THE SILENCER SAGA

[killingeve]

I would appreciate the source for your evidence re AE. There is a lot of her stuff on the forum can you pin point for me please? Who else commented on the weight of the bed? I understood that it was tampons not the applicator (DB7) (see COLP statement sheet 983 a box of 9 Tampax).  How did she know what exhibits he had collected? Thanks

I will have to re-check the precise wording re the tampons/applicator.  I am not suggesting she did know what exhibits he collected. 

Mrs Eaton was first shown the main bedroom on 9th Aug by DS Jones.  She made no comment about blue socks https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.0.html - Page 42/117

She then showed her mother around the farmhouse on 11th Aug and seemed keen that there wasn't anything distressing for her to see.  This is when the lifting of the bed is mentioned (ws below).  Nothing about the socks (ws below)

Finally Bamber was the last to be shown around on 12th Aug.  Nothing about the socks.  (ws below)

[killingeve]

Seems most unlikely the blue socks remained in situ as David claims.  No doubt David is a young guy who just takes his socks off before bed and dumps them on the carpet expecting his mother/partner to pick them up and therefore sees it as normal socks are just left discarded on the floor. 

[killingeve]

Why did DC Hammersley not collect the socks on 7th Aug under the direction of DI Cook? 

What if anything differentiated when/who collected exhibits or was it just haphazard?  Eg DC Hammersley collected many items from the main bedroom spent bullets, casings, rifle, bloodstained pillow, which contained spent bullets, and bible.  DS Davidson collected blood stained carpet samples (required cutting).  DC Bird collected the blood stained blue socks.

[mike tesko]

Why did DC Hammersley not collect the socks on 7th Aug under the direction of DI Cook? 

What if anything differentiated when/who collected exhibits or was it just haphazard?  Eg DC Hammersley collected many items from the main bedroom spent bullets, casings, rifle, bloodstained pillow, which contained spent bullets, and bible.  DS Davidson collected blood stained carpet samples (required cutting).  DC Bird collected the blood stained blue socks.

As a point of interest, 'any item of evidential value' , is normally 'given' an 'exhibit reference', 'denoting the initials of the person' , or 'police officer', who initially 'seizes it', or 'finds it'. There is simply no need whatsoever, to alter conflicting exhibit references, simply because two or more  likewise named witnesses have the same 'Christian' or 'Surname' as 'eachother'. This is because where this crops up, it is easy and not at all confusing because two such instances relate to two [or more] different people, or persons, and that the exhibits in question, would have been seized or found on different occasions, and not relate in the same instance, to the same item. Not only 'this' / 'that', but each item would be numbered in sequential order, demonstrating which item of evidential value were 'seized' or 'found by that person' - but this did not happen in this particular police investigation...

[mike tesko]

.. it is easy and not at all confusing because two such instances relate to two [or more] different people, or persons, and that the exhibits in question, would have been seized or found on different occasions, and not relate in the same instance, to the same item. Not only 'this' / 'that', but each item would be numbered in sequential order, demonstrating which item of evidential value were 'seized' or 'found by that person' - but this did not happen in this particular police investigation...

Each exhibit 'seized', 'found' or 'recovered' at a crime scene should be placed in a plastic exhibit bag [before it is taken away to the police station] , [or, as the case may be], for sending to a lab' to be `scientifically examined` by 'a variety of so called experts' ...

Attached to this plastic exhibits bag, should be an exhibit label, bearing 'the signature of the police officer', who 'first took possession ot the item' [or 'who saw it in the first instance', or as the case may be, 'who referred to its existence before anyone else']. The 'signature of the finder', should 'be on the exhibit label', accompanied by 'a number',(1, 2, 3, 4, etc) to 'confirm the order in which item', was 'taken'. Upon 'arrival at the designated police station', each item has to 'be manually entered into an official documant', known as 'the property other than found register', after which 'the items are transported to a property store at that establishment' - there is a ['separate'] 'property store register' belonging to 'the property store', in which 'everything that is placed into storage there', has 'to be recorded by inclusion of its exhibit recerence', the 'signature of the police officer', of 'the person' who is 'depositting' any number of 'items', there, and 'the date' and 'time', that 'the item's in question', were 'placed into storage', in 'there' . In addition to this, 'there is a police officer' who 'is solely responsible' for controlling 'what is put into storage', 'inside the property store', who is 'duty bound to countersign', 'each entry' in 'the property store register', alongside the 'signature of the depositivees'[adding 'date' and 'time' , against 'his', or 'her signature'[these measures are necessary to prevent 'a police officer' getting access to items of evidential value' and 'tampering', or 'exchanging one item' , for 'another', or from 'deliberately contaminating it' , or ''them' ...

It is 'significant', in this case, that 'no such police documentation', 'confirming these protocols', were 'strictly adhered to', in 'the case' brought, against 'Jeremy Bamber'

[Bubo bubo]

NOTHING TO SEE HERE?

For CC

Many thanks for your efforts it is much appreciated. However, you have not answered the full question. You appear to suggest that there is nothing sinister to find. Is it not sinister that the socks had clearly been collected before the 09/08/85 yet DB is able to collect them again 33 days later? Added to this he makes two statements on the same day on the same subject where he collects one item in one statement and seven in the other. It may not be sinister in the full sense of the word but it is clearly evidence manipulation.

I do not know what others may think but it looks like corruption to me. No doubt the guilters will deploy their weapon of last resort, human error.

It is also clear that you have not examined the fire debris. I would suggest you read my posts about this item and check out JH’s specimen testing list on the red forum
.
I suggest that DB took these items for one of several possible reasons.

1 Taff did not trust the story he had been told by the TFG as to how events had unfolded. He tasked DB with collecting items that might be associated with them covering their tracks.

2 He knew they had messed up and was keen to keep separate items that signified a possible cover up from those related to four murders and a suicide. The latter would be done by SOCO operatives.

Members can make up their own minds. I am not dogmatic about my scenario and have no problems answering well-crafted responses which challenge my view. I take issue with ill-conceived  and childish point scoring responses. I cannot produce definitive results and neither can others. The Crown case is only what has been agreed in law, up to this time. It does not make it the whole truth. In the end we come to a personal view.

[mike tesko]

Each exhibit 'seized', 'found' or 'recovered' at a crime scene should be placed in a plastic exhibit bag [before it is taken away to the police station, or as the case may be, for sending to a lab' to be scientifically examined by a variety of so called experts...

Attached to this plastic exhibits bag, should be an exhibit label, bearing the signature of the police officer, who first took possession ot the item [or who saw it in the first instance, or as the case may be, who referred to its existence before anyone else]. The signature of the finder, should be on tge exhibit label accompanied by a number,(1, 2, 3, 4, etc) to confirm the order in which item was taken. Upon arrival at the designated police station, each item has to be manually entered into an official documant, known as 'the property other than found register', after which tge items are transported to a property store at tgat establishment - there is a [separate] property store register belonging to tge property store, in which 'everything that is placed into storage' there, has 'to be recorded by inclusion of its exhibit recerence', the 'signature of the police officer', of 'the person' who 'is depositting any number of items' there, and 'the date' and 'time', the 'item's in question' were 'placed into storage' in 'there'. In addition to this, there is 'a police officer' who is 'solely resonsible' for 'controlling' what is 'put into storage', 'inside the property store', who 'is duty bound' to 'countersign', each 'entry in the property store register', alongside 'the signature' of 'the depositivees' [adding date and time, against 'his', or 'her signature'[these measures are necessary 'to prevent a police officer' getting 'access to items of evidential vale' and 'tampering' , or 'exchanging one item' , for 'another', or from 'deliberately contaminating it', or 'them'...

It is 'significant', in this case, that 'no such police documentation', 'confirming these protocols', were 'strictly adhered to', in 'the case' brought, against 'Jeremy Bamber'

And, 'then' of course, 'it' is 'incumbent' upon each' and 'every police officer' working for 'every police force' in 'the uk' ['all ranks', 'up to', and 'including' the 'Chief Constable'] to 'complete pocket book entries' , in relation to 'his' or 'her' 'tour of duty',  the 'time a police officer' came 'on duty' any break times throughout their shift, and 'anything' which may later come 'to be relied upon' in future 'court proceedings', or 'potential', 'prosecutions'...

[mike tesko]

And, 'then' of course, 'it' is 'incumbent' upon each' and 'every police officer' working for 'every police force' in 'the uk' ['all ranks', 'up to', and 'including' the 'Chief Constable'] to 'complete pocket book entries' , in relation to 'his' or 'her' 'tour of duty',  the 'time a police officer' came 'on duty' any break times throughout their shift, and 'anything' which may later come 'to be relied upon' in future 'court proceedings', or 'potential', 'prosecutions'...

Rules 'enforcible' include 'the remit' , that 'a police officer' , may only 'be in possession', of 'one ('live' and 'useable') police pocketbook', at 'a time'. 'Each pocketbook' has 'its own serial number'. The 'serial numbers' of 'each' and 'every fresh' [unused], 'police pocketbook' (also, sometimes 'referred to' as, an 'officers notebook') are 'provisionally recorded' in a document, entitled `pocketbook Issuing Register'. 'Fresh' , and 'new', or  'unused pocketbooks' may only be issued, providing that 'a senior officer', of 'no less rank' than 'a police inspector', had 'checked the latest pocketbook', in 'the possession of' an 'officer' , 'to confirm that it is full'. The senior officer, will confirm this to be true, by 'giving his signature', 'accompanied' by 'the date' that 'the senior officer' carried out 'this duty'..

Once 'this protocol', has been 'confirmed', the 'next stage in the proceedings',  involves 'the procedure' involving 'a senior officer' , 'issuing' a 'replacement pocketbook'.

[mike tesko]

Once 'this protocol', has been 'confirmed', the 'next stage in the proceedings',  involves 'the procedure' involving 'a senior officer' , 'issuing' a 'replacement pocketbook'.

There are 'certain provisions' which 'come into play', at 'this stage' / 'point'..

For example, the 'senior police officer', in 'his' or 'her bid' to issue 'a fresh pocketbook', 'he' or 'she' must 'complete the following', 'acknowledged', 'protocol'..

'The senior officer' must place 'his' or 'her', 'signature' [accompanied by 'the date' (when) the 'issuing of the fresh pocketbook took place']. This of course, 'includes the requirement', that 'the police officer', 'receiving' the 'fresh pocketbook', also requires 'his' or 'her', 'signature' and 'the date' that 'he', or 'she' was 'issued', with such 'a fresh pocketbook', in 'the very self-same', 'issuing register'

[mike tesko]

In 'the Greater Manchester police investigation' into the handling of prosecutions against myself, [between', 'December 1985' and 'June 1990', 'it highlighted' the 'dishonest practice' , 0f 'South Yorkshire police, favouring unlawful tactics, in order to vet convictions against me...

The' bent cops that stitched me up' [on several different 'historical' occasions] , and 'the disgraceful conduct of the CCRC', and 'the brain dead court of appeal', 'judges', informs me that' the criminal justice system' gets things wrong 'in' / 'on', 'many instances' ..

Those 'in power' [therefore] are 'very often' the 'real criminals'..

[killingeve]

NOTHING TO SEE HERE?

For CC

Many thanks for your efforts it is much appreciated. However, you have not answered the full question. You appear to suggest that there is nothing sinister to find. Is it not sinister that the socks had clearly been collected before the 09/08/85 yet DB is able to collect them again 33 days later? Added to this he makes two statements on the same day on the same subject where he collects one item in one statement and seven in the other. It may not be sinister in the full sense of the word but it is clearly evidence manipulation.

I do not know what others may think but it looks like corruption to me. No doubt the guilters will deploy their weapon of last resort, human error.

It is also clear that you have not examined the fire debris. I would suggest you read my posts about this item and check out JH’s specimen testing list on the red forum
.
I suggest that DB took these items for one of several possible reasons.

1 Taff did not trust the story he had been told by the TFG as to how events had unfolded. He tasked DB with collecting items that might be associated with them covering their tracks.

2 He knew they had messed up and was keen to keep separate items that signified a possible cover up from those related to four murders and a suicide. The latter would be done by SOCO operatives.

Members can make up their own minds. I am not dogmatic about my scenario and have no problems answering well-crafted responses which challenge my view. I take issue with ill-conceived  and childish point scoring responses. I cannot produce definitive results and neither can others. The Crown case is only what has been agreed in law, up to this time. It does not make it the whole truth. In the end we come to a personal view.

I am still investigating DC Bird.  My post above was really aimed at David1819 who claims the socks were simply left discarded on the main bedroom floor and DC Bird collected from there when it is clear he did not. 

[killingeve]

As a point of interest, 'any item of evidential value' , is normally 'given' an 'exhibit reference', 'denoting the initials of the person' , or 'police officer', who initially 'seizes it', or 'finds it'. There is simply no need whatsoever, to alter conflicting exhibit references, simply because two or more  likewise named witnesses have the same 'Christian' or 'Surname' as 'eachother'. This is because where this crops up, it is easy and not at all confusing because two such instances relate to two [or more] different people, or persons, and that the exhibits in question, would have been seized or found on different occasions, and not relate in the same instance, to the same item. Not only 'this' / 'that', but each item would be numbered in sequential order, demonstrating which item of evidential value were 'seized' or 'found by that person' - but this did not happen in this particular police investigation...

You're showing your age pal.  The police force is now multicultural hence we have 'first names' which might or might not be associated with Christianity. 

Do you have a copy of the police training/operational manual for 1985?  If not how were you able to act as Bamber's McKenzie friend?

[guest29835]

You're showing your age pal.  The police force is now multicultural hence we have 'first names' which might or might not be associated with Christianity. 

Do 'we'?  And what rank are you in the police, out of interest?

[Bubo bubo]

I am still investigating DC Bird.  My post above was really aimed at David1819 who claims the socks were simply left discarded on the main bedroom floor and DC Bird collected from there when it is clear he did not.

I await the results of your investigation. I am working on a couple of other issues related to DB and the SM  Hope to present later this week. Not earth shattering but very interesting, I think. You might like to read my thread 'Watch the Birdie'.

[mike tesko]

You're showing your age pal.  The police force is now multicultural hence we have 'first names' which might or might not be associated with Christianity. 

Do you have a copy of the police training/operational manual for 1985?  If not how were you able to act as Bamber's McKenzie friend?

I have 'access to everything' that 'I need to rely upon', including 'support through 'paranormal avenues' /'activities'..