THE SILENCER SAGA

[lookout]

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 

It makes no difference how many years studying/ training etc., they're still open to reneging, more so because they can blind others with science.

[killingeve]

It makes no difference how many years studying/ training etc., they're still open to reneging, more so because they can blind others with science.

What do you mean by reneging?

Part of the role of an expert is to impart information in a way the lay person can understand.

[Roch]

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.

I'll change the question, to help you. How does a pathologist rule out a black eye caused by blunt trauma.

[lookout]

What do you mean by reneging?

Part of the role of an expert is to impart information in a way the lay person can understand.

Just as if ! These people aren't infallible you know. Didn't he say that Sheila had been clean ?

[killingeve]

Just as if ! These people aren't infallible you know. Didn't he say that Sheila had been clean ?

Who would you suggest carry out post-mortems then if not pathologists?

[nugnug]

oh 2 silencers i was thinking there was3 for some reason.

[killingeve]

oh 2 silencers i was thinking there was3 for some reason.

NGB1066 has recently said that 5 silencers were involved.  I think 4 were examined at the lab.

[lookout]

Who would you suggest carry out post-mortems then if not pathologists?

I didn't say that though did I ?

[killingeve]

I didn't say that though did I ?

Did I say you did?

Who would you suggest carry out post-mortems if not pathologists?

The pathologists for the defence and prosection had/have lengthy careers.  Is there any evidence of incompetence or wrongdoing?  If not what do you think the statistical chances are of both of them cocking up in this case?

[David1819]

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?

Perhaps you should take a closer look at the document and read the arrow next to red text. "Paint = Mantlepiece at farm"

[Bubo bubo]

Perhaps you should take a closer look at the document and read the arrow next to red text. "Paint = Mantlepiece at farm"

That has been added, it was not written by GH and we have no idea who wrote it because there is no attributable signature to accompany it. Nor do we know when it was added because there is no date. You still have not shown that there was paint on DB1.

[mike tesko]

That has been added, it was not written by GH and we have no idea who wrote it because there is no attributable signature to accompany it. Nor do we know when it was added because there is no date. You still have not shown that there was paint on DB1.

For some 'inexplicable reason' there does 'not appear to be any Lab' diagram in relation to the submission of a silencer', from Essex police, to the lab', dated the '30th August 1985'. This is probably due to the fact, that Essex police 'did not submit one to the lab' on that date'..

Only two official lab' diagram documents exist, or have ever been disclosed - the first one dated the '13th August 1985', a second one, dated the '25th September 1985'. The absence of any official lab' diagram regarding the suggestion that police submitted, or took a silencer to the lab' at all, on the '30th August 1985', has led to a very startling line of enquiry, which has devastating consequences, for the prosecutions case, and the appalling behaviour of many prosection witnesses who took part in the plot to introduce false evidence capable of convincing a jury, of 'Jeremy Bambers' guilt...

[mike tesko]

Only two official lab' diagram documents exist, or have ever been disclosed - the first one dated the '13th August 1985', a second one, dated the '25th September 1985'. The absence of any official lab' diagram regarding the suggestion that police submitted, or took a silencer to the lab' at all, on the '30th August 1985', has led to a very startling line of enquiry, which has devastating consequences, for the prosecutions case, and the appalling behaviour of many prosection witnesses who took part in the plot to introduce false evidence capable of convincing a jury, of 'Jeremy Bambers' guilt...

Evidence has emerged confirming the fact that, on this date [30th August 1985] that 'a small dried flake of blood' [recovered by police from 'David Boutflour' who claimed that he had scraped (it) off the silencers metal end cap with use of a razor blade] was the item 'DB/1' which Essex police submitted to Huntingdon Lab' on that day [not a silencer] . What 'we now know', is that, when 'he' [`David Boutflour'] states that 'he kept it' [the flake] because it fascinated him, does not make any sense whatsoever..

' The flake' taken from 'David Boutflour' by police at some stage before the end of August 1985, was originally exhibit reference 'DB/1', Lab' item no. 23, It was 'this flake' [not a silencer] that was examined at the Huntingdon lab' which in turn produced the blood grouping evidence, on the 12th, 13th, 18th and the t e found) 19th September 1985!  We can now establish, that cops only had 'David Boutflours` word, that' he had recovered' the 'flake' from 'a silencer that the family beleived had been used' on 'one of three guns' used during 'the massacre' . However, it became clear, from 'everyone involved in the find of the second silencer' [10th August 1985] that 'David Boutflour' had 'no opportunty to scrape any blood' from the silencer 'he (claims found at the scene, on that date) In effect 'if' there had only ever been just `one silencer` used during this shooting trajedy, then this fact alone renders the taking of the first silencer ['SBJ/1', item no. 22] 'to the lab' to be examined by 'Glynis Howard' on the '13th August 1985', 'meaningless', since 'DI Cook' [diligent Copper, that he made himself out to be], would subsequently discover that the silencer ['SJ/1', now refferred to as, 'Lab' item no. 22'] had, or 'must have' been 'interferred' with by 'David Boutflour'...

Essex police submitted 'the piece of a dried flake of blood' which 'David Boutflour' claimed to have scraped from the metal end cap of the silencer beleived to have been used in the shootings, with use of a razor blade - which Essex police' soon realised that the emergence of the dried flake of blood, proved to problematic, so there must have been a confrontation (of sorts) between 'the police' and 'the relatives' arising out of this matter - hence why, on the '11th September 1985', 'Ann Eaton' handed over to 'DC Oakley' (or 'DC Oakey') the silencer ['DRB/1'] to which relatives were saying was the silencer from which, 'David Boutflour' claimed to have scraped the small flake of dried blood from..

Police were originally pessimistic regarding the authentcity of the claim that relatives were introducing this secondsilencer to police, a month after presenting the police with the first silencer found at the scene on the '10th August 1985'. So, whilst the said flake of dried blood ['DB/1'] was already being analysed at the lab' (12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, Essex police had more than a suspicion that relatives were up to no good. So, on the '13th September '[1985], the latest silencer [' DRB/1'] was fingerprinted by 'DS Eastwood silencer silencer was deli ££' and 'DS Davison'  [type of test, and results not disclosed] and it was not until the '20th September 1985', that 'this' /'that' silencer in format 'DRB/1', lab' item reference numbers, 23/22 arrived at the Lab'. It bore both, lab' item reference numbers '22/23' because this was the method by which 'the blood grouping results' that were obtained from 'David Boutflours' small piece of 'a dried flake of blood' [`DB/1'], said to have been scraped from the flat service of its metal end cap!

I have all the police and Lab' documentation to now be able to prove and establish that this was and is, how the blood group evidence, and the red paint particle evidence were associated with/to this silencer, by means involving foul play, or to put it another way, 'dishonestly'...

[killingeve]

Evidence has emerged confirming the fact that, on this date [30th August 1985] that 'a small dried flake of blood' was the item which Essex police submitted to Huntingdon Lab' on that day. What we now know, is that, when he states that 'he kept it' [the flake] because it fascinated him does not make any sense whatso ever..

Please provide evidence of the emerged evidence. 

[mike tesko]

Please provide evidence of the emerged evidence.

Official and authentic [Huntingdon] lab' documentation 'confirms the actual existence' of 'the flake' in question. Ironically though, the 'exhibit reference' to that 'particular flake' does not bear any 'identifying point of feference'. However, please be reassured that 'this flake of dried blood' was/is the flake of dried blood which 'David Boutflour' scraped from the outside of the silencer [not the inside]...