THE SILENCER SAGA

[Bubo bubo]

Wasting my time again. It is only possible to list a number of hypotheticals. This is because we cannot say for certain who was responsible especially since much in this case by way of evidence has been manipulated as I have consistently shown throughout my posts as part of my  narrative. There are a number of candidates but my best guess is MF.

[David1819]

Wasting my time again. It is only possible to list a number of hypotheticals. This is because we cannot say for certain who was responsible especially since much in this case by way of evidence has been manipulated as I have consistently shown throughout my posts as part of my  narrative. There are a number of candidates but my best guess is MF.

How can MF have planted the blood when blood was found on and in the moderator before he received it?

The relatives noticed the blood on Saturday evening, four days after the deaths of the family.

"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."

Examination of witness Ann Eaton.

"ARLIDGE: As a result of that being found, were police contacted?
ANN EATON: Yes, Witham Police
ARLIDGE: Do you know the date on which that took place?
ANN EATON: Saturday night.
ARLIDGE: That very evening?
ANN EATON: Yes.
MR. Justice Drake: (To the witness): Q: Who actually contacted them?
ANN EATON: It was probably me, but I cannot remember, but Witham Police were contacted."


Then Gyniss Howard found blood both on and in the moderator on August 13th (two days later)

Cross examination of Gyniss Howard.

"Q: Thank you. Now may I please ask you about the blood you found or saw inside the sound moderator?
A: Yes.
Q: You obviously had to remove it by some means didn't you?
A: Yes I did.
Q: Could you describe the means you used?
A: Yes, with the aid of a low-powered microscope and lenghts of sterile white cotton thread moistened with distilled water, I inserted with fine forceps the damp threads into the bore of the sound moderator. And soaked up the blood that was in there. I allowed the threads to dry before doing further tests.
Q: May I ask you how far into the sound moderator did you go with your threads? How far do you believe?
A: I took some blood which I could actually see. Just on that inner surface approximately 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch. I didn't measure it at the time."

[Bubo bubo]

How can MF have planted the blood when blood was found on and in the moderator before he received it?

The relatives noticed the blood on Saturday evening, four days after the deaths of the family.

"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."

Examination of witness Ann Eaton.

"ARLIDGE: As a result of that being found, were police contacted?
ANN EATON: Yes, Witham Police
ARLIDGE: Do you know the date on which that took place?
ANN EATON: Saturday night.
ARLIDGE: That very evening?
ANN EATON: Yes.
MR. Justice Drake: (To the witness): Q: Who actually contacted them?
ANN EATON: It was probably me, but I cannot remember, but Witham Police were contacted."


Then Gyniss Howard found blood both on and in the moderator on August 13th (two days later)

Cross examination of Gyniss Howard.

"Q: Thank you. Now may I please ask you about the blood you found or saw inside the sound moderator?
A: Yes.
Q: You obviously had to remove it by some means didn't you?
A: Yes I did.
Q: Could you describe the means you used?
A: Yes, with the aid of a low-powered microscope and lenghts of sterile white cotton thread moistened with distilled water, I inserted with fine forceps the damp threads into the bore of the sound moderator. And soaked up the blood that was in there. I allowed the threads to dry before doing further tests.
Q: May I ask you how far into the sound moderator did you go with your threads? How far do you believe?
A: I took some blood which I could actually see. Just on that inner surface approximately 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch. I didn't measure it at the time."

I have just spent ages explaining that DB found DB1 not the family. Their evidence is all made up a pack of lies. MF found the flake 12/09/85. RC had dismantled DB1  on 21/08/85 and found no flake. It was sent to lab with other firearms gear, magazines etc. 30/08/85 (see MF testimony). Stop wasting my time use your brain and think it through. I do not see why I should do your thinking for you. Last answer today I am afraid

[David1819]

I have just spent ages explaining that DB found DB! not the family. Their evidence is all made up a pack of lies. MF found the flake 12/09/85. RC had dismantled DBi  on 21/08/85 and found no flake. It was sent to lab with other firearms gear, magazines etc. 30/08/85 (see MF testimony). Stop wasting my time use your brain and think it through. I do not see why I should do your thinking for you. Last answer today I am afraid

That's because he wasn't looking for a blood flake or blood for that matter, he was already told it contained human blood. He took it apart to photograph and that is it.

Had he tested the baffles for blood and found nothing, then you might have a point but that is not at all what happened.

[Adam]

Both supporters and guilters will be in agreement that it is possible to produce back spatter after a contact shot on human skin from the murder weapon.   

Both supporters and guilters agree Sheila received contact shots in an area of high blood flow.

Guilters believe this is how the blood entered the silencer. Supporters have several different theories although none have been proven. 

[Roch]

Both supporters and guilters will be in agreement that it is possible to produce back spatter after a contact shot on human skin from the murder weapon.   

Both supporters and guilters agree Sheila received contact shots in an area of high blood flow.

Guilters believe this is how the blood entered the silencer. Supporters have several different theories although none have been proven.

Fletcher was humiliated at trial regarding his backspatter claims, yet they seemed to stand. In 2012 when the Guardian article came out, the guilters dismissed it, saying that it provided more questions than answers regarding how the blood got in the silencer. This was in fact, nonsense. The fact of the matter is, Fletcher's testimony is rubbish and the blood got in the silencer by a process of deliberate contamination. For years people have dickie danced around this, instead of just saying it outright. Even the guilters know it's true, even if they can't bring themselves to openly admit it.

[Adam]

Fletcher was humiliated at trial regarding his backspatter claims, yet they seemed to stand. In 2012 when the Guardian article came out, the guilters dismissed it, saying that it provided more questions than answers regarding how the blood got in the silencer. This was in fact, nonsense. The fact of the matter is, Fletcher's testimony is rubbish and the blood got in the silence by a process of deliberate contamination. For years people have dickie danced around this, instead of just saying it outright. Even the guilters know it's true, even if they can't bring themselves to openly admit it.

Has the CT ever said it is not possible to produce back spatter with a contact shot in an area of high blood flow with the murder weapon?

I know they are currently running with the two silencers theory.

[Bubo bubo]

That's because he wasn't looking for a blood flake or blood for that matter, he was already told it contained human blood. He took it apart to photograph and that is it.

Had he tested the baffles for blood and found nothing, then you might have a point but that is not at all what happened.

This is your answer for today. I am fed up with you using the forum as a computer game. With regard to MF and the flake, the answer is in my posts, if you would take the time to read them. Go away read the posts engage your thinking processes and you will have the answer. If you have not worked it out in a week come back to me and I will explain. You will also show your lack of thinking skills and inability to read and retain information. Here is a clue 'loose'

GH only swabbed the outside of the end of the SM (SM1). She told RC that there was blood of human origin on the end and the inner circumference of the end cap. The sample was too small to fully analyse. There is no other evidence that he was told there was blood inside the silencer. She cannot remember how far in she swabbed so that is debateable. At most 1/4 inch. This would not be a thorough enough examination to show blood or no blood inside the silencer. For some reason (see posts) he decided to dismantle it. This is another rubbish post which clearly shows your lack of case knowledge. I will not be responding to any more of your posts today. As I have said, you are on the naughty step.

[Adam]

The CT agree that Sheila was shot twice in an area of high blood flow. They also agree this would produce back spatter.

The CT have never disputed the evidence that the rifle barrel had no back spatter.

The CT have never disputed there was a kitchen fight which involved the rifle as a weapon to strike Nevill. The rifle also being wrestled for.

Natural conclusions from this is the silencer would have Sheila's blood & kitchen wall paint on.

Dispite this, the CT say the relatives fabricated the silencer with blood and kitchen wall paint!

[lookout]

Why would a shooter leave a " used " silencer in a place where it would easily have been found, pinning the crime on them alone ?

[David1819]

This is your answer for today. I am fed up with you using the forum as a computer game. With regard to MF and the flake, the answer is in my posts, if you would take the time to read them. Go away read the posts engage your thinking processes and you will have the answer. If you have not worked it out in a week come back to me and I will explain. You will also show your lack of thinking skills and inability to read and retain information. Here is a clue 'loose'

GH only swabbed the outside of the end of the SM (SM1). She told RC that there was blood of human origin on the end and the inner circumference of the end cap. The sample was too small to fully analyse. There is no other evidence that he was told there was blood inside the silencer. She cannot remember how far in she swabbed so that is debateable. At most 1/4 inch. This would not be a thorough enough examination to show blood or no blood inside the silencer. For some reason (see posts) he decided to dismantle it. This is another rubbish post which clearly shows your lack of case knowledge. I will not be responding to any more of your posts today. As I have said, you are on the naughty step.

At least you acknowledge that blood of human origin was on the moderator and around 1/4  an inch inside the muzzle end when GH examined it on the 13th of August. Thus I look forward to you ideas of who could have contaminated the SM with human blood prior to the 13th of August. 

[Bubo bubo]

At least you acknowledge that blood of human origin was on the moderator and around 1/4  an inch inside the muzzle end when GH examined it on the 13th of August. Thus I look forward to you ideas of who could have contaminated the SM with human blood prior to the 13th of August. 

For Christ's sake FO. You are a misleading bastard. She did not know how far in she swabbed. It is widely known that it could also have been rabbit blood. You are an utter disgrace and like many others I would be glad to see the back of you. Go and join the other Troll (Adam) under the rickety rackety bridge.

[Rob_]

Why would a shooter leave a " used " silencer in a place where it would easily have been found, pinning the crime on them alone ?

It was obviously planted for someone to find, complete with a grey hair and someones blood. Only someone wanting to get caught would put it in the cupboard! Would the police really have missed it when searching the cupboard I don't think so, but then the copper was not trained to spot silencers!

I joined the forum thinking I would find a lot of evidence pointing to guilt, but I am not finding much so far. At the moment if I had been on he jury it would be 9 to 3

[Steve_uk]

It was obviously planted for someone to find, complete with a grey hair and someones blood. Only someone wanting to get caught would put it in the cupboard! Would the police really have missed it when searching the cupboard I don't think so, but then the copper was not trained to spot silencers!

I joined the forum thinking I would find a lot of evidence pointing to guilt, but I am not finding much so far. At the moment if I had been on he jury it would be 9 to 3

You haven't read hard enough then.

[Roch]

It was obviously planted for someone to find, complete with a grey hair and someones blood. Only someone wanting to get caught would put it in the cupboard! Would the police really have missed it when searching the cupboard I don't think so, but then the copper was not trained to spot silencers!

I joined the forum thinking I would find a lot of evidence pointing to guilt, but I am not finding much so far. At the moment if I had been on he jury it would be 9 to 3

Allow Steve to tutor you. We'll make an Eaton of you yet.