DB's bad memory

[Rob_]

Extract of David Boutflour’s statement 12.9.85

“Also in the box was a sound moderator for a .22 rifle. I picked up the sound moderator and saw what I believe to be blood on it. Also there was red paint or something similar on it as well. There was one quite deep scratch which was bright and appeared to be new. I took these items together with the other firearms to my sister’s home.

I latter informed the Police of the finding of the telescopic sight and the sound moderator.”

Court Testimony

MR. RIVLIN: When you took the box which contained the silencer out of the gun cupboard, whichever that box may have been, is it right you actually looked at the silencer then and there?  A. I looked at the silencer then and there, but did not come to any conclusion until a latter date, because I looked at the silencer at a latter date at my sister’s home.

Q. Where did you look at it when you were in White House Farm? In which room where you when you looked at it?   A. I looked at it in the confines of the office in the den.

Q. Is this right: Did you see anything of significance at the time in the den on the silencer?   A. I cannot remember whether I noticed the fact it had the red paint on it and the undermentioned spot of blood at the time of inspecting it in the office, or on further investigation at my sister’s house. The notability of the damage to the silencer, i.e. the protective coating to the silencer.

Q. So you have no memory of noticing anything significant on the silencer at White House Farm?   A. I have the memory of noticing the damage to the silencer, but not the spot of blood.

Q. Not blood and not red paint?   A. I cannot recollect so far back now, sorry.

Then Latter:
Q. You rang to tell them about the silencer?  A. I did not ring them somebody did.

So in his first statement DB said he saw the paint and blood etc. while at WHF and it was he who  informed the Police, but at trial the paint and blood was seen at AE's house and it was someone else who phoned the Police. None of the relatives seem to remember who did ring the police?

[lookout]

Yes Rob, his sister suffered from the same affliction as she couldn't remember who it was who'd told her that Sheila was found on the bed beside her mother.

[JackieD]

Vile person, he was crying his eyes out on National tv because he knows the truth is close to be revealed to the general public

[Rob_]

I struggle to believe that no one can remember who phoned the Police it was such an important moment?

There was also a phone call DB made to AP about the return of the silencer, though he really meant the return of the keys? AP is another one with a bad memory.

[Adam]

Rob is getting determined. Reading WS & court testimonies & searching for minor differences.

At least he is trying. Unlike Lookout & JackieD. 

[lookout]

Rob is getting determined. Reading WS & court testimonies & searching for minor differences.

At least he is trying. Unlike Lookout & JackieD.

And all you can do is to nit-pick and constantly pass remarks like your mate QT.  Sad pair !

[Rob_]

Rob is getting determined. Reading WS & court testimonies & searching for minor differences.

At least he is trying. Unlike Lookout & JackieD.

DB even got his age wrong in one statement now that is forgetful??

[David1819]

I struggle to believe that no one can remember who phoned the Police it was such an important moment?

There was also a phone call DB made to AP about the return of the silencer, though he really meant the return of the keys? AP is another one with a bad memory.

It was Ann Eaton who rang the police

AEs Examination by Arlidge QC

Q. As a result of that being found, were police contacted?

A. Yes, Witham Police

Q. Do you know the date on which that took place?

A. Saturday night.

Q. That very evening?

A. Yes.

MR. Justice Drake : (To the witness): Q: Who actually contacted them?

A. It was probably me, but I cannot remember, but Witham Police were contacted.

[Rob_]

It was Ann Eaton who rang the police

AEs Examination by Arlidge QC

Q. As a result of that being found, were police contacted?

A. Yes, Witham Police

Q. Do you know the date on which that took place?

A. Saturday night.

Q. That very evening?

A. Yes.

MR. Justice Drake : (To the witness): Q: Who actually contacted them?

A. It was probably me, but I cannot remember, but Witham Police were contacted.

Thanks David, I had read that but she was not sure though?

[David1819]

Extract of David Boutflour’s statement 12.9.85

“Also in the box was a sound moderator for a .22 rifle. I picked up the sound moderator and saw what I believe to be blood on it. Also there was red paint or something similar on it as well. There was one quite deep scratch which was bright and appeared to be new. I took these items together with the other firearms to my sister’s home.

I latter informed the Police of the finding of the telescopic sight and the sound moderator.”

Court Testimony

MR. RIVLIN: When you took the box which contained the silencer out of the gun cupboard, whichever that box may have been, is it right you actually looked at the silencer then and there?  A. I looked at the silencer then and there, but did not come to any conclusion until a latter date, because I looked at the silencer at a latter date at my sister’s home.

Q. Where did you look at it when you were in White House Farm? In which room where you when you looked at it?   A. I looked at it in the confines of the office in the den.

Q. Is this right: Did you see anything of significance at the time in the den on the silencer?   A. I cannot remember whether I noticed the fact it had the red paint on it and the undermentioned spot of blood at the time of inspecting it in the office, or on further investigation at my sister’s house. The notability of the damage to the silencer, i.e. the protective coating to the silencer.

Q. So you have no memory of noticing anything significant on the silencer at White House Farm?   A. I have the memory of noticing the damage to the silencer, but not the spot of blood.

Q. Not blood and not red paint?   A. I cannot recollect so far back now, sorry.

Then Latter:
Q. You rang to tell them about the silencer?  A. I did not ring them somebody did.

So in his first statement DB said he saw the paint and blood etc. while at WHF and it was he who  informed the Police, but at trial the paint and blood was seen at AE's house and it was someone else who phoned the Police. None of the relatives seem to remember who did ring the police?

I don't think DB is saying he rang the police on August 10th.

"I latter informed the Police of the finding of the telescopic sight and the sound moderator.”

This could mean telling the police later via witness statements ect.

As for not noticing any blood or paint on the silencer when he first collected it, he was being honest there as he didn't have the guts to lie in court.

[Rob_]

I don't think DB is saying he rang the police on August 10th.

"I latter informed the Police of the finding of the telescopic sight and the sound moderator.”

This could mean telling the police later via witness statements ect.

As for not noticing any blood or paint on the silencer when he first collected it, he was being honest there as he didn't have the guts to lie in court.

Yes perhaps I am wrong in assuming he phoned? I know he rang AP and AP advised him to immediately return the silencer to the Police. It does not sit well with me that so much doubt surrounds such a important part of the case.

[arthur]

If I could ask if one point can be clarified here. Is there written testimony given by David Boutflour saying when he took the silencer to "his sister house" it was placed in the boot of her car. Testimony, not opinion.

His statement 12.9.85 he says he saw "blood on it..and red paint.."...but at trial he said under oath " I have no memory of seing blood or redpaint.."

If he says at trial..."yes I saw blood and red paint on it"....how does that effect the Chain of custody rule. Him taking it away from Police possession.

If he says at trial .."no..I saw nothing unusual..no blood or redpaint.." Does it then follow that the silencer in DB possession does not come under the COC rule.

How can an item of evidence be deemed admissable for forensic analysis with such a lax COC.

COC rules are meant to prevent contamination or potential tampering.

I'm not convinced the silencer was even used.

[Rob_]

If I could ask if one point can be clarified here. Is there written testimony given by David Boutflour saying when he took the silencer to "his sister house" it was placed in the boot of her car. Testimony, not opinion.

His statement 12.9.85 he says he saw "blood on it..and red paint.."...but at trial he said under oath " I have no memory of seing blood or redpaint.."

If he says at trial..."yes I saw blood and red paint on it"....how does that effect the Chain of custody rule. Him taking it away from Police possession.

If he says at trial .."no..I saw nothing unusual..no blood or redpaint.." Does it then follow that the silencer in DB possession does not come under the COC rule.

How can an item of evidence be deemed admissable for forensic analysis with such a lax COC.

COC rules are meant to prevent contamination or potential tampering.

I'm not convinced the silencer was even used.

All the statements are such a mess, AE in her first statement does not even mention the silencer. DB found it but everyone their would have seen it and going by what was said at trail no one saw any blood or paint until at AE's house?

If it was me I would not have touched it and driven it straight to the Police and handed it in.

I think DB in his first statement uses the word "I" all the time, and he says "I took these items together with the firearms to my sisters house" and "I latter informed the Police" etc.

AE says "my farther my brother and I loaded my car with the guns and ammunition" the boot to my knowledge is not mentioned but assumed?

[killingeve]

If I could ask if one point can be clarified here. Is there written testimony given by David Boutflour saying when he took the silencer to "his sister house" it was placed in the boot of her car. Testimony, not opinion.

His statement 12.9.85 he says he saw "blood on it..and red paint.."...but at trial he said under oath " I have no memory of seing blood or redpaint.."

If he says at trial..."yes I saw blood and red paint on it"....how does that effect the Chain of custody rule. Him taking it away from Police possession.

If he says at trial .."no..I saw nothing unusual..no blood or redpaint.." Does it then follow that the silencer in DB possession does not come under the COC rule.

How can an item of evidence be deemed admissable for forensic analysis with such a lax COC.

COC rules are meant to prevent contamination or potential tampering.

I'm not convinced the silencer was even used.

Have you read his trial testimony?  If not its in the library here.  Obviously he talks about finding the silencer and his contact with it thereafter.

[killingeve]

Yes Rob, his sister suffered from the same affliction as she couldn't remember who it was who'd told her that Sheila was found on the bed beside her mother.

You are hardly in a postion to criticise others about remembering anything given your posts!