THE SILENCER SAGA

[mike tesko]

The stark truth is that 'David Boutflour' had access to 'the various crime scenes' within the farmhouse on 'Saturday, 10th August 1985'. But, not only that there was still bloodied items at various places where victims had been shot and effectively 'executed'. It is almost certain that neither 'He' or 'His Sister' [Ann Eaton] or his father [Robert Boutflour] had worn gloves when they went scavaging to Whitehouse farm on the 10th August, or on any other occasion during 1985. It is possible, that his hand(s) got contaminated with blood which originated from one, or more of the five victims, who had tragically died during the incident, and that whilst he was attempting to unscrew the metal end cap, of the silencer, so that he could look inside (it) at the 17 metal baffle plates. For what purpose he thought about doing this, he does 'not say'?
 

[lookout]

There is no reason on this earth that anyone would want to " dissect " a silencer. Why ?

[mike tesko]

The stark truth is that 'David Boutflour' had access to 'the various crime scenes' within the farmhouse on 'Saturday, 10th August 1985'. But, not only that there was still bloodied items at various places where victims had been shot and effectively 'executed'. It is almost certain that neither 'He' or 'His Sister' [Ann Eaton] or his father [Robert Boutflour] had worn gloves when they went scavaging to Whitehouse farm on the 10th August, or on any other occasion during 1985. It is possible, that his hand(s) got contaminated with blood which originated from one, or more of the five victims, who had tragically died during the incident, and that whilst he was attempting to unscrew the metal end cap, of the silencer, so that he could look inside (it) at the 17 metal baffle plates. For what purpose he thought about doing this, he does 'not say'?

I 'do not think that the jury were made aware of this fact during the trial' - if they had been made aware of this attempt by 'David Boutflour' to open up the silencer at the time he stumbled upon its existence in the gun cupboard on the 10th August 1985, I feel that some other members of the jury in addition to the two who returned 'a not guilty verdict' would have changed their minds resulting in 'a non conviction verdict' overall..

[David1819]

If you read the contents of these topics. It becomes rather apparent(to me anyway) that Ann Eaton is the culprit behind the contamination of the silencer.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9379.msg437329.html#msg437329

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1413.msg43843.html#msg43843

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1382.msg42941.html#msg42941

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10904.msg503850.html#msg503850

[Adam]

If you read the contents of these topics. It becomes rather apparent(to me anyway) that Ann Eaton is the culprit behind the contamination of the silencer.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9379.msg437329.html#msg437329

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1413.msg43843.html#msg43843

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1382.msg42941.html#msg42941

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10904.msg503850.html#msg503850

Were Peter Eaton, David Boutflour & Robert Boutflour not involved?

Or you saying Ann was the team leader?

[Adam]

Maybe AE as team leader took everyone out on an away day.

Lots of hugging trees, games & sausage rolls at lunch time.

[guest29835]

If you read the contents of these topics. It becomes rather apparent(to me anyway) that Ann Eaton is the culprit behind the contamination of the silencer.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9379.msg437329.html#msg437329

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1413.msg43843.html#msg43843

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1382.msg42941.html#msg42941

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10904.msg503850.html#msg503850

Good, thanks David.

As you know from PMs, I take a slightly different view, but I will look at these links (or re-look, as I probably have read them in the past).

[Bubo bubo]

Can I suggest we discuss the case and move well away from the immature behaviour that has recently been on display? IMO no one comes out of these spats without reputational damage. I am not a moderator but feel the forum has descended into a pit of vipers. Let’s keep it civil.

BLOOD WORKS

[/size]

I think this subject might be right up CC’s street.

I thought it might be useful to set out more clearly how I believe the SM came to have blood inside. I will set them out individually. I have already outlined my thinking on DB1 being found by DB on the day. It should be noted that this exhibit was on DB’s list, which was later headed N/R as outlined in the COLP DB interview. The COLP suggested this meant Not Required or Not Relevant. DB offered no explanation. I argue he was collecting items that were used or produced in the cover up otherwise they would have been assigned to other SOCO officers. Taff wanted them kept apart and I have set out the reasons for this before. The most important may have been a suspicion he held that it could have been contaminated by the TFG which might bring JB into the frame.

1 Sheila contaminated it by her actions.

This could have been caused by a nose bleed when adding or removing the SM blood drips on the SM or muzzle. Another possibility is that she had blood on her hand which transferred to the muzzle during handling. It is also possible some blood dripped onto the SM around the exit. It is also possible that SC ‘prodded dead victims putting blood on the muzzle.

2 The TFG unwittingly contaminated it.

If there was blood on the muzzle and maybe a small incursion into the barrel and they then fitted the SM to make at least one shot (say the first or second shot as outlined in evidence). The action would possibly cause minute particles/mist size droplets to be distributed on the baffle plates and inside the main SM’s barrel/bore as far as that noted in the evidence.

3 A deliberate action at the lab

They, MDF in particular, could have created a flake or they obtained it from the receptacle containing PV20 and blood. As noted by Taylor on his GER. (QC I believe this is another document dated 12/09/85). Since there is a distinct possibility that he swapped PV20 to help create the one-gun crime, the creation of a flake or a flake from the PV20 receptacle would hold no fear.

4 A mistake by MDF who test fired the rifle.

Though he says he did a pull through and found no blood he might have come to the conclusion that he had caused it when small quantities were found by testing for bloods. He may have test fired before the blood tests. A mistake by a ‘novice’? Any earlier contamination would be blasted into the SM. If he visually inspected, it before both the test fire and/or the pull through. It is unlikely he could see the blood because JH and PJL asserted that the blood was not visible to the naked eye.
This suggestion comes into play if 2 above is excluded.

I would suggest that you read this to engage with my thinking.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action\attach;topic=4779.0;attach=34386;image

It seems to me that in the initial stages the mixed group theory was a possibility. JH did not do the tests himself someone, initials ALB did the tests. JH presented on behalf of the FSS at trial.

Try reading this.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34390;image

and this

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34392;image

It could be argued that PJL’s first report was sent to the FSS. (It would have been seen as a matter of curtesy and professional behaviour) as well as presenting findings to the defence. JH said he needed two matching sources to confirm SC’s blood. Low and behold PJL’ s reasoning is undermined by the finding of a flake. This caused him to adjust his advice.

I have severe reservations about this as previously outlined. See this

SILENCER SAGA reply 2 Was there a flake of blood.

I have seen the McKenzie report which says the same. It is a pity I had not read this when first posting this suggestion.

The flake provided additional evidence to support an otherwise highly contestable finding from the SM bore and baffle plates. This is similar to JM’s testimony bolstering the SM evidence.

There many who say that these nuanced issues were used to mislead the Jury about the veracity of the blood evidence. The flake result was not easy to contest and could not be verified by a subsequent test because the all the flake was consumed in the original test. The testing method was called into question later.

The flake was not discovered by RC when he dismantled it and it is clear he was not seeking quick tests because he did not send it to the lab for another nine days. MF did not find the flake when according to some he dismantled it on 13/08/85, (some claim this is a lie and is connected to a forged HOLAB 5 form), was it him who found the flake? Did he dismantle it before passing it to JH and his team? In any case it would seem that neither RC or MF saw blood as would be the case, if it was invisible to the naked eye.

I do not know which if any of the four scenarios I favour but I feel it could be an amalgam of any 2 or 3 from the total. All these scenarios place blood on the muzzle and a strong likelihood that this fact resulted in stronger blood findings which were found on the female screw head. A condition that cannot occur in normal operating conditions. They (SM’s) are designed and built so as not to leak in this area.

I strongly agree with David1819’s take on the back spatter issue. For me the amount of material (blood) was very small indeed, some might say minute and there was no other material like bone or tissue which are characteristic elements of the phenomenon. The quantities were so small I cannot see how any deliberate attempt to introduce blood into the silencer could be achieved. It would be extremely difficult because the actor would have to apply such a small amount as that found in the testing. The flake is different in that making one would be more easily achieved.

While arguments such as this maybe wrong or right, there seems little possibility that this aspect will lead to a CCRC referral. The blood evidence is a dead end I am afraid.

I believe the CT should proceed with this case on the basis that it is a ‘frame up’ following a cover-up. A case could be constructed explaining the framing of JB as part of a whole new narrative, citing the lack of disclosure as a deliberate attempt to hide pertinent evidence and the mistakes that were made. The outcome of this behaviour eventually leading to the diabolical framing of an innocent man.

There is an interesting point in the Channel 5 programme and the killing of Billy Joe towards the end where a blood spatter specialist discusses the volume of blood that was present on Sion Jenkins. There were well over a hundred tiny spots in total but the volume total would be no greater than you would get from pricking you finger.

On this basis suggestion 2 above could be a strong contender for the blood in the SM

[David1819]

There is an interesting point in the Channel 5 programme and the killing of Billy Joe towards the end where a blood spatter specialist discusses the volume of blood that was present on Sion Jenkins. There were well over a hundred tiny spots in total but the volume total would be no greater than you would get from pricking you finger.

On this basis suggestion 2 above could be a strong contender for the blood in the SM

The problem with these suggestions is that the relatives reported the blood and paint before anyone else did.

Now, had the silencer been involved on August 7th, the blood on and inside the silencer will be completely dry, in such a dry state it is impossible to establish if it is blood or not, it would appear black like soot. The relatives had no testing equipment to determine what it was, yet they knew what it was. The inference being they contaminated it deliberately.

Moreover Ann Eaton's describes the blood as appearing like a "blob of Jam". Blood that is supposed to have been dried for four days does not appear anything like a "blob of Jam". Hence the blood is a fabrication, committed by those who reported it.

[Bubo bubo]

The problem with these suggestions is that the relatives reported the blood and paint before anyone else did.

Now, had the silencer been involved on August 7th, the blood on and inside the silencer will be completely dry, in such a dry state it is impossible to establish if it is blood or not, it would appear black like soot. The relatives had no testing equipment to determine what it was, yet they knew what it was. The inference being they contaminated it deliberately.

Moreover Ann Eaton's describes the blood as appearing like a "blob of Jam". Blood that is supposed to have been dried for four days does not appear anything like a "blob of Jam". Hence the blood is a fabrication, committed by those who reported it.

Only the test done by GH on the 13/07/85 is evidence of blood externally on the silencer DB1 that is evidential. They were only giving an opinion. Most of the lurid descriptions of the state of the SM that they say they found on 10/07/85 come from the family. This was all made up and like the rest of their evidence in relation to DRB1 was a confection to give this phantom an air of reality.

[David1819]

Only the test done by GH on the 13/07/85 is evidence of blood externally on the silencer DB1 that is evidential. They were only giving an opinion.

No, GH collected blood from inside also.


"Q: Thank you. Now may I please ask you about the blood you found or saw inside the sound moderator?
A: Yes.
Q: You obviously had to remove it by some means didn't you?
A: Yes I did.
Q: Could you describe the means you used?
A: Yes, with the aid of a low-powered microscope and lenghts of sterile white cotton thread moistened with distilled water, I inserted with fine forceps the damp threads into the bore of the sound moderator. And soaked up the blood that was in there. I allowed the threads to dry before doing further tests.
Q: May I ask you how far into the sound moderator did you go with your threads? How far do you believe?
A: I took some blood which I could actually see. Just on that inner surface approximately 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch. I didn't measure it at the time. "

Most of the lurid descriptions of the state of the SM that they say they found on 10/07/85 come from the family. This was all made up and like the rest of their evidence in relation to DRB1 was a confection to give this phantom an air of reality.

There is no documentary evidence anywhere to support this nonsense.

[Bubo bubo]

No, GH collected blood from inside also.


"Q: Thank you. Now may I please ask you about the blood you found or saw inside the sound moderator?
A: Yes.
Q: You obviously had to remove it by some means didn't you?
A: Yes I did.
Q: Could you describe the means you used?
A: Yes, with the aid of a low-powered microscope and lenghts of sterile white cotton thread moistened with distilled water, I inserted with fine forceps the damp threads into the bore of the sound moderator. And soaked up the blood that was in there. I allowed the threads to dry before doing further tests.
Q: May I ask you how far into the sound moderator did you go with your threads? How far do you believe?
A: I took some blood which I could actually see. Just on that inner surface approximately 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch. I didn't measure it at the time. "


There is no documentary evidence anywhere to support this nonsense.

We have had this argument before and I am not going to go searching for my previous answer but I seem to remember you using this same evidence before to suggest that blood was found in the silencer.

They came up with the blob, the mystery grey hair that then went missing, removing the blob with a razor blade. It was all done to give credence to them finding the silencer in the cupboard on 10/08/85.

She is talking from memory and had not noted the actual depth of the swabbing. It was over a year since she did it.

I did not measure it at the time. Hardly inside if it was visible from the outside

Did you not suggest that the family conceived and executed the blood in the SM plot between 10.00am 07/08/85 and 10/08/85.

I accused you of using the forum as a kind of computer game. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed to quote Theresa May.

You are re running an old argument just to be obnoxious.

I would ask posters to read from reply 45 to 119 on this thread which proves the statement above.
He is a naughty little boy playing games rather than engaging in serious debate. I'm putting him back on the naughty step with Adam

[David1819]

They came up with the blob, the mystery grey hair that then went missing, removing the blob with a razor blade.

That never happened. David Boutflour said it was "thick enough to peel off with a razor blade". He never stated he actually done it.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1997.0;attach=9962

It was all done to give credence to them finding the silencer in the cupboard on 10/08/85.

It was all said because that is what happened.

[lookout]

I would have said that it was RWB who'd handled a razor judging by his " cut finger ". When handling such a blade, you can obtain a cut without realising because of the fineness of it. Did his blood then inadvertently enter the silencer ?

[killingeve]

That never happened. David Boutflour said it was "thick enough to peel off with a razor blade". He never stated he actually done it.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1997.0;attach=9962

It was all said because that is what happened.

Really?  In his own fair hand and signed to confirm such?