THE SILENCER SAGA

[David1819]

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.

When can I expect an answer to -

Marks on Nevills forearm caused by the end rifle barrel.

Muzzle imprints on Sheilas chin caused by the end rifle barrel sans silencer.

No skin tissue in the silencer.

No blood, DNA, tissue or bone fragments from Nicholas Cafell in the silencer.

Or are you just going hand wave this and say its in my imagination like last time?

[guest29835]

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.

We're at cross-purposes.  That's not what I'm referring to.

[killingeve]

When can I expect an answer to -

Marks on Nevills forearm caused by the end rifle barrel.

He refers to a linear object and the rounded end of such.

Muzzle imprints on Sheilas chin caused by the end rifle barrel sans silencer.

The fact experts in US claim such is meaningless when experts haven't challenged on behalf of prosecution.

No skin tissue in the silencer.

Skin tissue doesn't always present.

No blood, DNA, tissue or bone fragments from Nicholas Cafell in the silencer.

Hair can impede flight.  Immature skull may make a difference.

Or are you just going hand wave this and say its in my imagination like last time?

I wouldn't say its your imagination just that you're wrong.

[killingeve]

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'.

It's a figure of speech.  Does it really matter?  At least I am not using derogatory terms.   

[killingeve]

SBJ1 - DB1 - DRB1 are all the same exhibit.

Of course they are 

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

Wasn't there something about DS Jones entering the silencer into the wrong property book when it was checked in as an exhibit? 

[killingeve]

We're at cross-purposes.  That's not what I'm referring to.

Pray tell. 

[Adam]

When can I expect an answer to -

Marks on Nevills forearm caused by the end rifle barrel.

Muzzle imprints on Sheilas chin caused by the end rifle barrel sans silencer.

No skin tissue in the silencer.

No blood, DNA, tissue or bone fragments from Nicholas Cafell in the silencer.

Or are you just going hand wave this and say its in my imagination like last time?

Marks on Nevills forearm caused by the end rifle barrel.

----------

That was dismissed a couple of days ago. You do not hit a tennis ball with the thin part.

But well done for finding a scribbled note.

[Adam]

When can I expect an answer to -

Marks on Nevills forearm caused by the end rifle barrel.

Muzzle imprints on Sheilas chin caused by the end rifle barrel sans silencer.

No skin tissue in the silencer.

No blood, DNA, tissue or bone fragments from Nicholas Cafell in the silencer.

Or are you just going hand wave this and say its in my imagination like last time?

Muzzle imprints on Sheilas chin caused by the end rifle barrel sans silencer.

----------

Sheila was shot with silencer attached. In an area of high blood flow.

This resulted in back splatter into the silencer.

[Adam]

When can I expect an answer to -

Marks on Nevills forearm caused by the end rifle barrel.

Muzzle imprints on Sheilas chin caused by the end rifle barrel sans silencer.

No skin tissue in the silencer.

No blood, DNA, tissue or bone fragments from Nicholas Cafell in the silencer.

Or are you just going hand wave this and say its in my imagination like last time?

No skin tissue in the silencer.

----------

Skin tissue? Even the CT have not brought that up.

[Adam]

When can I expect an answer to -

Marks on Nevills forearm caused by the end rifle barrel.

Muzzle imprints on Sheilas chin caused by the end rifle barrel sans silencer.

No skin tissue in the silencer.

No blood, DNA, tissue or bone fragments from Nicholas Cafell in the silencer.

Or are you just going hand wave this and say its in my imagination like last time?

No blood, DNA, tissue or bone fragments from Nicholas Cafell in the silencer.

----------

Even the CT have not brought this up. Despite the current wave of about 20 podcasts.

[Steve_uk]

Well the author of this thread certainly got the title right. Could somebody please explain succinctly in one short paragraph without repetition, hesitation or deviation why the the evidence in this area is dubious?

[mike tesko]

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.

Unfortunately, these three [four or five] exhibit references, which 'the damned' who 'claim them' to/as 'being' the same 'parker hale silencer' in 'all instances', is 'false', and 'amounts' to 'dishonest activity', which the 'worst Criminals' 'working' within different parties of 'the overall criminal justice system', 'pull off', 'frequently...

'Irrefutable evidence' has 'now been sourced'(uncovered) 'to confirm' that 'the following items' of 'evidential value' were 'all silencers', or 'the self-same silencer' which was presented as 'having been contaminated' with 'all manner' of 'scientific' or 'forensic - waffle'..

'Know the truth' - here, 'I can now reveal' / 'provide' and 'identify', 'all of the items', which 'at one time' , or 'another', were 'faked' in order to present 'a misleading script', capable of 'fooling' the 'court' , which 'tried the matter' with the view [intension] of 'trying' to 'convict' an innocent defendant' of 'five murders' of 'family members'...

'SBJ/1'  -  [ `Bamber owned silencer', consisting of 'only 14 internalised baffle plates'

'SJ/1' - as above

'DB/1' - ['flake', 'sticky', 'jam-like' 'blob' which 'David Boutflour' on his own admission, that 'he' had used 'a razor blade' to 'scrape it' from 'the outer surface' of 'the silencers', 'casing'..

'CA/1' - the 'silencer' that 'her brother' ['David Boutflour`] had 'originally recovered from, a 'so called', 'gun cupboard at the scene', [the previous month] on the '10th August 1985'..

'CAE/1' - as above, at 'CA/1'

'DRB/1' - the 'actual silencer', which  'David Boutflour' had 'used a razor blade' to 'enable him', to 'scrape' [the item] `DB/1' [the 'flake of blood', 'sticky', 'jam-like', 'blob'], from 'this silencer'..

The  items, (listed above) were / are 'not' references to 'a Silencer' which just so happens to be the very same silencer (in all instances). There was only 'two key silencers' [`SBJ/1'] that was once referred to, as exhibit 'SJ/1', which 'Essex police', 'its experts' [from the lab', and] 'the relatives`,' tampered with' [and, of course] `they all 'conspired to pervert the course of justice' in 'pursuit of financial reward' and 'improved reputation'

[lookout]

No skin tissue in the silencer.

----------

Skin tissue? Even the CT have not brought that up.

I don't suppose anyone realised that there would have been a certain amount of skin tissue in/on the silencer and also inside the rifle's barrel, but alas it obviously wasn't tested for such 

[Adam]

I don't suppose anyone realised that there would have been a certain amount of skin tissue in/on the silencer and also inside the rifle's barrel, but alas it obviously wasn't tested for such 

Skin tissue. The rifle was barely powerful enough to bring up blood spatter.

[killingeve]

I don't suppose anyone realised that there would have been a certain amount of skin tissue in/on the silencer and also inside the rifle's barrel, but alas it obviously wasn't tested for such 

Are you for real? 

The rifle was checked by way of a 'pull through' and did not reveal any debris associated with the killings.  The silencer on the other hand contained blood within. 

I honestly think if you understood the case against Bamber you would not believe him innocent.