New theory regarding angle of 4 fatal shots to 'Neville Bambers' head/skull...

[mike tesko]

If true, or proveable, this makes a vast difference to the claim that was relied upon at the trial concerning the length of the. 22  semi-automatic rifle, fitlted with the silencer [`DRB/1', lab item no. 23/22'] being too long to enable 'Sheila' any opportunity to shoot and kill herself by the weapon being so configured..

If accurately assessed by myself, the real crux of the matter, involves the swapping over of one of these two silencers, with the other and then they would have had to introduce a third silencer with 17 internal baffle plates into and onto it, with the faked red paint, and blood group evidence. Since the red particals of paint, could never have been ingrained onto the first silencers that were submitted to the lab' for examination, firstly on 13th August 1985 [`SBJ/1', item no. 22 / 'SJ/1' lab item no. 22] and secondly, the other silencer [`DB/1', lab item no. references 23/22]..

Careful study of the obtaining of blood group evidence which could only have been found inside the silencer [`DB/1', lab' item no. 23]` which went to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August 1985. The relevance of this, was that the damning blood group evidence was obtained from examination of this silencer, at the lab' on the following dates, 12th, 13th, 18th and the 19th September 1985...

The other [3rd] silencer `DRB/1', [Lab', item no. 23/22] did not get handed over to 'DC Oakey' until the 11th September 1985 by 'Ann Eaton' which remained in the possession of Essex police until after 'DS Eastwood' and 'DS Davison' fingerprinted it at police headquarters on the 13th September 1985, and retained by the police until the 20th September 1985 at which stage it was submitted to Huntingdon Lab' to be expertly examined. With this in mind, the red paint particles from the scratched kitchen aga surround could not have been present on the previously submitted silencers, particulary silencer 'DB/1', lab' item no. 23, because how would th police manage to convince anyone that there were, two silencers with red paint particles from the scratched aga surround? So, when the 3rd silencer ['DRB/1', lab' item no. 23] was evenually examined at the Lab' on the  26th September 1985, the blood group evidence obtained from examination of the other silencer [`DB/1',lab' item no. 23] at the lab' on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, those blood group resulst were taken from a different silencer than 'DRB/1', lab' item no. 23, by virtue of the fact that the 3rd silencer [`DRB/1', lab'item no. 23/22] had not yet been sent and received at the lab'  until after these / those blood group evidences had already been obtained from the other one.

It's worth remembering that Essex police only received possession of the third silencer 'DRB/1', lab' item no. 23/22, from 'Ann Eaton' on the 11th September 1985, together with the fact that the very first crime scene photographs that were taken of scratchmarks on the red painted kitchen aga surround, were taken by DC Oakey on the 14th September 1985, at a time when police still had possession of the 3rd silencer. It seems reasonable to assume that the Scratchmarks on the red painted kitchen aga surround, were deliberately made by co- operation of relatives and police. It would appear that the silencer inside which the blood group evidence was found must have got17 internal baffle plates identifying it being owned by 'Anthony Pargeter' [not the 14 baffle plated 'Bamber' owned one]. I have concluded, that the original silencer [`SBJ/1', item no. 22] that was collected by 'Ds Jones from the scene on 7th August 1985, which' Jeremy' alerted both 'he' and 'DC Clark' about and which was the reason why 'DS Jones' left 'Jeremys cottage to return to the crime scene to collect what he beleived to be the' Bamber' owned silencer, which as it turns out must have been or was one and the same silencer in the guise of exhibit reference' SJ/1', lab' item no. 22, which 'Cook' had taken to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 13th August 1985, a silencer which only had 14 internal baffle plates. The other two silencers sent and received at the lab' on the 30th August 1985, and 20th September 1985, must belong to 'Anthony Pargeter' and one of the relatives [Boutflour / Eaton clan]..

[mike tesko]

Everything points to the fact that the police, relatives and lab' experts or assistants framed 'Jeremy Bamber' for five murders, by deliberately faking blood group evidence found in a silencer with 17 internalised baffle plates, which belonged to 'Anthony Pargeter' or 'one of the other relatives', or vice versa, and the game must surely be up now that the red paint particles ingrained into the knurl of the other 17 baffle plated silencer, were two entirely different silencers than the 'Bamber owned' one..

Relatives, police, and lab' experts must know that the blood group evidence, and the red paint particle evidence were found or deliberately contaminated into, or onto two seperate silencers owned by the relatives who all testified during the trial trying to get 'Jeremy Bamber' convicted of five murders, so that they would be landed with 'Mabel Speakmans' and 'the Bamber parents' inheritances...

[mike tesko]

If accurately assessed by myself, the real crux of the matter, involves the swapping over of one of these two silencers, with the other and then they would have had to introduce a third silencer with 17 internal baffle plates into and onto it, with the faked red paint, and blood group evidence. Since the red particals of paint, could never have been ingrained onto the first silencers that were submitted to the lab' for examination, firstly on 13th August 1985 [`SBJ/1', item no. 22 / 'SJ/1' lab item no. 22] and secondly, the other silencer [`DB/1', lab item no. references 23/22]..

Careful study of the obtaining of blood group evidence which could only have been found inside the silencer [`DB/1', lab' item no. 23]` which went to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August 1985. The relevance of this, was that the damning blood group evidence was obtained from examination of this silencer, at the lab' on the following dates, 12th, 13th, 18th and the 19th September 1985...

The other [3rd] silencer `DRB/1', [Lab', item no. 23/22] did not get handed over to 'DC Oakey' until the 11th September 1985 by 'Ann Eaton' which remained in the possession of Essex police until after 'DS Eastwood' and 'DS Davison' fingerprinted it at police headquarters on the 13th September 1985, and retained by the police until the 20th September 1985 at which stage it was submitted to Huntingdon Lab' to be expertly examined. With this in mind, the red paint particles from the scratched kitchen aga surround could not have been present on the previously submitted silencers, particulary silencer 'DB/1', lab' item no. 23, because how would th police manage to convince anyone that there were, two silencers with red paint particles from the scratched aga surround? So, when the 3rd silencer ['DRB/1', lab' item no. 23] was evenually examined at the Lab' on the  26th September 1985, the blood group evidence obtained from examination of the other silencer [`DB/1',lab' item no. 23] at the lab' on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, those blood group resulst were taken from a different silencer than 'DRB/1', lab' item no. 23, by virtue of the fact that the 3rd silencer [`DRB/1', lab'item no. 23/22] had not yet been sent and received at the lab'  until after these / those blood group evidences had already been obtained from the other one.

It's worth remembering that Essex police only received possession of the third silencer 'DRB/1', lab' item no. 23/22, from 'Ann Eaton' on the 11th September 1985, together with the fact that the very first crime scene photographs that were taken of scratchmarks on the red painted kitchen aga surround, were taken by DC Oakey on the 14th September 1985, at a time when police still had possession of the 3rd silencer. It seems reasonable to assume that the Scratchmarks on the red painted kitchen aga surround, were deliberately made by co- operation of relatives and police. It would appear that the silencer inside which the blood group evidence was found must have got17 internal baffle plates identifying it being owned by 'Anthony Pargeter' [not the 14 baffle plated 'Bamber' owned one]. I have concluded, that the original silencer [`SBJ/1', item no. 22] that was collected by 'Ds Jones from the scene on 7th August 1985, which' Jeremy' alerted both 'he' and 'DC Clark' about and which was the reason why 'DS Jones' left 'Jeremys cottage to return to the crime scene to collect what he beleived to be the' Bamber' owned silencer, which as it turns out must have been or was one and the same silencer in the guise of exhibit reference' SJ/1', lab' item no. 22, which 'Cook' had taken to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 13th August 1985, a silencer which only had 14 internal baffle plates. The other two silencers sent and received at the lab' on the 30th August 1985, and 20th September 1985, must belong to 'Anthony Pargeter' and one of the relatives [Boutflour / Eaton clan]..

Or, did silencer 'SBJ/1' - 'SJ/1' [item no. 22 and later' referred to as  lab' item no. 22] have 17 internalysed baffle plates? If true, then the silencer that was submitted to the lab' on the 13th August 1985, cannot have been 'owned by the Bamber' family, therefore rendering the submission of silencer 'DB/1' lab' item no. 23, to the lab' at Huntingdon as the 'Bamber' owned silencer, that took place on the 30th August 1985...

[mike tesko]

Or, did silencer 'SBJ/1' - 'SJ/1' [item no. 22 and later' referred to as  lab' item no. 22] have 17 internalysed baffle plates? If true, then the silencer that was submitted to the lab' on the 13th August 1985, cannot have been 'owned by the Bamber' family, therefore rendering the submission of silencer 'DB/1' lab' item no. 23, to the lab' at Huntingdon as the 'Bamber' owned silencer, that took place on the 30th August 1985 [ an impossibility]

More, to follow..

[mike tesko]

I tend to beleive that the '999' call to police requesting ambulances at the scene timed at 6.09am onwards, was not made by 'Sheila Caffell' but that rather, it was 'Neville Bamber' [himself] who actually had made that '999 call' call to police at about 6.09am, to request an ambulance, or ambulances to attend the crime scene, which if true would prove beyond contemplation that, beyond reasonable doubt, that neither 'Sheila Caffell' nor 'Jeremy Bamber' was responsible for the taking of 'Neville Bambers' life...

what we are dealing with here, is 'a very serious miscarriage of justice', 'perpetrated by police', 'relatives' and 'the firearm officers, pinning the blame onto 'Jeremy' as the guilty party involved in this matter..

[Roch]

I tend to beleive that the '999' call to police requesting ambulances at the scene timed at 6.09am onwards, was not made by 'Sheila Caffell' but that rather, it was 'Neville Bamber' [himself] who actually had made that '999 call' call to police at about 6.09am, to request an ambulance, or ambulances to attend the crime scene, which if true would prove beyond contemplation that, beyond reasonable doubt, that neither 'Sheila Caffell' nor 'Jeremy Bamber' was responsible for the taking

The problem with this kind of evidence is that it's trace evidence. And the documentary evidence that may explain it exists.  It would be a lot easier if we knew what triggered the enquiry on the part of the Met, within Stokenchurch. It's interesting regarding Millbank's alleged response to The Guardian reporter. I can't see it being NB though. In fact, even if it did occur from any adult occupant, who would have known about it? Why would they stay quiet about it? The only thing I can think of is that a decision was made it didn't look good on the police, not having entered earlier. But why would any 999 operatives stay silent?  Given events immediately after the tragedy, somebody would have said something to somebody about having received such contact.

[David1819]

The problem with this kind of evidence is that it's trace evidence. And the documentary evidence that may explain it exists.  It would be a lot easier if we knew what triggered the enquiry on the part of the Met, within Stokenchurch. It's interesting regarding Millbank's alleged response to The Guardian reporter. I can't see it being NB though. In fact, even if it did occur from any adult occupant, who would have known about it? Why would they stay quiet about it? The only thing I can think of is that a decision was made it didn't look good on the police, not having entered earlier. But why would any 999 operatives stay silent?  Given events immediately after the tragedy, somebody would have said something to somebody about having received such contact.

The call in question here was the BT operator Jean Rowe who directed the WHF phone over the 999 line to the police station (and Millbank) so they can listen in. There was nobody in the house actually physically making a call.

[Roch]

The call in question here was the BT operator Jean Rowe who directed the WHF phone over the 999 line to the police station (and Millbank) so they can listen in. There was nobody in the house actually physically making a call.

That's what I thought. However, why did Millbank express that he was surprised that evidence still existed of the event? Did Millbank think that all evidence relating to it had been destroyed?  And if it's so easy to work what actually took place from the available documents, then why where Met alerted to something which needed urgently checking? Somebody or something alerted Met to a '999 call'.

[lookout]

If Sheila had replaced the handset at all, then lifted it to dial 999 she needn't have said a word as 999 calls are traced.

[Bubo bubo]

The problem with this kind of evidence is that it's trace evidence. And the documentary evidence that may explain it exists.  It would be a lot easier if we knew what triggered the enquiry on the part of the Met, within Stokenchurch. It's interesting regarding Millbank's alleged response to The Guardian reporter. I can't see it being NB though. In fact, even if it did occur from any adult occupant, who would have known about it? Why would they stay quiet about it? The only thing I can think of is that a decision was made it didn't look good on the police, not having entered earlier. But why would any 999 operatives stay silent?  Given events immediately after the tragedy, somebody would have said something to somebody about having received such contact.

In my narrative there are two possible reasons. Firstly though highly contested the original call from NB before any injury, phoned 999. This would be routed to Bonnett at HQ. If Nevill abandoned this call with the phone off the hook, there would be an open 999 call at HQ. If the operator merely switched this to CD (chelmsford) they would not know what it was all about. Any detail of the call would be taped unless Bonnett killed the call at HQ. Given the fact that JB would have called at about the same time with his view of events it would make sense to keep the call live.
Secondly assuming the call was killed. Just prior to this event the police had been trying to make contact with anyone who was alive inside the building. In a siege situation the authorities almost always seek to establish contact with those inside usually by telephone. They could have suggested that those inside go to and pick up the phone or once the switch had been made and if the line had been killed dial 999, which would then give those in charge direct access to WHF from CD rather than HQ.

[David1819]

That's what I thought. However, why did Millbank express that he was surprised that evidence still existed of the event? Did Millbank think that all evidence relating to it had been destroyed?  And if it's so easy to work what actually took place from the available documents, then why where Met alerted to something which needed urgently checking? Somebody or something alerted Met to a '999 call'.

Where are you getting this info from?

[Roch]

Where are you getting this info from?

I can't guarantee it was this forum. Millbank did act with suprise though. I am sure of it.

[Roch]

In my narrative there are two possible reasons. Firstly though highly contested the original call from NB before any injury, phoned 999. This would be routed to Bonnett at HQ. If Nevill abandoned this call with the phone off the hook, there would be an open 999 call at HQ. If the operator merely switched this to CD (chelmsford) they would not know what it was all about. Any detail of the call would be taped unless Bonnett killed the call at HQ. Given the fact that JB would have called at about the same time with his view of events it would make sense to keep the call live.
Secondly assuming the call was killed. Just prior to this event the police had been trying to make contact with anyone who was alive inside the building. In a siege situation the authorities almost always seek to establish contact with those inside usually by telephone. They could have suggested that those inside go to and pick up the phone or once the switch had been made and if the line had been killed dial 999, which would them give those in charge direct access to WHF from CD rather than HQ.

Interesting suggestions Bubo.

[David1819]

I can't guarantee it was this forum. Millbank did act with suprise though. I am sure of it.

That's not very helpful.

And what is your source for "the Met being alerted"  and "urgently checking" the "999 call"?

[Roch]

That's not very helpful.

And what is your source for "the Met being alerted"  and "urgently checking" the "999 call"?

I will try and find the document for you. It is a police action request.