THE SILENCER SAGA

[Bubo bubo]

Of what possible evidential value was a pair of gloves and gauntlets from the outbuilding?  If a pair of non-blood stained blue socks were found with the gloves and gauntlets then why take the latter and not the former?

The gloves and gauntlets were probably used along with the overcoat and plastic mackintosh in the restaging of the crime scene to prevent officers clothing becoming blood stained.

[Bubo bubo]

WHY TWO STATEMENTS

Let me explain what I think happened. At the start and before trial the defence would have looked at the crime scene photos. The blood stained socks feature prominently in several photos taken in the main bedroom.

The defence would need to know who found them and what other forensic activity had been undertaken. They would need to see a witness statement by the finder/collector. The police could not show the other finds in the DB1 – DB7 range so they redacted all but the blue socks.

The other exhibits especially the SM (DB1) would open a very large can of worms and the fire debris (DB2) would have ignited a bonfire of huge proportions.

Five years later following JB’s accusations the COLP were tasked in examining his claims. They would look into all DB’s finds and the other paperwork like CID6’s and Holab documentation.

So they created another statement which cross checked with the other paper work as above but now all the finds were found externally in outbuildings and the fire pit. In order to get round the SM it was swapped for a soil sample.

The COLP could also check with the FSS to see if they matched. DB2 – DB6 were sent to the lab (20/09/85). Please see JH’s hand written notes on red.

The first statement which is also now demonstrably false was used at trial. The second full copy was given to the COLP along with other documents requested by the investigators.

CC has also shown that it was impossible to find a pair of blue socks, with or without blood stains in the main bedroom on the date stated.

If the socks DB6 had no blood evidence why were they sent to the lab.

[killingeve]

WHY TWO STATEMENTS

Let me explain what I think happened. At the start and before trial the defence would have looked at the crime scene photos. The blood stained socks feature prominently in several photos taken in the main bedroom.

The defence would need to know who found them and what other forensic activity had been undertaken. They would need to see a witness statement by the finder/collector. The police could not show the other finds in the DB1 – DB7 range so they redacted all but the blue socks.

The other exhibits especially the SM (DB1) would open a very large can of worms and the fire debris (DB2) would have ignited a bonfire of huge proportions.

Five years later following JB’s accusations the COLP were tasked in examining his claims. They would look into all DB’s finds and the other paperwork like CID6’s and Holab documentation.

So they created another statement which cross checked with the other paper work as above but now all the finds were found externally in outbuildings and the fire pit. In order to get round the SM it was swapped for a soil sample.

The COLP could also check with the FSS to see if they matched. DB2 – DB6 were sent to the lab (20/09/85). Please see JH’s hand written notes on red.

The first statement which is also now demonstrably false was used at trial. The second full copy was given to the COLP along with other documents requested by the investigators.

CC has also shown that it was impossible to find a pair of blue socks, with or without blood stains in the main bedroom on the date stated.

If the socks DB6 had no blood evidence why were they sent to the lab.

Did the gloves, gauntlets, debris from fire pit and soil show evidence of blood? 

The lab did more than blood analysis. 

[Bubo bubo]

Did the gloves, gauntlets, debris from fire pit and soil show evidence of blood? 

The lab did more than blood analysis.

Of course not. You need to look more deeply at the fire debris. I contend that all DB items were collected while the house was a crime scene, most likely on the first day.

I suggest this because EP could have used the items uncovered in the debris by EP to claim that it was JB who had used these items to cover up his crime, along with the gloves and gauntlets. They had little physical evidence to link him to the crime apart from JM's statements and the SM. They could have claimed that he had burned these items in the aftermath and this was why they could not find evidence on any of his clothing.

Do you know what the lab found on these items?

PS I seem to remember that in one of her many fairy stories JM told police that JB had told her that during the act a glove had come off. Is there a link to the gloves DB3, DB4, DB5.

[guest29835]

Smiffy was an interesting poster, wasn't he.  Another vintage poster from the old days.

[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.

Check this out. Tenuous evidence to partly support the above. It appears his finds may have been classed as 'Not Relevant' or 'Not required'.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1721.0;attach=8353;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1721.0;attach=8354;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1721.0;attach=8355;image

[Roch]

Smiffy was an interesting poster, wasn't he.  Another vintage poster from the old days.

Yes he was. He was highly suspicious of the prosecution camp. He was quite abrasive towards them and their claims.

[killingeve]

Check this out. Tenuous evidence to partly support the above. It appears his finds may have been classed as 'Not Relevant' or 'Not required'.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1721.0;attach=8353;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1721.0;attach=8354;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1721.0;attach=8355;image

After further reading I accept DB/6 is in all probability the blue bloodstained socks depicted in crime images but what I don't accept is that they were left in situ until DC Bird collected a month later for reasons I gave in an earlier post re relatives covering area with a rug. 

I still maintain nothing overall sinister.  The socks were analysed and found to match Mrs Bamber's blood groups which ties in with carpet samples all of which was relayed to jury at trial. 

[lookout]

Smiffy was an interesting poster, wasn't he.  Another vintage poster from the old days.

 



A poster to whom I took a lot of guidance from and also noticed that he was castigated for speaking sense.

[killingeve]

Of course not. You need to look more deeply at the fire debris. I contend that all DB items were collected while the house was a crime scene, most likely on the first day.

I suggest this because EP could have used the items uncovered in the debris by EP to claim that it was JB who had used these items to cover up his crime, along with the gloves and gauntlets. They had little physical evidence to link him to the crime apart from JM's statements and the SM. They could have claimed that he had burned these items in the aftermath and this was why they could not find evidence on any of his clothing.

Do you know what the lab found on these items?

PS I seem to remember that in one of her many fairy stories JM told police that JB had told her that during the act a glove had come off. Is there a link to the gloves DB3, DB4, DB5.

Most farms have a firepit for burning unwanted material.  Mr Boutflour jnr burned the cannabis found in the safe. 

Yes they "could have" done lots of things but where's the evidence they did?

[Bubo bubo]

After further reading I accept DB/6 is in all probability the blue bloodstained socks depicted in crime images but what I don't accept is that they were left in situ until DC Bird collected a month later for reasons I gave in an earlier post re relatives covering area with a rug. 

I still maintain nothing overall sinister.  The socks were analysed and found to match Mrs Bamber's blood groups which ties in with carpet samples all of which was relayed to jury at trial.

You are entitled to your opinion but you still have to explain the two statements, on the same day, with different contents retrieved.
You indicated that other tests were performed by the lab on the socks. What were these tests. I know it was June's blood no dispute there.
Members can make up their own minds as to whether this issue is sinister.
If the other items were collected and not seen by the defence that is a disclosure issue.

[killingeve]

WHY TWO STATEMENTS

Let me explain what I think happened. At the start and before trial the defence would have looked at the crime scene photos. The blood stained socks feature prominently in several photos taken in the main bedroom.

The defence would need to know who found them and what other forensic activity had been undertaken. They would need to see a witness statement by the finder/collector. The police could not show the other finds in the DB1 – DB7 range so they redacted all but the blue socks.

The other exhibits especially the SM (DB1) would open a very large can of worms and the fire debris (DB2) would have ignited a bonfire of huge proportions.

Five years later following JB’s accusations the COLP were tasked in examining his claims. They would look into all DB’s finds and the other paperwork like CID6’s and Holab documentation.

So they created another statement which cross checked with the other paper work as above but now all the finds were found externally in outbuildings and the fire pit. In order to get round the SM it was swapped for a soil sample.

The COLP could also check with the FSS to see if they matched. DB2 – DB6 were sent to the lab (20/09/85). Please see JH’s hand written notes on red.

The first statement which is also now demonstrably false was used at trial. The second full copy was given to the COLP along with other documents requested by the investigators.

CC has also shown that it was impossible to find a pair of blue socks, with or without blood stains in the main bedroom on the date stated.

If the socks DB6 had no blood evidence why were they sent to the lab.

And you point is?

[Bubo bubo]

If the socks were found on the day then it is most likely the other items were also found at the same time. How could he go out and collect items from the fire pit if he was meant to be on hand to take photographs for the SOCO team? He had to go to the mortuary in the afternoon to photograph and record at the autopsy.
I suggest that the fire debris was EP destroying evidence on the day and that the fire debris could have come from the AGA or the main fireplace in the living room.
You clearly have not studied enough. I said I would verify your posts. I will not be answering any more of your points until I feel you have researched my narrative.

[killingeve]

You are entitled to your opinion but you still have to explain the two statements, on the same day, with different contents retrieved.
You indicated that other tests were performed by the lab on the socks. What were these tests. I know it was June's blood no dispute there.
Members can make up their own minds as to whether this issue is sinister.
If the other items were collected and not seen by the defence that is a disclosure issue.

I'm only aware of blood anaylsis carried out on the socks.

The other items may not have held any evidential value.  Lots of items were analysed eg Mr Bamber's car. Is anyone suggesting this was connected to the crime? 

The defence might well have been aware of a lot but chose not to include at trial. 

[killingeve]

If the socks were found on the day then it is most likely the other items were also found at the same time. How could he go out and collect items from the fire pit if he was meant to be on hand to take photographs for the SOCO team? He had to go to the mortuary in the afternoon to photograph and record at the autopsy.
I suggest that the fire debris was EP destroying evidence on the day and that the fire debris could have come from the AGA or the main fireplace in the living room.
You clearly have not studied enough. I said I would verify your posts. I will not be answering any more of your points until I feel you have researched my narrative.

Suit yourself pal.  I've read enough of your back posts to know that you frequently bark up the wrong tree.  I will highlight some time permitting. 

Re the socks the simple explanation is that they were stored in the mobile scenes of crime vehicle until they resurfaced later. The police are trained to be mindful of costs.  Each time the lab analyses an exhibit it costs.  On 7th Aug (apart from DS Jones) all considered the case to be sucide/murder.  It is obvious that the drips on the carpet and socks originated from the same source.  Therefore why analayse both especially when it was considered murder/suicide so no trial/defence to answer to.  Roll on a month later and the case is now considered 5 murders.  DC Bird returns to the farmhouse to take photos of the outbuildings, adjacent land etc and recovers other exhibits eg gloves, gauntlets, soil sample, fire debris sample and includes the socks as it is obvious they will now come under scrutiny.