Reason why the "Silicost Impression" taken from under mantelpiece, was taken?

[hartley]

Post the original statements and we can all sing from the same hymn sheet.

[chochokeira]

How does all this equate with the sighting of the rifle at the bedroom window by WPC Julia Jeapes, who saw the gun there at about 7:15am?

If the gun she saw there was the Bamber rifle, does this mean that somebody who was very much still alive inside the house, took possession of it and went downstairs carrying it, and was this the reason why DS Davidson told COLP that a gun that had received a hard knock was found downstairs which had what appeared to be paint on the end of its barrel?

Well done, Mike! Excellent work. + 5 bursts of applause for this once I can get in to applaud you again.

[mike tesko]

We now know the importance of that gun which had received a hard knock and which had paint on the end of its barrel which was found downstairs at the scene - it was this gun which caused DI Cook top take a paint sample at the scene (RC/1) which was sent along to the Lab' on the same date (20th September 1985) as the Bamber rifle, with a view to checking to see if the reddish substance found on the rifles fore-site was red paint from the aga in the kitchen?

So, 20th September 1985, is a red letter date, where police thought paint from kitchen aga was on the arrel of the Bamber rifle...

Then...

We have 1st October 1985, the day that Cook and Davidson, went to WHF with Mr Elliot, and Cook told Elliot to take a cast of the marks on the underside of the aga, and that police at that time believed these marks had been made by the barrel of the gun, not the silencer...

[mike tesko]

Why would Cook be telling Elliot at the scene on 1st October 1985, that marks on the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece were made by a guns barrel, and not the silencer - if as we have since had it drummed into us, that the relatives found the silencer from as long ago as 10th August 1985, and that it had been handed over to the police by the evening of 12th August 1985, and it had provisionally been to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and it had been fingerprinted by oblique light test on 15th August 1985, and it had been fingerprinted by superglue treatment by 23rd August 1985, and it had been dismantled and rebuilt by Cook on 29th August 1985, and it had been sent back to the Lab' on 30th August 1985, and the ballistic expert had dismantled it again and found the crucial flake of blood inside it, which was analyzed at the lab' between 12th and 19th September 1985, and had been linked to Sheila?

Why would Cook be telling Elliot that a guns barrel had made the marks on the underside of the aga, if all we have been told about the silencer, was / is true?

DS Davidson, was the senior exhibits officer in the case, and he had no record at all of a silencer being found...

COLP asked him during interview, if he knew about the second silencer?

So, there were two silencers which COLP knew about...

Liars should have a good memory, and not leave themselves open to be caught out - Ds Davidson said he had no involvement with the silencer, but on 13th September 1985, both he and DS Eastwood took possession of the silencer which Ann Eaton handed into the police on 11th September 1985, to fingerprint it...

They fingerprinted it, whilst the other silencer was still at the Lab' at Huntingdon...

[smiffy]

Davidson must have known about a second silencer existing...otherwise when asked in the COLP investigation he would have answered with the question "what second silencer?"

I noticed one of his answers was given with a present tense "is"  when it should have been a past tense "was" ....this very strongly in the instance involved indicate he was being deceptive .

[mike tesko]

We have to assume that a decision was taken say on or after 1st October 1985, to introduce the silencer as being fitted to the barrel of the Bamber rifle, with a view to suggesting it made the marks on the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece, and also that because Sheila's blood was found inside it, that it was fitted to the barrel of the gun at the time Sheila was shot and killed in the main bedroom...

Paint on the barrel of the gun, and paint on the end of the silencer became a big / major problem for Essex police and so they had to get rid of the paint on the gun evidence, which is what they did...

[Roch]

Davidson must have known about a second silencer existing...otherwise when asked in the COLP investigation he would have answered with the question "what second silencer?"

I noticed one of his answers was given with a present tense "is"  when it should have been a past tense "was" ....this very strongly in the instance involved indicate he was being deceptive .

This is very clever of you smiffy. I have used Statement Analysis though and it suggests you are a massive cock. So I'm struggling to reconcile the situation. Perhaps you can help?

jailman, please refrain from personal insults.

[shonapugs]

Davidson must have known about a second silencer existing...otherwise when asked in the COLP investigation he would have answered with the question "what second silencer?"

I noticed one of his answers was given with a present tense "is"  when it should have been a past tense "was" ....this very strongly in the instance involved indicate he was being deceptive .

This is very clever of you smiffy. I have used Statement Analysis though and it suggests you are a massive cock. So I'm struggling to reconcile the situation. Perhaps you can help?

 

[shonapugs]

Really? A smite, just for laughing? Thanks. I'll treasure it always!!

[Jerry]

Davidson must have known about a second silencer existing...otherwise when asked in the COLP investigation he would have answered with the question "what second silencer?"

I noticed one of his answers was given with a present tense "is"  when it should have been a past tense "was" ....this very strongly in the instance involved indicate he was being deceptive .

This is very clever of you smiffy. I have used Statement Analysis though and it suggests you are a massive cock. So I'm struggling to reconcile the situation. Perhaps you can help?

 

     +1 Shona

[shonapugs]

I know!! Massive cock!! I wish that there was a smiley that showed a still-sexy woman bent double, hooting with laughter!! When I called smiffy a dick, paul stole it as soon as I could type it. I miss the old days, when intelligent adults could moderate themselves.

xx.

[shonapugs]

I suppose that post will vanish, too. Because I quoted "massive cock". I could have been discussing chickens.

[shonapugs]

Can I just say one more thing? It was never going to work, elevating certain members to mod status. Surely a mod should be impartial? And, apart from the strange sunglasses nonsense and the intellectual treat that was bigwullie, I don't think that any post should be removed. We are all big enough and lovely enough to discuss points. And not to be patronised?

[Jerry]

I know!! Massive cock!! I wish that there was a smiley that showed a still-sexy woman bent double, hooting with laughter!! When I called smiffy a dick, paul stole it as soon as I could type it. I miss the old days, when intelligent adults could moderate themselves.

xx.

[Jerry]

Can I just say one more thing? It was never going to work, elevating certain members to mod status. Surely a mod should be impartial? And, apart from the strange sunglasses nonsense and the intellectual treat that was bigwullie, I don't think that any post should be removed. We are all big enough and lovely enough to discuss points. And not to be patronised?

Apparently not?

The vanishing post syndrome strikes again.