How much has the crown spent on preventing disclosure of sound moderator docs?

[Adam]

In 1985, it is doubtful Bamber knew there was (apparently) not much difference in sound between rifle with or without silencer.

He would automatically use a silencer. Lots of reasons why he took it off & put it away. As Bamber agrees, prior to burning Nevill's back.

[David1819]

The relatives would need to know -

Is Bamber innocent.

Sheila's arm lenght.

The rifle lenght with silencer.

Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.

What back splatter is.

Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.

What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.

Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.

Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.

Was there a silencer next to Sheila.

How to realistically put blood into a silencer.

Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.

Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.

Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.

Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.

The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.

The punishment if caught doing this.

Confidence in each other that none would succumb to police pressure.



----------

"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

[Adam]

It was not the polices job to scrutinise and pass judgement on forensic evidence. Its their Job to secure the scene, collect and pass on any forensic evidence to the forensic staff at the lab.

We don't know what the police involved personally think of the silencer. With the exception of Stan Jones and Miller as they have made their views known to us on TV shows.

Stan Jones and Miller both express the view the silencer is genuine. Stan Jones comes across as a right cretin so that answers why he thinks its genuine. Miller on the other hand expresses the view that the silencer is genuine because the lab told him so.

As far as the lab is concerned, we know that they did not understand the dubious circumstances the silencer was found in, since DI Cook handed it to them under the assumption that Stan Jones had found it and thus the staff had a false pretence. We know from Mark Webster that Hayward had never seen backspatter in a silencer before. We know from Fletcher's testimony that he does not understand the subject of backspatter very well. And neither has he seen backspatter in a silencer before either. Thus the lab fooled themselves. Millers belief is based purely on circular reasoning.

There probably are members of EP that think what I think. But they wont dare express that in public would they?

"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."

[Adam]

It was not the polices job to scrutinise and pass judgement on forensic evidence. Its their Job to secure the scene, collect and pass on any forensic evidence to the forensic staff at the lab.

We don't know what the police involved personally think of the silencer. With the exception of Stan Jones and Miller as they have made their views known to us on TV shows.

Stan Jones and Miller both express the view the silencer is genuine. Stan Jones comes across as a right cretin so that answers why he thinks its genuine. Miller on the other hand expresses the view that the silencer is genuine because the lab told him so.

As far as the lab is concerned, we know that they did not understand the dubious circumstances the silencer was found in, since DI Cook handed it to them under the assumption that Stan Jones had found it and thus the staff had a false pretence. We know from Mark Webster that Hayward had never seen backspatter in a silencer before. We know from Fletcher's testimony that he does not understand the subject of backspatter very well. And neither has he seen backspatter in a silencer before either. Thus the lab fooled themselves. Millers belief is based purely on circular reasoning.

There probably are members of EP that think what I think. But they wont dare express that in public would they?

'Stan Jones comes across as a right cretin so that answers why he thinks its genuine.'

--------

In your view.

So much of cretin he helped get Bamber convicted.

[Adam]

It was not the polices job to scrutinise and pass judgement on forensic evidence. Its their Job to secure the scene, collect and pass on any forensic evidence to the forensic staff at the lab.

We don't know what the police involved personally think of the silencer. With the exception of Stan Jones and Miller as they have made their views known to us on TV shows.

Stan Jones and Miller both express the view the silencer is genuine. Stan Jones comes across as a right cretin so that answers why he thinks its genuine. Miller on the other hand expresses the view that the silencer is genuine because the lab told him so.

As far as the lab is concerned, we know that they did not understand the dubious circumstances the silencer was found in, since DI Cook handed it to them under the assumption that Stan Jones had found it and thus the staff had a false pretence. We know from Mark Webster that Hayward had never seen backspatter in a silencer before. We know from Fletcher's testimony that he does not understand the subject of backspatter very well. And neither has he seen backspatter in a silencer before either. Thus the lab fooled themselves. Millers belief is based purely on circular reasoning.

There probably are members of EP that think what I think. But they wont dare express that in public would they?

Miller on the other hand expresses the view that the silencer is genuine because the lab told him so.

----------

So?

[David1819]

Further why did the police forge DB's witness statement to change DB1 from a silencer to a soil sample.

They didn't.  David Boutflour found the silencer DB1 and David Bird labelled the soil sample he collected DB1. They later put David Boutflours middle name into the exhibit label to avoid confusing the two.

[Adam]

It was not the polices job to scrutinise and pass judgement on forensic evidence. Its their Job to secure the scene, collect and pass on any forensic evidence to the forensic staff at the lab.

We don't know what the police involved personally think of the silencer. With the exception of Stan Jones and Miller as they have made their views known to us on TV shows.

Stan Jones and Miller both express the view the silencer is genuine. Stan Jones comes across as a right cretin so that answers why he thinks its genuine. Miller on the other hand expresses the view that the silencer is genuine because the lab told him so.

As far as the lab is concerned, we know that they did not understand the dubious circumstances the silencer was found in, since DI Cook handed it to them under the assumption that Stan Jones had found it and thus the staff had a false pretence. We know from Mark Webster that Hayward had never seen backspatter in a silencer before. We know from Fletcher's testimony that he does not understand the subject of backspatter very well. And neither has he seen backspatter in a silencer before either. Thus the lab fooled themselves. Millers belief is based purely on circular reasoning.

There probably are members of EP that think what I think. But they wont dare express that in public would they?

As far as the lab is concerned, we know that they did not understand the dubious circumstances the silencer was found in,

---------

Didn't they? The masacre was all over the papers.

So what?

[Adam]

It was not the polices job to scrutinise and pass judgement on forensic evidence. Its their Job to secure the scene, collect and pass on any forensic evidence to the forensic staff at the lab.

We don't know what the police involved personally think of the silencer. With the exception of Stan Jones and Miller as they have made their views known to us on TV shows.

Stan Jones and Miller both express the view the silencer is genuine. Stan Jones comes across as a right cretin so that answers why he thinks its genuine. Miller on the other hand expresses the view that the silencer is genuine because the lab told him so.

As far as the lab is concerned, we know that they did not understand the dubious circumstances the silencer was found in, since DI Cook handed it to them under the assumption that Stan Jones had found it and thus the staff had a false pretence. We know from Mark Webster that Hayward had never seen backspatter in a silencer before. We know from Fletcher's testimony that he does not understand the subject of backspatter very well. And neither has he seen backspatter in a silencer before either. Thus the lab fooled themselves. Millers belief is based purely on circular reasoning.

There probably are members of EP that think what I think. But they wont dare express that in public would they?

since DI Cook handed it to them under the assumption that Stan Jones had found it and thus the staff had a false pretence.

----------

Uhhhh?

You are talking crap again.

The lab independently tests.

[Adam]

It was not the polices job to scrutinise and pass judgement on forensic evidence. Its their Job to secure the scene, collect and pass on any forensic evidence to the forensic staff at the lab.

We don't know what the police involved personally think of the silencer. With the exception of Stan Jones and Miller as they have made their views known to us on TV shows.

Stan Jones and Miller both express the view the silencer is genuine. Stan Jones comes across as a right cretin so that answers why he thinks its genuine. Miller on the other hand expresses the view that the silencer is genuine because the lab told him so.

As far as the lab is concerned, we know that they did not understand the dubious circumstances the silencer was found in, since DI Cook handed it to them under the assumption that Stan Jones had found it and thus the staff had a false pretence. We know from Mark Webster that Hayward had never seen backspatter in a silencer before. We know from Fletcher's testimony that he does not understand the subject of backspatter very well. And neither has he seen backspatter in a silencer before either. Thus the lab fooled themselves. Millers belief is based purely on circular reasoning.

There probably are members of EP that think what I think. But they wont dare express that in public would they?

We know from Mark Webster that Hayward had never seen backspatter in a silencer before.

----------

So?

He was considered the best expert available.

[Bubo bubo]

It was not the polices job to scrutinise and pass judgement on forensic evidence. Its their Job to secure the scene, collect and pass on any forensic evidence to the forensic staff at the lab.

We don't know what the police involved personally think of the silencer. With the exception of Stan Jones and Miller as they have made their views known to us on TV shows.

Stan Jones and Miller both express the view the silencer is genuine. Stan Jones comes across as a right cretin so that answers why he thinks its genuine. Miller on the other hand expresses the view that the silencer is genuine because the lab told him so.

As far as the lab is concerned, we know that they did not understand the dubious circumstances the silencer was found in, since DI Cook handed it to them under the assumption that Stan Jones had found it and thus the staff had a false pretence. We know from Mark Webster that Hayward had never seen backspatter in a silencer before. We know from Fletcher's testimony that he does not understand the subject of backspatter very well. And neither has he seen backspatter in a silencer before either. Thus the lab fooled themselves. Millers belief is based purely on circular reasoning.

There probably are members of EP that think what I think. But they wont dare express that in public would they?

Reposting an old post does not do it for me. (Sept 18th 2019) You are promoting the views of the police who framed JB. The way you support the police as innocent bystanders tricked by the Boutflour family is hard to take. Do you have family in the police? I know there are others who find this reasoning bordering on the unbelievable. You have not addressed the points I make against your theory and I am still waiting for your answer how June walked round the bed and back without disturbing the electric blanket

[Adam]

It was not the polices job to scrutinise and pass judgement on forensic evidence. Its their Job to secure the scene, collect and pass on any forensic evidence to the forensic staff at the lab.

We don't know what the police involved personally think of the silencer. With the exception of Stan Jones and Miller as they have made their views known to us on TV shows.

Stan Jones and Miller both express the view the silencer is genuine. Stan Jones comes across as a right cretin so that answers why he thinks its genuine. Miller on the other hand expresses the view that the silencer is genuine because the lab told him so.

As far as the lab is concerned, we know that they did not understand the dubious circumstances the silencer was found in, since DI Cook handed it to them under the assumption that Stan Jones had found it and thus the staff had a false pretence. We know from Mark Webster that Hayward had never seen backspatter in a silencer before. We know from Fletcher's testimony that he does not understand the subject of backspatter very well. And neither has he seen backspatter in a silencer before either. Thus the lab fooled themselves. Millers belief is based purely on circular reasoning.

There probably are members of EP that think what I think. But they wont dare express that in public would they?

We know from Fletcher's testimony that he does not understand the subject of backspatter very well. 

--------

So that's why he was chosen to test and testify.

[Adam]

It was not the polices job to scrutinise and pass judgement on forensic evidence. Its their Job to secure the scene, collect and pass on any forensic evidence to the forensic staff at the lab.

We don't know what the police involved personally think of the silencer. With the exception of Stan Jones and Miller as they have made their views known to us on TV shows.

Stan Jones and Miller both express the view the silencer is genuine. Stan Jones comes across as a right cretin so that answers why he thinks its genuine. Miller on the other hand expresses the view that the silencer is genuine because the lab told him so.

As far as the lab is concerned, we know that they did not understand the dubious circumstances the silencer was found in, since DI Cook handed it to them under the assumption that Stan Jones had found it and thus the staff had a false pretence. We know from Mark Webster that Hayward had never seen backspatter in a silencer before. We know from Fletcher's testimony that he does not understand the subject of backspatter very well. And neither has he seen backspatter in a silencer before either. Thus the lab fooled themselves. Millers belief is based purely on circular reasoning.

There probably are members of EP that think what I think. But they wont dare express that in public would they?

Thus the lab fooled themselves.

----------

Of course they did David.

[Adam]

It was not the polices job to scrutinise and pass judgement on forensic evidence. Its their Job to secure the scene, collect and pass on any forensic evidence to the forensic staff at the lab.

We don't know what the police involved personally think of the silencer. With the exception of Stan Jones and Miller as they have made their views known to us on TV shows.

Stan Jones and Miller both express the view the silencer is genuine. Stan Jones comes across as a right cretin so that answers why he thinks its genuine. Miller on the other hand expresses the view that the silencer is genuine because the lab told him so.

As far as the lab is concerned, we know that they did not understand the dubious circumstances the silencer was found in, since DI Cook handed it to them under the assumption that Stan Jones had found it and thus the staff had a false pretence. We know from Mark Webster that Hayward had never seen backspatter in a silencer before. We know from Fletcher's testimony that he does not understand the subject of backspatter very well. And neither has he seen backspatter in a silencer before either. Thus the lab fooled themselves. Millers belief is based purely on circular reasoning.

There probably are members of EP that think what I think. But they wont dare express that in public would they?

'There probably are members of EP that think what I think'

----------

Of course there are David.

It's just a pity they can't read your secret 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.

[Adam]

David has the sick theory that the relatives did the impossible - use diluted period blood in a bucket of water. Somehow putting it into a silencer creating the back spatter effect.

Then just for good measure they scratched the kitchen aga.

I've put 18 reasons why this is impossible. Similar to the 74 pieces of 'sourced' forensic evidence, David never addresses any of them. Just puts up the same quote.

Disappointing on a discussion forum.

[Bubo bubo]

They didn't.  David Boutflour found the silencer DB1 and David Bird labelled the soil sample he collected DB1. They later put David Boutflours middle name into the exhibit label to avoid confusing the two.

You clearly have not read my post on the DB witness statement forgery for the COLP enquiry, which incidentally NGB describes as well argued. How could he retrieve all these items on 10/09/85. The socks DB6 were not collected according to you until after the Eatons moved in. Did they look after them waiting for the police to collect them and why were they not burnt on the Wednesday under JB's permission or at the next weekend when JB burnt his parents clothes. I am afraid you need to revise your over simplistic views which are not supported by the evidence.