The Crowns case against JB was based on the premise, amongst other issues, that there was only one silencer (SM) found by the family on10/07/85
.
The Police did however seize a SM on the 07/08/85. It was found/collected by David Bird (DB) and was labelled DB1. When the decision was taken that JB would be framed all paperwork associated with this find had to be manipulated to make it disappear from the record.
They created a second witness statement for DB showing that he collected his samples on the 10th and 11th of September. In his first statement dated 24/10,85 which was presumably used at trial it shows that he collected only the socks DB6 on the 11/09/85.
We know he found more items because he submitted a second forged statement to the COLP enquiry. In which he describes finding DB1-DB7. However, DB1 is now a soil sample. You can read a fuller account on this thread.
THE SILENCER SAGA (jeremybamberforum.co.uk) reply 64
Both his statements are forgeries. The socks are shown in crime scene photos. On the Wednesday after the tragedy with JB’s approval all carpets and bedding were destroyed. What happened to the socks if they had not been collected and bagged by SOCO?
At the next weekend JB burnt his parent’s clothes. What happened to the socks if they had not been forensically gathered?
They had hidden the finding using the method described.
That was not the only problem. DB passed the buck by suggesting that if he found anything he would hand it to DRH and PC Davidson. Later the COLP questioned DRH who broke down exclaiming ‘I did not find It’. They may well have tampered with CID6 forms and Holab3 forms as the interview with DB suggests.
The DB interview is on the forum but be warned it is long and detailed. It has its own thread.
David Bird COLP Statement 8th Oct 1991 (jeremybamberforum.co.uk)
The Hamersley piece is in the library.
Breakdown of DC Hammersley (SOC) - when seen by COLP... (jeremybamberforum.co.uk)
In the end they went for a simpler fix. They pretended that SJ handed it to RC after returning to the crime scene from JB’s cottage to collect it.
I agree with NGB’s SM count but the two that mattered were the DB1 find and the finding of DRB1 on 10/08/85. I do not dispute that the family passed a SM to the police but have severe reservations as to the date.
If the DB1 find is as I suggest then the Crowns case falls because it calls into question the provenance and validity of the SM found by the family. The case falls if it is proved there were not one but 2 SM’s at the beginning of the case.
John Haywards specimen testing list shows he received DB1 on 12/08/85. However, all the other items collected DB2-DB6 arrived on the 20/08/85. Why is there no DB1 soil sample in the group? DB7 was Tampons and were of no evidential value, so were not sent.
It is pretty obvious that if they wished to claim DB1 should be DRB1 that it had to have been discovered before 12/08/85 in order that it could reach the lab by the date stated. I have seen no reference to a soil sample in my research of the case but we do not have all the paperwork and I may have missed it.
If anyone knows of evidence that shows DB1 soil sample, was sent for testing please post the find.
If there is no record of it being sent to the lab, why was it sampled or was it just a convenient substitute for the silencer DB1.
