THE SILENCER SAGA

[guest29835]

Course they are and there's only one interpretation 

Ah, another guilter who says I am lying when I say that something is already posted on the Forum.

All I have said is that there are two different FSS examination reports showing two different silencers, which were examined and show two different pieces of evidence - one paint, the other blood.  These documents were uploaded to the Forum by Mike.  This is fact.  I am not making it up.

Whether this means that something untoward has gone on is a matter for reasoning and interpretation.  I have not said that or made that claim.  I only say what is on the Forum.

[killingeve]

Ah, another guilter who says I am lying when I say that something is already posted on the Forum.

All I have said is that there are two different FSS examination reports showing two different silencers, which were examined and show two different pieces of evidence - one paint, the other blood.  These documents were uploaded to the Forum by Mike.  This is fact.  I am not making it up.

Whether this means that something untoward has gone on is a matter for reasoning and interpretation.  I have not said that or made that claim.  I only say what is on the Forum.

You're getting a bit sensitive pal 

A document can be intepreted in many ways eg the phone logs which supporters say is evidence of a phone call from Mr Bamber snr.  Those who believe Bamber guilty say the complete opposite.  What's important is how the review commission/appeal courts interpret these things.  in the grand scheme of things forums and posters are completely irrelevant. 

[Bubo bubo]

I cannot agree. If SBJ handed RC a SM it had to be either one given to him between 11.35 and 14.30 by DB on 07/08/85 or the SM presented by the family. I do not believe the family found a SM on 10/08/85. They found it or used it some time later when Ainsley was in charge. But they had to bring the find date forward so that it could be the only one involved in the case. And it had to be found early enough so that it could be the one sent to the lab on 13/08/85.

Taff was clever enough to see where they were coming from given their behaviour towards him and EP.
Do not forget that there is a possibility that NB did phone the police (This was hidden, like who found DB1?) and that signs of life were observed during the so called siege. So why would he have any interest in a piece of evidence proffered by a mendacious family.

You yourself have shown us that Basil Cock was at WHF when the find was made and correctly observed it had to be later because of the fingerprint dust.

I believe this was a staged event, Using a legal  representative as a witness. but when further into the organising of the frame they discovered records of an SM being sent to the lab. Whose records they could not change to fit.

Hence the bringing forward of the find date.

Besides all of this would  would look mighty strange if this happened before JM came forward.

The item that would be the only source of JB's conviction would be a SM found by the family.

He already had a SM DB1 which may have played a part/role in the tragedy so why would he need another, which in all probability, had been scrutinised and deemed to be of no evidential value

[guest29835]

You're getting a bit sensitive pal 

I'm going to cry.  Boo-hoo.

A document can be intepreted in many ways eg the phone logs which supporters say is evidence of a phone call from Mr Bamber snr.  Those who believe Bamber guilty say the complete opposite.  What's important is how the review commission/appeal courts interpret these things.  in the grand scheme of things forums and posters are completely irrelevant.

You have a great talent for stating the obvious.  If you look back at my post, you'll see that I accept the evidence on the Forum could be open to interpretation, though I have to remind you that the police and Crown have always denied seizing and examining more than one silencer.

In last year's judicial review case, Crown counsel offered that [words to the effect] any number of silencers could have been discovered, it would make no difference.  I'm not sure I agree with this rather breezy and complacent assertion.  For one thing, this is about two different silencers having been seized and then examined, with different evidence found on each.  It leaves us with rather an opaque picture.

Of course, you are free to disagree. 

One polite request: please desist from calling me 'pal'.  We're not lorry drivers sipping hot brews in a cafe at Scotch Corner, and I am not acquainted with you beyond this Forum, thank goodness.

[Adam]

The best thing to do with the silencer is follow the evidence -

There was an available silencer.

Using a silencer would benefit Bamber.

Back spatter occurs with contact shots.

Sheila received 2 contact shots in an area of high blood flow.

The ceiling kitchen light was smashed. Suggesting a wrestle for the rifle.

The aga was scratched during the wrestle for the rifle.

Bamber had to take the silencer off after shooting Sheila.

Bamber had three options after taking the silencer off. He chose to put it away.

The police did not check the silencers in the gun cupboard.

The relatives did check the silencers in the gun cupboard.

A silencer was examined & had Sheila's blood & the aga paint on/in. Meaning Sheila was not the killer.

Bamber is now the only suspect. With motives, an opportunity & no alibi.

[Roch]

Scotch Corner,

Quite a junction that. A66 meets A1.  North Yorks is some county and A66 (gateway to Cumbria) has to be one of the most scenic motorways in Britain.

[killingeve]

I'm going to cry.  Boo-hoo.

You have a great talent for stating the obvious.  If you look back at my post, you'll see that I accept the evidence on the Forum could be open to interpretation, though I have to remind you that the police and Crown have always denied seizing and examining more than one silencer.

In last year's judicial review case, Crown counsel offered that [words to the effect] any number of silencers could have been discovered, it would make no difference.  I'm not sure I agree with this rather breezy and complacent assertion.  For one thing, this is about two different silencers having been seized and then examined, with different evidence found on each.  It leaves us with rather an opaque picture.

Of course, you are free to disagree. 

One polite request: please desist from calling me 'pal'.  We're not lorry drivers sipping hot brews in a cafe at Scotch Corner, and I am not acquainted with you beyond this Forum, thank goodness.

If Bamber can prove that two different silencers are involved - one with paint and another with blood - them I'm sure the review commission will be bouncing his submission onto the appeal courts.  Bamber and his people claim all sorts of things none of which stand up to scrutiny and I doubt this silencer business is any different.   

You do realise that lorry drivers are in great demand. 

[David1819]

All I have said is that there are two different FSS examination reports showing two different silencers, which were examined and show two different pieces of evidence - one paint, the other blood.  These documents were uploaded to the Forum by Mike.  This is fact.  I am not making it up.

That is incorrect. There is paint and blood recorded on both examinations.

[killingeve]

The best thing to do with the silencer is follow the evidence -

There was an available silencer.

Using a silencer would benefit Bamber.

Back spatter occurs with contact shots.

Sheila received 2 contact shots in an area of high blood flow.

The ceiling kitchen light was smashed. Suggesting a wrestle for the rifle.

The aga was scratched during the wrestle for the rifle.

Bamber had to take the silencer off after shooting Sheila.

Bamber had three options after taking the silencer off. He chose to put it away.

The police did not check the silencers in the gun cupboard.

The relatives did check the silencers in the gun cupboard.

A silencer was examined & had Sheila's blood & the aga paint on/in. Meaning Sheila was not the killer.

Bamber is now the only suspect. With motives, an opportunity & no alibi.

Makes perfect sense to me.  Brief to the point in plain English but at the same time well thought through and logical. 

[guest29835]

Quite a junction that. A66 meets A1.  North Yorks is some county and A66 (gateway to Cumbria) has to be one of the most scenic motorways in Britain.

I think my compatriots in the North Riding should give some of the West Riding back.  Or there may be a Yorkie civil war.

[guest29835]

That is incorrect. There is paint and blood recorded on both examinations.

That's not my recollection.  Anyway, the documents are on the Forum for people to look at.  So look.

[guest29835]

If Bamber can prove that two different silencers are involved - one with paint and another with blood - them I'm sure the review commission will be bouncing his submission onto the appeal courts.  Bamber and his people claim all sorts of things none of which stand up to scrutiny and I doubt this silencer business is any different.   

You do realise that lorry drivers are in great demand.

I have no idea what they can and cannot prove.  I only repeat what is on the Forum - two documents that show two different silencers.  Make of it what you will.

I don't care whether lorry drivers are in great demand or not.  I was not denigrating lorry drivers, I was denigrating you as the way you address me here seems inappropriate.  We're not 'pals'.

[David1819]

That's not my recollection.  Anyway, the documents are on the Forum for people to look at.  So look.

I have. The SBJ/1 August 13th Holab has KM negative red marks on the knurled end cap where it was later confirmed as red paint from the mantle.

[guest29835]

I have. The SBJ/1 August 13th Holab has KM negative red marks on the knurled end cap where it was later confirmed as red paint from the mantle.

Thank you for looking, but I'm happy for people to look for themselves.  If my recollection about the particularity of what evidence is on what is mistaken, that doesn't change the fact that there are two different examination reports for two different silencers with - inevitably - two sets of forensic evidence.  I merely report what is on the Forum.

[David1819]

Thank you for looking, but I'm happy for people to look for themselves.  If my recollection about the particularity of what evidence is on what is mistaken, that doesn't change the fact that there are two different examination reports for two different silencers with - inevitably - two sets of forensic evidence.  I merely report what is on the Forum.

SBJ1 - DB1 - DRB1 are all the same exhibit.

Di Cook named it SBJ1 because he wrongly assumed Stan Jones had found it. It was the changed to DB and later DRB1.