David Bird and Essex police misled the COLP enquiry to disguise the fact that DB found DB1.
They created a forged statement dated 24/10/85.
This forgery contained reference to DB1 – DB7 not just DB6 socks as is shown on the statement we have.
He made a key error by recording DB1 in his pocket book TWICE. He calls it a mental aberration.
I have read the whole of the document supplied by David1819. It is a long read but is very interesting.
All of my previous assertions about the find and what was done are correct as shown by this document.
For readers who have little time I summarise some of the key points relating to DB1 since there is a lot of other details which do not relate to DB1. I know it will take time but a full reading will give greater clarity and prove that unlike some I do not do selective evidence presentation, unlike some others. I study it all in detail. David 1819 comes to mind. In these endeavours you have to do the ‘hard yards’
Summary
He freely admits that he collected exhibits when at crime scenes Sheet 971. He also had his own exhibit sheets. On sheet 973 they reference a previous comment which suggests there may have been another taped interview because of the dialogue. It may have been a written submission he presented earlier.
He says he was only responsible for collecting odd exhibits sheet 971.
On sheet 975 they question him with regard to documents called CID6’s. In the following pages they question him more closely about these documents. We do not have these documents but it is clear they suspect these have been rewritten or changed because there is a lack of dates recorded. He says the dates are as shown on the top of documents.
I suggest you read pages 982 – 988. These show he had another statement they were discussing. It is here that we see that he recorded the soil sample twice in his pocket book and that he had added the final line for his 10/09/85 entry. He had to do this so that it could be DB1 his first find but he had already recorded it on another later date. A mental aberration! We do not have the other pages of his pocket book.
The new statement contains all his exhibits DB1 – DB7 which now includes DB7 tampons. On sheet 990 they question him about issues with a Holab3 form which they have issues with regard to who compiled it suggests they thought it had been changed or forged.
On sheet 984 timed at 19.12 of the interview. They talk about the fire debris which came from the fire pit. Unfortunately, they do not ask what and how much of this was taken, unlike the soil sample, where he says he collected about a kilo or bag of sugar. They do not pursue how he selected this sample from a ‘huge’ pit of smouldering waste.
On sheets 1014 – 1016 they return to the CID6’s and the text clearly indicates a different statement dated 24/10/85.
This document confirms all the suggestions that I have made.
He did find DB1 – DB5 on the day collecting the socks DB6 and the Tampons DB7 when he visited the farm on 10/09/85, or it may be that these 2 items were also found on the day but DB7 was not sent to the lab and does not appear on JH’s specimen testing list.
Conclusions
Any full and fair analysis of this taped interview would support my contention that DB found DB1 on the day 07/08/85.
It is also clear that he lied to the enquiry in many instances and sought at times to misrepresent himself as someone low down the pecking order of those working the case and collecting exhibits. He says that on the day he only took photographs and was at the beck and call of others.
As Donald J Trump would say ‘Lock him up’.
Later he made a forged statement for the COLP enquiry. It is clear as I suggested that he made all the finds on the day and they were then all moved back on-bloc to September 10th and 11th after he returned from holiday. They did however have to come up with a replacement DB1 they chose the soil sample. It seems highly likely that EP changed CID6’s and Holab3 forms to back up the forged statement.
I leave it to others to pass judgement on the COLP and their handling of this issue. Should for example they have pressed him further on the Fire Debris and other issues. On the other hand, they had been misled by the forged statement and a pack of lies.
The riddle of the blue socks.
I wonder if any members can explain the following.
How did David Bird DB collect a valid case exhibit DB6 Blue socks from main bedroom on the 12/09/85.
These socks appear in crime scene photos, which most will have seen.
On the Wednesday after the 'Tragedy' and on JB's approval the carpets and bedding were burned.
The following weekend JB burnt his parents clothes.
Ann Eaton says she was a very frequent visitor to the house once the crime scene was closed and the keys returned to the family.
So how was DB able to collect this evidence some 33 days later if the socks had been moved to destroy the carpet?
