THE SILENCER SAGA

[Bubo bubo]

I'm surprised that SJ didn't whizz them away with the shoes he took ?
 Why did he tell AE " you didn't see that " as he waltzed off with the the shoes tucked under his arm ?

Wasn't it the police who did the burning and not JB as all he'd done was give permission for the job to be done ? I didn't think he was at WHF at that stage anyway ?

The police did the first burning of carpets. Later that week JB burned his parents clothes.

[lookout]

The police did the first burning of carpets. Later that week JB burnt his parents clothes.

Ah right. I knew that JB had gone to WHF eventually.

[killingeve]

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?

What evidence exists that DC Bird collected the socks 33 days later?  Surely the important thing is that they were preserved and available for forensic analysis which showed they contained June's blood group.  How was/is Bamber disadvantaged by any of this?  It may be that blood stained items were treated slightly differently for health and safety reasons.  Remember at trial the judge pointed out to jurors that gloves were available when handling exhibits.  Also this period was around the height of the AIDS awareness advertising campaign which caused people to be apprehensive around blood.

DC Hammersley confirmed in his trial testimony that nothing of evidential value was lost.  What if anything was destroyed that may have assisted Bamber?

It seem the broken butt was given the exhibit number DRH/21 and a small piece of wood DRH/24.  I've no idea about the latter?

[Bubo bubo]

What evidence exists that DC Bird collected the socks 33 days later?  Surely the important thing is that they were preserved and available for forensic analysis which showed they contained June's blood group.  How was/is Bamber disadvantaged by any of this?  It may be that blood stained items were treated slightly differently for health and safety reasons.  Remember at trial the judge pointed out to jurors that gloves were available when handling exhibits.  Also this period was around the height of the AIDS awareness advertising campaign which caused people to be apprehensive around blood.

DC Hammersley confirmed in his trial testimony that nothing of evidential value was lost.  What if anything was destroyed that may have assisted Bamber?

It seem the broken butt was given the exhibit number DRH/21 and a small piece of wood DRH/24.  I've no idea about the latter?

DB claims in his witness statement that he collected them on 12/09/85 and he repeated this to the COLP enquiry. They cannot have still been in situ on this date. You need to examine the full issue surrounding the finding of exhibits DB1 - DB7. He has lied. I do not know why you raise the DRH issues which were not part of my accusation. Can I suggest you read the transcript of his interview and the arguments I have made involving this issue in the previous posts I have made. It is clear he made or forged two witness statements dated 24/10/85.

[Bubo bubo]

DB claims in his witness statement that he collected them on 12/09/85 and he repeated this to the COLP enquiry. They cannot have still been in situ on this date. You need to examine the full issue surrounding the finding of exhibits DB1 - DB7. He has lied. I do not know why you raise the DRH issues which were not part of my accusation. Can I suggest you read the transcript of his interview and the arguments I have made involving this issue in the previous posts I have made. It is clear he made or forged two witness statements dated 24/10/85.

These false statements were used to conceal the fact that he found a SM DB1 on the day. The family may have presented a SM to the police but this episode shows there were at least two SM's and that they took one as an exhibit on the day but this had to be hidden as part of the framing. Please read the facts and the posts I have made before responding. If collected 33 days later after the crime scene had officially closed they would no longer be valid evidence. That however is not the point. The point is that the socks reveal the concealment of DB finding a SM DB1 on the day.

[killingeve]

DB claims in his witness statement that he collected them on 12/09/85 and he repeated this to the COLP enquiry. They cannot have still been in situ on this date. You need to examine the full issue surrounding the finding of exhibits DB1 - DB7. He has lied. I do not know why you raise the DRH issues which were not part of my accusation. Can I suggest you read the transcript of his interview and the arguments I have made involving this issue in the previous posts I have made. It is clear he made or forged two witness statements dated 24/10/85.

What reason would he have to lie?  How are the socks in any way contentious?

[Adam]

The police did the first burning of carpets. Later that week JB burnt his parents clothes.

Later that week JB burnt his parents clothes.

----------

That was helpful of him.

[lookout]

Later that week JB burnt his parents clothes.

----------

That was helpful of him.

So the burning of his parents clothes was an offence as well ?

[Adam]

So the burning of his parents clothes was an offence as well ?

Not an offence.

Bamber was very pro active in the days after the massacre. Didn't know he also found time to burn his parents clothes.

[Adam]

I've added 'burning his parents clothes'.

Within the first month -

Meeting Basil Cock the day after the massacre.

Telling AE he planned to auction WHF valuables. Two days after the massacre.

Offering Mary Mugford June's car. 

Buying a Hugo Boss suit.

Authorising the burning of carpets.

Inviting Brett over.

Asking another woman out in front of Julie.

Deciding the bodies would be cremated.

Two foreign holidays.

A foreign drug deal.

Three UK holidays - Pevensey, Burnham, Eastbourne.

Clearing out Sheila's flat.

Clearing out WHF valuables.

Taking items to Southerby's.

Monitoring Julie.

Looking for Nevill's wallet.

Looking for Nevill's watch.

Meeting a NOTW journalist.

Breaking into WHF to collect things.

Taking the TV from WHF.

Buying several newspapers on the same day.

Videoing news coverage of the funeral.

Going back into WHF into Nevill's office.

Staying at Colin's.

Burning his parents clothes.

[lookout]

Not an offence.

Bamber was very pro active in the days after the massacre. Didn't know he also found time to burn his parents clothes.

He had all the time in the world didn't he, being betwixt and between  the funeral and answering unnecessary questions about the murders ? Afterall, he didn't scarper did he as a lot of murderers do ?

[Bubo bubo]

What reason would he have to lie?  How are the socks in any way contentious?

In your answer to this question you are showing that you have not assimilated the evidence of his statement and his taped interview with the COLP. Nor have you read my argument as set out in my posts. He found the SM DB1 between the 07/08/85 and the time the crime scene closure when the keys were returned on 09/08/85. You are clearly suffering from guilters denial. A  problem of not wishing to explore uncomfortable  facts that suggest that the case against JB was a fabrication. He lied to deceive the COLP of his finding of DB1 and substituting a soil sample in its place.

If it was shown that there were two SM's the case against JB falls since the Crowns case was based on there only being one.

I would engage further but until you have absorbed the other side of the argument I would be wasting my time. We do not, unfortunately, have a pill for guilters  denial. Unless and until you make a cogent argument that fully explains why he made two different statements on the same subject, on the same day which differ in terms of the items collected and why he deleted the SM in favour of a soil sample and then in order to make it DB1 made an additional entry in his pocket book, when he had previously recorded it at a later time, there is nothing to discuss.

You also need to explain how he was able to collect the socks in situ 33 days later.
Can posters let me know if Adam has solved the riddle of the blue socks I have him on ignore. I do not engage with puerile posters?

[David1819]

In your answer to this question you are showing that you have not assimilated the evidence of his statement and his taped interview with the COLP. Nor have you read my argument as set out in my posts. He found the SM DB1 between the 07/08/85 and the time the crime scene closure when the keys were returned on 09/08/85. You are clearly suffering from guilters denial. A  problem of not wishing to explore uncomfortable  facts that suggest that the case against JB was a fabrication. He lied to deceive the COLP of his finding of DB1 and substituting a soil sample in its place.

If it was shown that there were two SM's the case against JB falls since the Crowns case was based on there only being one.

I would engage further but until you have absorbed the other side of argument I would be wasting my time. We do not, unfortunately, have a pill for guilters  denial. Unless and until you make a cogent argument that fully explains why he made two different statements on the same subject, on the same day which differ in terms of the items collected and why he deleted the SM in favour of a soil sample and then in order to make it DB1 made an additional entry in his pocket book, when he had previously recorded it at a later time, there is nothing to discuss.

You also need to explain how he was able to collect the socks in situ 33 days later.
Can posters let me know if Adam has solved the riddle of the blue socks I have him on ignore. I do not engage with puerile posters?

Bubo you are barking up the wrong tree.

[mike tesko]

 He found the SM DB1 between the 07/08/85 and the time the crime scene closure when the keys were returned on 09/08/85. You are clearly suffering from guilters denial. A  problem of not wishing to explore uncomfortable  facts that suggest that the case against JB was a fabrication. He lied to deceive the COLP of his finding of DB1 and substituting a soil sample in its place.

According to my research, 'DC Bird' did 'not originally find the 1st silencer' ['DB/1'] at the scene, at 'the beginning of the police investigation' into 'these shootings' ['DS Jones', did] 'SBJ/1'. It is much more likely, that his original exhibit [`DB/1'] assigned to his name, `was`/ `is` either, (a) 'the .22 brno bolt action rifle, or (b) 'the . 22 [BSA] air rifle ('pellet gun')..

[killingeve]

Bubo you are barking up the wrong tree.

I haven't finished looking into this yet. 

Is Bubo barking up the wrong tree?  How do you explain the blue socks collected from the farmhouse when it was no longer a scene of crime?