THE SILENCER SAGA

[Roch]

David, bear in mind that if you are riling up several members, it's not going to do any harm to tone down some of your posting.   

[Bubo bubo]

The riddle of the Blue Socks explained

As for the ‘Riddle of the blue socks’ it looks like some posters are using my conspiracy issues as a get out. Is it a question of lack of understanding? It looks like they are refusing to engage with this because I have raised a fundamental problem with the validity of the finding of the first SM DB1.

Here I set out what I believe happened. I trust it is clear and easily understood

There were a pair of blue socks clearly identifiable in crime scene photos. It would seem obvious that the defence may ask questions with regard to them. Someone had to have made a witness statement or raised documentation relating to the find.

This person was DB who made a witness statement on 24/10/85 in which he says they were retrieved 11/09/85. From the floor of the main bedroom and he handed then to Davidson. This is 33 days after the incident.

What the COLP did not realise was that these particular socks were from the main bedroom and not some welly warmers from an outside building. Are we to believe there were two pairs of blue socks both numbered DB6. They probably were not shown the photographs of his finds in situ. Nor were they aware of the following.

During the week of the murders the police burned a lot of ‘gear’ which was described as bedding and the destruction of which was authorised by JB. Over the weekend that followed JB burnt his parent clothes.=
In the early part of that same week AE removed some blood stained clothes which were stood in buckets of water. She eventually disposed of these items and tidied the property even using her children to help with making beds etc.

To me it seems inconceivable that she would have left a pair of blood stained blue socks in the middle of the bedroom floor. The police had handed back the running of the property on 09/08/85.=
If indeed the police had not taken them she would rightly assume that they were not wanted by the police and dumped them. Of course she may have been a collector of bloodied or blue socks and added them to her collection.

I would ‘bet the house’ they did not have a copy of the other statement of the same date showing only DB6 blue socks. At the COLP interview DB presented a witness statement which was discussed with him. If you read the transcript of the taped interview it is clear that this statement differs in one major respect from the other one mentioned above. It is also dated 24/10/85 however, he now lists another six items. DB1 to DB7 are noted. and of what evidential value did he expect the police would gain from items in an outbuilding.

Furthermore DB7 tampons in a box were in the main house not an outbuilding.

DB1 was received by JH from MF on 12/09/85. DB2 – DB6 were received on 20/09/85. These are shown on his specimen testing list along with some results. Surely the error if it was one, with regard to its reference number should have been recognised by this time. Some 36 days since it was found? They should have been referring to it as DRB1 by this time. It may have been corrected/and changed on typed lists but this is a handwritten list.

As part of the enquiry he is asked about these items. When discussing this he refers to DB1 as a soil sample and when questioned why he has recorded it twice in his pocket book he says it was an aberration. Since DB6 blue socks was his sixth find why is he collecting socks from inside the farm building when his trial witness statement says he only found DB6 on 11/09/85.

If as he claims in his original statement that he passed DB6 socks to Davidson (was he even at WHF that day) why did he not also hand DB1 –DB5 to him as well because they had to have been collected before the socks given their reference numbers.

There appears to be no reference of a soil sample being sent to the laboratory for testing though since he recorded it twice in his pocket book it is likely that one was collected.

The first entry for the soil sample looks for all the world to have been squeezed in at the bottom of the page. He had to do this because of the other finds he said he made were recorded later along with the other soil sample entry. The only way this could be recorded or seen to be recorded as DB1 was if it preceded the other entries.

This whole charade was devised to hide the fact that he collected DB1 – DB7 on the day including the incriminating fire debris DB2. And the very important DB1.

Other questioning at the COLP interview shows that they were concerned with other documents which they had difficulty in understanding and they seem to question their authenticity. Without these other documents it is difficult to understand the questioning. There are no references to photographs. Some were marked NR. The interrogators suggested that this meant Not required or Not relevant.

They were given this title because Taff did not want them sent to the laboratory because they were involved in the cover-up and he did not wish them to seem to have been found by the SOCO team and mixed in with the original enquiries documentation.

It maybe that Ainsley wanted and called for all finds to be sent for testing not realising that DB1 – DB7 should be held back.

These facts lead me to the following conclusions. The COLP were deliberately mislead and DB lied to the enquiry. Despite attempts to suggest to the enquiry that DB1 may have been found by DRH his breakdown when he gave evidence to the enquiry suggests that there was a great reluctance among the interviewees to be the finder of DB1. DRH could not have found it because the SM would be recorded as DRHnnn) In the end they used SJ to be the collector as part of a visit to the family.

IMO there were two ‘Red Herrings’ of how the SM was found. The first possibly used in the cover-up phase, which consisted of SJ returning to the farm on the first day to collect it and passing it to RWC who used this fact for attaching the label with SBJ’s initials.

This could be true and the other DB finds may also have been collected in order to remove cover-up associated items from the scene as quickly as possible. What if any other items did SJ retrieve?

The other is the Crown case finding of DRB1 by the family. This is part of the framing phase. It was testified that the Eatons handed it to SBJ at their home. They had to manipulate dates of them finding it to before it was taken to the laboratory because they could not alter the Laboratory’s records.

They actually handed in a SM in September as the records show. This is when the JB’s SM was sent to the laboratory to be swapped for the AP SM once it had been processed in the same manner as the original.

There were two silencers involved in this case not one as the Crown case stated. This should not stand.

[snow66!]

Well,Bill Robertson also gives evidence of two silencers being involved in his latest article which Roch has posted today.Bill is more interested in showing whose blood was found inside,which was hidden at the trial.No doubt you will read the article your self Bubo,suffice to say he agrees with you,but dosent go into detail about exhibit numbers etc.

[snow66!]

Well not so comprehensivelly anyway.

[Roch]

The riddle of the Blue Socks explained

As for the ‘Riddle of the blue socks’ it looks like some posters are using my conspiracy issues as a get out. Is it a question of lack of understanding? It looks like they are refusing to engage with this because I have raised a fundamental problem with the validity of the finding of the first SM DB1.

Here I set out what I believe happened. I trust it is clear and easily understood

There were a pair of blue socks clearly identifiable in crime scene photos. It would seem obvious that the defence may ask questions with regard to them. Someone had to have made a witness statement or raised documentation relating to the find.

This person was DB who made a witness statement on 24/10/85 in which he says they were retrieved 11/09/85. From the floor of the main bedroom and he handed then to Davidson. This is 33 days after the incident.

What the COLP did not realise was that these particular socks were from the main bedroom and not some welly warmers from an outside building. Are we to believe there were two pairs of blue socks both numbered DB6. They probably were not shown the photographs of his finds in situ. Nor were they aware of the following.

During the week of the murders the police burned a lot of ‘gear’ which was described as bedding and the destruction of which was authorised by JB. Over the weekend that followed JB burnt his parent clothes.=
In the early part of that same week AE removed some blood stained clothes which were stood in buckets of water. She eventually disposed of these items and tidied the property even using her children to help with making beds etc.

To me it seems inconceivable that she would have left a pair of blood stained blue socks in the middle of the bedroom floor. The police had handed back the running of the property on 09/08/85.=
If indeed the police had not taken them she would rightly assume that they were not wanted by the police and dumped them. Of course she may have been a collector of bloodied or blue socks and added them to her collection.

I would ‘bet the house’ they did not have a copy of the other statement of the same date showing only DB6 blue socks. At the COLP interview DB presented a witness statement which was discussed with him. If you read the transcript of the taped interview it is clear that this statement differs in one major respect from the other one mentioned above. It is also dated 24/10/85 however, he now lists another six items. DB1 to DB7 are noted. and of what evidential value did he expect the police would gain from items in an outbuilding.

Furthermore DB7 tampons in a box were in the main house not an outbuilding.

DB1 was received by JH from MF on 12/09/85. DB2 – DB6 were received on 20/09/85. These are shown on his specimen testing list along with some results. Surely the error if it was one, with regard to its reference number should have been recognised by this time. Some 36 days since it was found? They should have been referring to it as DRB1 by this time. It may have been corrected/and changed on typed lists but this is a handwritten list.

As part of the enquiry he is asked about these items. When discussing this he refers to DB1 as a soil sample and when questioned why he has recorded it twice in his pocket book he says it was an aberration. Since DB6 blue socks was his sixth find why is he collecting socks from inside the farm building when his trial witness statement says he only found DB6 on 11/09/85.

If as he claims in his original statement that he passed DB6 socks to Davidson (was he even at WHF that day) why did he not also hand DB1 –DB5 to him as well because they had to have been collected before the socks given their reference numbers.

There appears to be no reference of a soil sample being sent to the laboratory for testing though since he recorded it twice in his pocket book it is likely that one was collected.

The first entry for the soil sample looks for all the world to have been squeezed in at the bottom of the page. He had to do this because of the other finds he said he made were recorded later along with the other soil sample entry. The only way this could be recorded or seen to be recorded as DB1 was if it preceded the other entries.

This whole charade was devised to hide the fact that he collected DB1 – DB7 on the day including the incriminating fire debris DB2. And the very important DB1.

Other questioning at the COLP interview shows that they were concerned with other documents which they had difficulty in understanding and they seem to question their authenticity. Without these other documents it is difficult to understand the questioning. There are no references to photographs. Some were marked NR. The interrogators suggested that this meant Not required or Not relevant.

They were given this title because Taff did not want them sent to the laboratory because they were involved in the cover-up and he did not wish them to seem to have been found by the SOCO team and mixed in with the original enquiries documentation.

It maybe that Ainsley wanted and called for all finds to be sent for testing not realising that DB1 – DB7 should be held back.

These facts lead me to the following conclusions. The COLP were deliberately mislead and DB lied to the enquiry. Despite attempts to suggest to the enquiry that DB1 may have been found by DRH his breakdown when he gave evidence to the enquiry suggests that there was a great reluctance among the interviewees to be the finder of DB1. DRH could not have found it because the SM would be recorded as DRHnnn) In the end they used SJ to be the collector as part of a visit to the family.

IMO there were two ‘Red Herrings’ of how the SM was found. The first possibly used in the cover-up phase, which consisted of SJ returning to the farm on the first day to collect it and passing it to RWC who used this fact for attaching the label with SBJ’s initials.

This could be true and the other DB finds may also have been collected in order to remove cover-up associated items from the scene as quickly as possible. What if any other items did SJ retrieve?

The other is the Crown case finding of DRB1 by the family. This is part of the framing phase. It was testified that the Eatons handed it to SBJ at their home. They had to manipulate dates of them finding it to before it was taken to the laboratory because they could not alter the Laboratory’s records.

They actually handed in a SM in September as the records show. This is when the JB’s SM was sent to the laboratory to be swapped for the AP SM once it had been processed in the same manner as the original.

There were two silencers involved in this case not one as the Crown case stated. This should not stand.

I wonder what became of the blue socks.

[killingeve]

I wonder what became of the blue socks.

They were sent to the lab, blood tested and referred to at trial.  The blood was found to match June's groupings.

[Roch]

They were sent to the lab, blood tested and referred to at trial.  The blood was found to match June's groupings.

You replied to the wrong post 😏

[killingeve]

We can see the police identified exhbits by officers' initials followed by a number eg DRH/1 denotes DC David Robert Hammersley with the 1 representing the first exhibit he seized ie the casing by Sheila's head. 

When exhibits are then checked into the FSS they are given a new unique identifying number by FSS.  In the case of the blue socks identified by PC David Bird the socks went from DB/6 (police identification) to 86 (FSS identification).

The socks were blood tested and found to match June's groupings all of which was adjudicated on at trial.

I don't see anything remotely contentious about the above?

[killingeve]

You replied to the wrong post 😏

Did I? 

The post I've just made is in response to Bubo bubo's. 

[mike tesko]

We can see the police identified exhbits by officers' initials followed by a number eg DRH/1 denotes DC David Robert Hammersley with the 1 representing the first exhibit he seized ie the casing by Sheila's head. 

When exhibits are then checked into the FSS they are given a new unique identifying number by FSS.  In the case of the blue socks identified by PC David Bird the socks went from DB/6 (police identification) to 86 (FSS identification).

The socks were blood tested and found to match June's groupings all of which was adjudicated on at trial.

I don't see anything remotely contentious about the above?

So, here we have the opportunity to test the reliability and the integrity of the claim made by relatives, police and Home Office scientists, that there was only one silencer in the case, a silencer that was unique to the .22 semi-automatic Anshuzt rifle belonging to 'Neville Bamber' - Well, the silencer that went to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 13th August 1985, it had the exhibit reference 'SBJ/1' with the accompanying item number of 22. At that stage, no evidence was disclosed which identified the next item bearing no. 23, or by that stage the relevant exhibit reference, belonging to item no. 23?

 We need to then take into account, that after the submission of the silencer ['SBJ/1'] item no. 22 to the lab' at Huntingdon, on the 13th August 1985 to be examined by 'Glynis Howard', it was returned into the possession of 'Di Cook' after the expert had carried out a brief examination of it, without noticing a significant amount of red paint, deeply ingrained into the knurled metal end cap of the silencer in question. Thereafter, we are being asked to believe that rather than return the silencer back to a police storeroom, confirmable by reference to a record document known as 'the storeroom register', a storeroom under lock and key, but that he kept the silencer, with a signed exhibit label bearing 'his own' and 'Glynis Howards' signatures attached to the said silencer, in his coat pocket. He kept 'it' there [in his coat pocket] for the next consecutive 17 days, without it being protected by any protective covering. Indeed, when 'Di Cook' arrived at the lab' [Huntingdon] on the 13th August 1985, that the silencer in question ('SBJ/1') item no. 22, which he handed over to 'Glynis Howard' that there was no protective covering in place upon and around the silencer. Pay attention to the fact that neither 'Di Cook', nor 'Glynis Howard' or any other person mentions such a covering when it arrived at the lab' and then left there after a brief examination on the same date!

[mike tesko]

What happened to the kitchen roll which 'Peter Eaton' allegedly handed over to 'DS Jones' at the 'Eaton residence' on the evening of 12th August 1985.

[Bubo bubo]

Did I? 

The post I've just made is in response to Bubo bubo's.

Can you explain how the socks were still in the main bedroom on 11/09/85, 33 days after the event and why did he (DB) make two statements on the same day with very different contents? Why did he tell the COLP enquiry that he found the socks in an outbuilding but the one given at trial says they were in the main bedroom?

[killingeve]

Can you explain how the socks were still in the main bedroom on 11/09/85, 33 days after the event and why did he (DB) make two statements on the same day with very different contents? Why did he tell the COLP enquiry that he found the socks in an outbuilding but the one given at trial says they were in the main bedroom?

I don't believe the police left a pair of bloodstained socks hanging around inside the property as it would have potentially been distressing for the surviving family to witness.  Part of the police objective was to clean up to avoid the family having to. 

The socks were found in the main bedroom and photographed on 7th August.  When the case was thought to be murder/suicide only a limited number of exhibits were forensically examined (blood tested).  Why the need to spend money examining the socks when it was obvious the blood on the carpet and socks originated from the same person?  The carpet samples from the main bedroom were examined along with Sheila's nightdress, the rifle and silencer on or around 13th Aug.  You can see the socks were examined at a much later stage based on the exhibit number allocated by the lab.

When the case changed to murder all exhibits were examined in preparation for trial. 

[Bubo bubo]

I don't believe the police left a pair of bloodstained socks hanging around inside the property as it would have potentially been distressing for the surviving family to witness.  Part of the police objective was to clean up to avoid the family having to. 

The socks were found in the main bedroom and photographed on 7th August.  When the case was thought to be murder/suicide only a limited number of exhibits were forensically examined (blood tested).  Why the need to spend money examining the socks when it was obvious the blood on the carpet and socks originated from the same person?  The carpet samples from the main bedroom were examined along with Sheila's nightdress, the rifle and silencer on or around 13th Aug.  You can see the socks were examined at a much later stage based on the exhibit number allocated by the lab.

When the case changed to murder all exhibits were examined in preparation for trial.

ANSWER THE WHOLE QUESTION.
Why and how were the socks collected on11/09/85 in the Main bedroom? When they were sent to the laboratory is incidental. One of the two different statements says that is when they were collected and passed to Davidson. Both statements cannot be true. This is direct evidence of the police manipulating evidence.

[lookout]

" distressing for the surviving family to witness " Why, when AE hadn't appeared distressed while rinsing out bloodied clothes from a bucket ? Making up beds that two children were murdered in ?
Actually going into the place at all before the deceased were even buried ? Distressed my eye !