THE SILENCER SAGA

[mike tesko]

The scratches on the Aga

I have set out my scenario for the SM. There were two. The original Pargeter owned (DB1) and the Bamber SM which was manipulated to be a replica by creating the features of DB1 and the processes it had been subjected to. It was thereafter called DRB1

They had to switch them for the following reasons.

1 It was the Pargeter SM which was the original focus of their attention.

This would not ‘wash’ according to their scenario and would surely raise questions with regard to his Brno rifle and why would JB use AP’s SM on the Anschutz.

The SM DB1 was subjected to a lot of scientific tests and at least one dismantling. These activities had produced no evidence of worth apart from GH’s declaration that the blood was human in origin. Some claim it could have been rabbit because of a shared enzyme. No flake was found, even though it was said to be loose between baffles, when dismantled by RC.

2 It did not have paint on the knurled end.

Without the paint it could not be linked to the crime scene.

I have seen no evidence that GH found paint on the item DB1 on 13/08/85. Her statements do not mention paint. Her trial testimony revolves around the blood smears and her ability to use the Rifle with a SM attached. Her COLP statements are with regard to the changing of exhibit numbers, (part of the effort to examine JB’s complaint). However, she may have seen paint, but was being asked about blood, so she confined her report to that. Though you would imagine for clarity she would have mentioned it.

If I am wrong in this aspect, please direct me to the evidence. I will have to adjust my thinking.

3 They could not use the Pargeter SM DB1 at trial. If JB was asked to identify it as the family owned SM he would know it was not his.

If the police wanted use the original SM (DB1) they would have had to produce evidence of its use and presence. They would need to provide crime scene photos of it in situ together with documentation and a clear chain of custody. Was it in close proximity to the Brno? If it was fitted to the Brno they could have collected that as well but returned it to WHF having eliminated it as an exhibit because it had been cleaned of fingerprints and could not be used. They kept the SM because of the blood.

We only have the police version as to why they were looking for the source of the paint. Even here it appears they were asked about the paint in relation to ‘paint on the end of a rifle’.

The most vivid and detailed descriptions of a SM were provided by the family.

Because they are said to have found it, the police having missed it, no photographic record or an independent witness, to the find exists. We must rely on the family’s statements as to its journey from the finding to receipt by the police. Basil Cock’s statement appears to suggest another and wrong dating of the find.

To link it to the crime scene it had to have a linkage point.

They chose the paint from the AGA.

The scratches

There appear to be two types of mark on the underside of the mantle. Chips and scratches. Both could have been made in the same time episode but it is possible that they were made on different dates and we cannot know which was made first if they were not made during the same episode.
In my experience the chips were most likely made by a blow striking the surface, denting the underlying soft wood and causing the thick layer of paint to fracture. Some paint could have been trapped on the striking object. Without being misogynistic I am sure male readers may have come across this phenomenon when doing DIY badly. The scratches are more reminiscent of an object being dragged across the surface and again this process could leave paint on the object if the surface was pitted or grooved as the end of SM’ are.

The GER for DB1

This document shown on the ‘Lest we forget’ thread appears to be the original produced on 13/08/85 with an emphasis on blood location. Two major additions have been made. One indicates the location of the paint. The other indicates information with regard to the flake and bloodied baffles found by MF. The latter looks like Haywards writing. Who made the note about the paint? To my eyes it was not written by the originator of the document. (GH?)

The SM is recorded as DB1 even though RC said he understood it was found by SBJ and it was only later he realised his error. How and when did he realise this error? If he had not realised it by13/08/85 why did he allow the lab to record it as DB1 and not SBJ1? Three people have initialled the document.

Thoughts and issues.

It is possible that at some point during the investigation the police (Cook) realised that the early ‘fuming’ could have destroyed the viability of any blood inside the SM. Was this done on purpose? (see earlier posts). Was this issue raised by the family who knew more about ‘back spatter’? Did they accuse the police of destroying potential evidence due to incompetence?

This issue took place when Taff was in charge. Were they worried about possible use of the SM by the TFG? I can envisage circumstances which might lead them to use it.

I believe an SM was found on the day. If we are to believe that SJ went back to the farm to collect it. Of course he could say he collected it from the family. It is clear even at that stage that it was of significance but why we cannot know. They knew the Anschutz had been used but when JB told them his story they twigged his SM might have been involved and they needed to rule it in or out. One SM had already been found by DB.

I suggest that DB1 was collected as part of the clean-up operation. DB1 SM DB2 Fire Debris, etc..

Was the silencer used.

It is possible that Sheila did fit a SM but discarded it at some point most likely because it was unwieldy. It is possible that she hit Nevil with it and that on an upstroke it contacted the mantle. It is possible that she wanted to use it but cross threaded it and because it was locked (this can happen with a cross thread). she tried to remove it by bashing it around, again catching the mantle on an upstroke.

I do not agree with the notion that the lack of paint on the carpet below the impact point is indicative of foul play. It is suggested that this indicates the scratches were added later (no paint in the crime scene photos). The chips whenever they happened or whatever caused them could have ricocheted anywhere. The scratches are too superficial to reveal the underlying paint. If the police moved Nevil as I suggest they could have moved/repositioned the carpet as part of that process. Given the nature of the knurled end such scratches would be more likely to produce a fine dust and would need microscopic technology to see them. It would however allow paint to accumulate and collect in the surface dips.

Were the police involved?

The most powerful exhibit which was the lynch-pin of the prosecution case has by coincidence or design left the police appearing to be ‘squeaky clean’. They did not find it and it only came into their control days after the event. If the switch was made at the Laboratory (as I suggest), and subsequently this was exposed, the FSS could be blamed for mixing the SM’s up.

The family could have found the second silencer much later but without bringing the date of this find forward they could not account for a silencer being found prior to the 13/08/85 and its testing and documentation which would be required as part of the overall process. The police could not change the FSS documentation They also had to bear in mind that police officers and staff at the FSS knew of ‘A’ SM from the early stages of the investigation.

I am firmly of the opinion that the Pargeter SM was present with his rifle.

Absolutely 100% Correct!

[nugnug]

in your opionion mike how many silencers are there in this case.

[Bubo bubo]

Its stated in the 13/08/85 holab form -

"Red stain on gridded pattern - KM negative"

This just means its a non blood stain not that it is paint. Like the brown stain which is also KM negative. She does not even suggest what made the stain and if it was paint it would need to be ingrained and she would have mentioned this aspect. Beetroot juice? tomato sauce? red wine? raspberry juice? lipstick? Need I go on?

[Bubo bubo]

Absolutely 100% Correct!

Thank you for your support and on behalf of innocence supporters another big thank you is deserved. The Herculean effort you have made to upload the documents and your numerous posts have made it possible to examine the case which without your intervention would not have been posiible.

[Adam]

The CT say there are two silencers. While simultaneously agreeing the relatives handed in a silencer  with human blood which matched Sheila's blood group - courtesy of RB.

Why would the police then need two silencers if the relatives had handed in one with the required paint & Blood on? 

[Adam]

The relatives handed in a silencer. The police handed it to the lab. Straight forward.

The relatives would not hand in a silencer with nothing on. The only way the police would know what the blood and paint was, was by sending it for tests.

A second silencer is not needed.

[Adam]

The CT say one silencer is needed - the one with RB's blood in & which the relatives scratched the aga with.

Then the CT say two silencers were floating around.

[David1819]

This just means its a non blood stain not that it is paint. Like the brown stain which is also KM negative. She does not even suggest what made the stain and if it was paint it would need to be engrained and she would have mentioned this aspect. Beetroot juice? tomato sauce? red wine? raspberry juice? lipstick? Need I go on?

Was she asked to? It was a preliminary examination.

So your theory now is - that the relatives mistook tomato sauce or lipstick on the silencer for red paint from the AGA. The police then planted red paint on it later on? 

[lookout]

Was she asked to?

It would never have been explained anyway---like the burns on Nevill's back, June's black eye and also the covered wound on Sheila's lower abdomen.

[killingeve]

It would never have been explained anyway---like the burns on Nevill's back, June's black eye and also the covered wound on Sheila's lower abdomen.

Why are you still querying June's black eye when I uploaded the pathologist's trial testimony on Tuesday which makes clear it was caused by one of the gunshots she sustained to her head? 

[Roch]

Why are you still querying June's black eye when I uploaded the pathologist's trial testimony on Tuesday which makes clear it was caused by one of the gunshots she sustained to her head?

How could he differentiate the cause, between an adjacent bullet wound and blunt trauma to the area, for example, by a punch?

[Bubo bubo]

Was she asked to? It was a preliminary examination.

So your theory now is - that the relatives mistook tomato sauce or lipstick on the silencer for red paint from the AGA. The police then planted red paint on it later on? 

Do not make such stupid comments. You know full well what I am saying and what I believe happened. You are reduced to stupidity because you are on the wrong side of the argument. Grow up. Back on the naughty step for you, for childish posting.

David1819 "Was she asked to? It was a preliminary examination."

 You are even making a comment on a point which is covered in my post, reply191. Too much skim reading maybe?

[killingeve]

How could he differentiate the cause, between an adjacent bullet wound and blunt trauma to the area, for example, by a punch?

Errr maybe its coz he's a pathologist and that's what he spent years studying and training for but no doubt those here no better 

[Roch]

Errr maybe its coz he's a pathologist and that's what he spent years studying and training for but no doubt those here no better 

That's not a valid answer.

[killingeve]

That's not a valid answer.

Ok how's this.  The grisly murder of Sarah Everard involved her body being burned.  She was identified by her dental records.  The pathologist was able to conclude she died from compression to the neck.

Back to Bamber.  You do realise that the Home Office patholgist was fact-checked by a heavy weight pathologist for the defence namely Prof Bernard Knight CBE.