THE SILENCER SAGA

[Steve_uk]

Are you referring to the section you highlighted?

Yes.

[killingeve]

Yes.

Well it seems the judiciary believed hence his conviction was quashed.

[Bubo bubo]

The blood evidence in the two cases: SJ and JB are two completely different propositions.  In the SJ case its about blood being exhaled into the open atmosphere producing particles so fine they were not visible to the naked eye.  In JB's case its about blood entering a small aperture into a silencer from a contact gunshot wound which resulted in a blood flake measuring 1/2".  The blood in JB's case was not fine dust invisible to the naked eye as you describe.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that TFG shot June.  This is off the richter scale madness.

The TFG didn't fire any shots.  29 cartridges were found on the work surface.  1 cartdrige was found in the box on the work surface.  Casing DH/43 was found underneath the wardrobe on 9th Aug.  No bullets were swapped.  The silencer was found by the relatives on 10th Aug along with all the other firearms and associated equipment eg ammunition, scope/sights. 

If you want to rewrite history you need all the parts to come together into a seamless narrative and I'm afriad they do not even resemble a poorly stiched patchwork!  I am sorry I do not wish to sound rude but your posts are all over the place and only seem to make sense to you. 

Now Douglas Hurd is part of the conspiracy 

Can you explain what happened to round 30. It did not arrive with the other 29 sent to MF. Nit picking again with the finding of DRH43. So I will return the compliment. round 30 was in a tray not a box. I concede it might have been the 9th, I was working from memory. This indicates a sloppy SOCO operation if they had not found the appropriate number of cases at the first time of asking.
Explain the different weight ratio for PV20 or do you believe it is one of the many examples of human error in this case.

Prove the TFG didn't fire any shots.

Explain why RC did not find the flake when he dismantled the SM on the 21st August. If it was loose as described it would have fallen out. At 1/2 an inch how could he have missed it. Show your evidence for its size I believe (from memory) it was about half that size, I will check it out later.

I do not say it was dust for all cases. It would possibly only have been dust if the blood had dried. If it was wet the same basic principles apply. Air/gasses forcing wet blood into the SM. Remember in the SJ case the amount required would be about as much as you would get if you pricked your finger.

Why was there no bone or tissue in the supposed back spatter as is most usual with this phenomenon.

I did not say it was necessarily the dust that caused the contamination and JB's blood expert said it was invisible to the naked eye on any of the baffles or on the inside of the SM.

You say you cannot take me seriously so I will ask you again to explain the riddle of the blue socks. I asked you months ago and you said you were working on it or it was too tricky. Maybe I would be more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you could answer this very important question, not misquote what I say and produce documentation for your assertions where appropriate.

[Bubo bubo]

The match head sized blood flake was found in the sound moderator on the 12th September 1985.
Time you went to spec savers or do you use oversize matches? You are not even accurate about one of the most important pieces of evidence.

[killingeve]

The match head sized blood flake was found in the sound moderator on the 12th September 1985.
Time you went to spec savers or do you use oversize matches? You are not even accurate about one of the most important pieces of evidence.

453. We have set out at paragraphs 75 to 80 a summary of the evidence at trial relating to the scientific examination of the moderator. The critical part of that evidence was the analysis of the flake of dried blood found inside the sound moderator. The evidence was given by Mr Hayward, a biologist who was working at the Forensic Science Laboratory at the time of the examination although he was in private practice by the date of trial. In his evidence he described how he had found "a considerable amount of blood" inside the moderator deposited in the spaces to the sides of the baffles around the edge of the silencer.He was asked if he had tested "any" of that blood. He said that he had and that it was human blood. He said that he had obtained grouping reactions for group A, EAP BA, AK I, Hp 2-1. He had done a PGM grouping test but it gave negative results. He said that these grouping results were consistent with the blood coming from Sheila Caffell but not solely from any of the others who had been shot.

464. Mr Webster made a number of points:

i) He suggested that the flake, which was a quarter of an inch across, might not have been a flake of blood but a flake of soot splattered with blood that had been mistaken by Mr Hayward for a flake of blood. His one basis for this rather surprising suggestion was that he had noted a flake of soot on one of the baffles.

[killingeve]

Can you explain what happened to round 30. It did not arrive with the other 29 sent to MF. Nit picking again with the finding of DRH43. So I will return the compliment. round 30 was in a tray not a box. I concede it might have been the 9th, I was working from memory. This indicates a sloppy SOCO operation if they had not found the appropriate number of cases at the first time of asking.
Explain the different weight ratio for PV20 or do you believe it is one of the many examples of human error in this case.

Prove the TFG didn't fire any shots.

Explain why RC did not find the flake when he dismantled the SM on the 21st August. If it was loose as described it would have fallen out. At 1/2 an inch how could he have missed it. Show your evidence for its size I believe (from memory) it was about half that size, I will check it out later.

I do not say it was dust for all cases. It would possibly only have been dust if the blood had dried. If it was wet the same basic principles apply. Air/gasses forcing wet blood into the SM. Remember in the SJ case the amount required would be about as much as you would get if you pricked your finger.

Why was there no bone or tissue in the supposed back spatter as is most usual with this phenomenon.

I did not say it was necessarily the dust that caused the contamination and JB's blood expert said it was invisible to the naked eye on any of the baffles or on the inside of the SM.

You say you cannot take me seriously so I will ask you again to explain the riddle of the blue socks.I asked you months ago and you said you were working on it or it was too tricky. Maybe I would be more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you could answer this very important question, not misquote what I say and produce documentation for your assertions where appropriate.

I am not able to take your posts seriously as they deviate so far away from all the known facts.  You have clearly made up your mind that the case involves multiple conspiracies.  Why should I spend my time trying to convince you otherwise?  If you want to believe 'the riddle of the blue socks' its up to you. 

As far as I am concerned the case is simple.  All concerned (including the police surgeon and pathologist) thought it was murder/suicide other than DS Jones until DCI Ainsley took over and then the blood/silencer and Julie Mugford's testimony emerged.  If you and others are unable or unwilling to see the wood for the trees then maybe a group booking for specsavers is required.   

[David1819]

Does Bubo Bubo still think the relatives found a silencer covered in rabbit blood and ketchup on August 10th?

[Bubo bubo]

Does Bubo Bubo still think the relatives found a silencer covered in rabbit blood and ketchup on August 10th?

You are repeating a previous misquote. Please  post the relevant statements, withdraw or I will report you to the moderator. I have previously refuted these claims and yet you repeat them

[Bubo bubo]

Stop misrepresenting my views. I said that some argue that it was rabbit blood. I never said I thought it was rabbit blood. NGB please note this behaviour he keeps doing it. I said the stains were not blood and suggested other items that produce red stains. I did not say what I thought it actually was.

"This just means its a non blood stain not that it is paint. Like the brown stain which is also KM negative. She does not even suggest what made the stain and if it was paint it would need to be ingrained and she would have mentioned this aspect. Beetroot juice? tomato sauce? red wine? raspberry juice? lipstick? Need I go on?"

"The SM DB1 was subjected to a lot of scientific tests and at least one dismantling. These activities had produced no evidence of worth apart from GH’s declaration that the blood was human in origin. Some claim it could have been rabbit because of a shared enzyme. No flake was found, even though it was said to be loose between baffles, when dismantled by RC."

You are a nasty piece of work. You cannot gainsay my arguments and resort to misrepresenting my views.

I will ask for you to be banned if you keep this behaviour going.

Evidence  refuting his claims. I asked if he could be banned if it continued. If he has not withdrawn these accusations within 24 hours he should be banned. He is a nasty poster.
He is also encouraging others to spread this 'fake' information as the next post shows.

[Adam]

I like Ketchup. Either Heinz or Batts.

[Roch]

David, do you have a measured / considered response for Bubo? I know you like 'banter' on the forum but there can be a fine line between banter and what can be interpreted as goading towards some members. I also can be goading towards you but if I didn't agree with Bubo, I would probably choose a different strategy when posting to him. It's horses for courses to some extent on here.

[ngb1066]

David, do you have a measured / considered response for Bubo? I know you like 'banter' on the forum but there can be a fine line between banter and what can be interpreted as goading towards some members. I also can be goading towards you but if I didn't agree with Bubo, I would probably choose a different strategy when posting to him. It's horses for courses to some extent on here.

I agree Roch.

[Steve_uk]

He was rude to Cambridgecutie:

I do not understand why I am answering this painfully puerile post.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Now let's have a truce for goodness' sake, at least until ngb1066 comes out of hospital.

[Bubo bubo]

He was rude to Cambridgecutie:

I do not understand why I am answering this painfully puerile post.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Now let's have a truce for goodness' sake, at least until ngb1066 comes out of hospital.

You need to get your facts straight my friend. A search of the forum for the word puerile appears three times against my identity.

One was in response to CC but I was refering to Adam at that time as the wording shows.

The second time I used it was to Germane. I had just explained why LM may not have had JJ's DNA on his clothing. His response completely ignored the previous posting  and repeated the original question. I deemed the post puerile.

The third time was to David1819 himself addressing the very issue I am complaining about. Copy of January 27th post below.

'This was because you were continually misrepresenting my arguments. Some of these were so puerile it was obvious they were to goad rather than address the issues. What's more  I did not repeat these same insults every few days. I can do without the bible quotes thanks. From the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. James 3.10

Keep out please Steve I am sure the moderators would agree.

[David1819]

You are repeating a previous misquote. Please  post the relevant statements, withdraw or I will report you to the moderator. I have previously refuted these claims and yet you repeat them

How Am I misquoting you?

For Christ's sake FO. You are a misleading bastard. She did not know how far in she swabbed. It is widely known that it could also have been rabbit blood. You are an utter disgrace and like many others I would be glad to see the back of you. Go and join the other Troll (Adam) under the rickety rackety bridge.

This just means its a non blood stain not that it is paint. Like the brown stain which is also KM negative. She does not even suggest what made the stain and if it was paint it would need to be ingrained and she would have mentioned this aspect. Beetroot juice? tomato sauce? red wine? raspberry juice? lipstick? Need I go on?

What do you then believe was the red KM negative mark on August 14th? That the police later swapped for red mantle shelf paint?