

Another explanation would be that there was more than one silencer.

Having looked at a couple more GERs, I'm thoroughly confused.  It does very much look like Essex Poice/FSS had possession of at least two different silencers.  I've found a GER for a different model of silencer with it stated that there is no red paint.  It could be that this is an updated GER compiled after examination and removal of the paint, but it looks like a different silencer and it has a different exhibit reference.

Second, there's the problem of explaining how the paint got on the silencer.  I am virtually certain that the silencer in the GER posted in this thread could not have made those marks in a struggle, or at all (though this would have to be verified in testing).  I am also close to certain that the paint could not have got into the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end of the silencer due to a struggle.  For this to happen, it would require the silenced rifle to be held flat to the aga surround and pivoted around in order to make two or three separate scratches. The paint traces could not have fallen into the knurled ribbon from the brim of the open end if the silencer is flat to the surface.  The threaded muzzle end of the silencer nearest to the knurled ribbon could not have made the scratches and collected the paint in the knurling as the brim is downward from the knurled ribbon when the silencer is threaded.

Yes

[guest29835]

Yes

Therefore, was Stan in on it, or are you saying she anticipated Stan would want to know where the paint was from and would put 2 and 2 together, and planned to tell him if he didn't?

[Adam]

Therefore, was Stan in on it, or are you saying she anticipated Stan would want to know where the paint was from and would put 2 and 2 together, and planned to tell him if he didn't?

The scheming AE & family with the treacherous Stan Jones. Working with the scorned Julie and EP's industrial frame department.

Maybe all will be revealed in the next CCRC submission.

[lookout]

Would AE have known enough about the law to have carried out such a thing ?

[Jane]

Would AE have known enough about the law to have carried out such a thing ?

Lookout, I do believe we've endowed the relatives with accomplishments they didn't have.

[lookout]

Lookout, I do believe we've endowed the relatives with accomplishments they didn't have.

Except for the connotations that such an act would have on JB's life ? Would she have known that ?

[lookout]

Stan the man would have known.

[Jane]

Except for the connotations that such an act would have on JB's life ? Would she have known that ?

I don't know how she would have, Lookout. There wasn't the benefit of the internet back then so she'd have needed to go to a library and be very certain of what she was looking for. She was a wife, mother,  secretary, and probably 'gofer' in a small family business. She probably wouldn't have had the time or inclination for academic or scientific studies.

[Jane]

Stan the man would have known.

Would he, though? Back then -or at least when Stan entered the force- a degree wasn't requisite. A secondry school education was enough to get you in and you worked your way up through the ranks. Such was how police gained a reputation for being thick. I don't know when it was believed that having a degree was adventageous -I know of two females who went in with degrees- other than enabling entry to the force at a higher level, but it doesn't guarantee the people skills necessary for dealing with the public.

[JackieD]

The scheming AE & family with the treacherous Stan Jones. Working with the scorned Julie and EP's industrial frame department.

Maybe all will be revealed in the next CCRC submission.

Adam I suggest you watch The Money Trail 50 times on replay and it might just sink in who had a motive to lie

It’s right there in front of you