Sequence of events surrounding the silencer.

[Jane]

This is one of the central problems of the theory that the silencer was planted by the family.  It has been discussed before, and when I can, I may pull out my own posts on the issue.  Here I will summarise a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp can make to this, and another central problem.

I am non-committal on the matter.  I think there is evidence that the blood distribution within the silencer is consistent with the blood having been planted, but that does not mean the evidence was planted.  Furthermore, I think if this evidence was planted, it should still be possible to prove it at some level, but at the moment, I regard the position as uncertain.

I am not sure that I would accept the idea of Anne Eaton as a conspirator.  If there was a conspiracy, I would assume it would involve Robert Boutflour, Jnr. and David Boutflour only - father and son, sworn to secrecy.  But I am not saying they did this, or anything.  I don't know!  I don't want myself or this Forum to be sued for libel.

The argument from guilters is that the family could not have planted the silencer because:

(i). they were not cognisant of the drawback phenomenon; and,
(ii). they would not have appreciated the evidential significance of the silencer itself;
(iii). they did not have access to Sheila's blood.

Let me add another strong pro-guilt point that I thought of when I was going over this in my head:

(iv). How does the family know what the police have or have not checked, seen and observed when looking in the gun cupboard and examining the various firearms and paraphernalia?  For all the family know, police officers may well have already examined the silencer in situ and decided it should bear no significance to the investigation.  The police may also have indexed and recorded their findings.

Even if you are pro-innocent and want to dismiss these points, let's agree on something: if the silencer was planted, whoever was responsible was taking a calculated risk.  But as David observes, criminals do take risks.

Now, here is a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp could make to all this:

In regard to (i), the family were not experts in forensic ballistics, but they didn't need to be.  They were gun users and would have enough knowledge and intuitive understanding to appreciate the significance of the silencer.  They would also intuitively understand that any sort of blood found in the silencer - especially human blood of any type - would throw the investigation a wobbly and potentially cast suspicion on Jeremy.  Remember that the aim may have been not to incriminate Jeremy at all, but merely to cause issues and trouble for him, cast general doubt over his innocence (if not legal doubt, then at least a shade of factual doubt), and damage his credibility during a period when he was vulnerable.  That kind of evidence may also be useful in civil proceedings against Jeremy over the Bamber-Speakman estates, in the event that Jeremy is not charged, or he is acquitted following a criminal trial.   

Turning to (ii), there are two threads to the objection.  First, how did they know that the rifle could not have been used by Sheila to kill herself with the silencer attached to it?  Second, how did they know to put Sheila's blood in the silencer instead of, say, Nevill's or June's?  The reply to the first point is that they did not even need to think about it.  Their issue was that the silencer was missing and they then found it.  It was Stan Jones who came up with the idea that the rifle with a silencer attached was too long for Sheila.  The reply to the second point is that they didn't need to be concerned with whose blood it was, because:

- any sort of blood found in the silencer would cast suspicion on Jeremy;
- human blood of any type found in the silencer would probably lead to Jeremy being charged, but not necessarily convicted;
- human blood of the right type found in the silencer could be enough for a jury to convict him, but it depends on the other evidence, as it's mainly a circumstantial case.

Turning to (iii), the problem with this objection is that it assumes the identification of the blood matters.  You forget that, given science and technology of the time, the forensic case against Jeremy was probabilistic because the trial could not pinpoint that it was Sheila's blood.  Instead, what the prosecution were saying to the jury is:

(a). the blood is human blood;
(b). the human blood is of a type that is the same as Sheila's;
(c). the rifle was legally Nevill's, but in fact it was Jeremy's gun (there is no suggestion Jeremy was using the gun illegally during the normal course of things, as he could assert a statutory dispensation);
(d). Jeremy admits that he was the last person to handle the gun prior to the incident;
(e). Jeremy admits that he was aware of the incident involving Sheila via a phone call from Nevill, the veracity for which the court is entirely reliant on Jeremy himself;
(f). given facts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), the legal onus shifts to Jeremy to explain why there is blood in the silencer, and you, as the jury, must consider any explanation he offer, or no explanation, against all the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the evidence of Julie Mugford;
(g). Jeremy's explanation is that Sheila is the killer and she must have replaced the silencer in the gun cupboard before shooting herself;
(h). in all the circumstances, and weighing up the probabilities, Jeremy's explanation seems improbable;
(i). the criminal burden of proof is that you must be sure, but the improbability of Jeremy's explanation is such that his innocence is at the very margins of plausibility, hence the Crown submits that the jury can be sure of Jeremy's guilt.

You may agree with all this, but the key point is that the prosecution could not be sure it was Sheila's blood on the basis of a specific test for that purpose.  It is possible that in fact it was someone else's blood, of the same type or even a different type.  I think it follows that the family must have been aware of two things:

- blood could not be identified, it could only be typed;
- even human blood of an entirely different type would circumstantially throw doubt on Jeremy's innocent act.

There are two possibilities:

Possibility A: the conspirators may have just put any old blood in the silencer, on the basis that any human blood causes problems for Jeremy but could not be identified as blood of the family.  The coincidence of blood types benefited the prosecution case without casting suspicion on the family, but this was not planned.

Possibility B: the conspirators knew Sheila's blood type from family information and knew Ribetr Boutflour Jnr.'s blood type and also knew from general knowledge that blood could not be identified, it could only be typed, so they planted the 'right' blood in the silencer, anticipating that Jeremy could then be charged with the murders.

One further point to consider is that the family were blood tested by the police prior to the trial.  Nobody seems to have suggested that because Robert Boutflour, Jnr.'s blood type matched Sheila's, and therefore matched the weapon, that this means there was an attempt to frame Jeremy.

As for (iv), the family may have been told by the police in casual conversation that nothing had been found.  Or they may have just taken the chance, in the belief that if caught out, they could allege that the police had missed that particular silencer.  The family had firearms silencers of their own that resembled that one and could easily have added one of these to make it look like there were multiple silencers.  Indeed, this may well be what actually happened, given that we know the FSS examined at least two different silencers.

Please understand that I am not saying any of this is the case.  I only offer you possible replies to the objections raised. 

I have my own private suspicions about it all, but it is for you to decide what you think.

With regards to the wider family knowing Sheila's blood group. Perhaps I was thinking about it when I told the nurse, who took my blood this morning, that I had no idea what my blood group was. I may have been expecting her to tell me, but she said that she wasn't surprised, and that it seemed that only those who gave blood/had blood disorders would be likely to know what their blood group was. She said it wasn't possible for her to tell me. Much has previously been made about how easy it would be for the family to find out Sheila's blood group the information, but I'd have been hard pushed to find out what my own was, this morning.

[killingeve]

With regards to the wider family knowing Sheila's blood group. Perhaps I was thinking about it when I told the nurse, who took my blood this morning, that I had no idea what my blood group was. I may have been expecting her to tell me, but she said that she wasn't surprised, and that it seemed that only those who gave blood/had blood disorders would be likely to know what their blood group was. She said it wasn't possible for her to tell me. Much has previously been made about how easy it would be for the family to find out Sheila's blood group the information, but I'd have been hard pushed to find out what my own was, this morning.

Bearing in mind this wasn't just the ABO groupings, which most people have at least heard of from O level biology even if they don't know their own grouping, but enzymes and proteins too.  I mean who on planet earth know their groupings for the following: Adenylate Kinase (AK), Erythrocyte Acid Phosphtase (EAP), Haptogoblin (HP) and Phosphoglucomutase (PGM).  In fact I bet most haven't even heard of these enzymes and proteins let alone which group they fall into! 

The whole idea of the relatives contaminating the silencer is beyond ridiculous. 

[JackieD]

This is one of the central problems of the theory that the silencer was planted by the family.  It has been discussed before, and when I can, I may pull out my own posts on the issue.  Here I will summarise a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp can make to this, and another central problem.

I am non-committal on the matter.  I think there is evidence that the blood distribution within the silencer is consistent with the blood having been planted, but that does not mean the evidence was planted.  Furthermore, I think if this evidence was planted, it should still be possible to prove it at some level, but at the moment, I regard the position as uncertain.

I am not sure that I would accept the idea of Anne Eaton as a conspirator.  If there was a conspiracy, I would assume it would involve Robert Boutflour, Jnr. and David Boutflour only - father and son, sworn to secrecy.  But I am not saying they did this, or anything.  I don't know!  I don't want myself or this Forum to be sued for libel.

The argument from guilters is that the family could not have planted the silencer because:

(i). they were not cognisant of the drawback phenomenon; and,
(ii). they would not have appreciated the evidential significance of the silencer itself;
(iii). they did not have access to Sheila's blood.

Let me add another strong pro-guilt point that I thought of when I was going over this in my head:

(iv). How does the family know what the police have or have not checked, seen and observed when looking in the gun cupboard and examining the various firearms and paraphernalia?  For all the family know, police officers may well have already examined the silencer in situ and decided it should bear no significance to the investigation.  The police may also have indexed and recorded their findings.

Even if you are pro-innocent and want to dismiss these points, let's agree on something: if the silencer was planted, whoever was responsible was taking a calculated risk.  But as David observes, criminals do take risks.

Now, here is a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp could make to all this:

In regard to (i), the family were not experts in forensic ballistics, but they didn't need to be.  They were gun users and would have enough knowledge and intuitive understanding to appreciate the significance of the silencer.  They would also intuitively understand that any sort of blood found in the silencer - especially human blood of any type - would throw the investigation a wobbly and potentially cast suspicion on Jeremy.  Remember that the aim may have been not to incriminate Jeremy at all, but merely to cause issues and trouble for him, cast general doubt over his innocence (if not legal doubt, then at least a shade of factual doubt), and damage his credibility during a period when he was vulnerable.  That kind of evidence may also be useful in civil proceedings against Jeremy over the Bamber-Speakman estates, in the event that Jeremy is not charged, or he is acquitted following a criminal trial.   

Turning to (ii), there are two threads to the objection.  First, how did they know that the rifle could not have been used by Sheila to kill herself with the silencer attached to it?  Second, how did they know to put Sheila's blood in the silencer instead of, say, Nevill's or June's?  The reply to the first point is that they did not even need to think about it.  Their issue was that the silencer was missing and they then found it.  It was Stan Jones who came up with the idea that the rifle with a silencer attached was too long for Sheila.  The reply to the second point is that they didn't need to be concerned with whose blood it was, because:

- any sort of blood found in the silencer would cast suspicion on Jeremy;
- human blood of any type found in the silencer would probably lead to Jeremy being charged, but not necessarily convicted;
- human blood of the right type found in the silencer could be enough for a jury to convict him, but it depends on the other evidence, as it's mainly a circumstantial case.

Turning to (iii), the problem with this objection is that it assumes the identification of the blood matters.  You forget that, given science and technology of the time, the forensic case against Jeremy was probabilistic because the trial could not pinpoint that it was Sheila's blood.  Instead, what the prosecution were saying to the jury is:

(a). the blood is human blood;
(b). the human blood is of a type that is the same as Sheila's;
(c). the rifle was legally Nevill's, but in fact it was Jeremy's gun (there is no suggestion Jeremy was using the gun illegally during the normal course of things, as he could assert a statutory dispensation);
(d). Jeremy admits that he was the last person to handle the gun prior to the incident;
(e). Jeremy admits that he was aware of the incident involving Sheila via a phone call from Nevill, the veracity for which the court is entirely reliant on Jeremy himself;
(f). given facts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), the legal onus shifts to Jeremy to explain why there is blood in the silencer, and you, as the jury, must consider any explanation he offer, or no explanation, against all the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the evidence of Julie Mugford;
(g). Jeremy's explanation is that Sheila is the killer and she must have replaced the silencer in the gun cupboard before shooting herself;
(h). in all the circumstances, and weighing up the probabilities, Jeremy's explanation seems improbable;
(i). the criminal burden of proof is that you must be sure, but the improbability of Jeremy's explanation is such that his innocence is at the very margins of plausibility, hence the Crown submits that the jury can be sure of Jeremy's guilt.

You may agree with all this, but the key point is that the prosecution could not be sure it was Sheila's blood on the basis of a specific test for that purpose.  It is possible that in fact it was someone else's blood, of the same type or even a different type.  I think it follows that the family must have been aware of two things:

- blood could not be identified, it could only be typed;
- even human blood of an entirely different type would circumstantially throw doubt on Jeremy's innocent act.

There are two possibilities:

Possibility A: the conspirators may have just put any old blood in the silencer, on the basis that any human blood causes problems for Jeremy but could not be identified as blood of the family.  The coincidence of blood types benefited the prosecution case without casting suspicion on the family, but this was not planned.

Possibility B: the conspirators knew Sheila's blood type from family information and knew Ribetr Boutflour Jnr.'s blood type and also knew from general knowledge that blood could not be identified, it could only be typed, so they planted the 'right' blood in the silencer, anticipating that Jeremy could then be charged with the murders.

One further point to consider is that the family were blood tested by the police prior to the trial.  Nobody seems to have suggested that because Robert Boutflour, Jnr.'s blood type matched Sheila's, and therefore matched the weapon, that this means there was an attempt to frame Jeremy.

As for (iv), the family may have been told by the police in casual conversation that nothing had been found.  Or they may have just taken the chance, in the belief that if caught out, they could allege that the police had missed that particular silencer.  The family had firearms silencers of their own that resembled that one and could easily have added one of these to make it look like there were multiple silencers.  Indeed, this may well be what actually happened, given that we know the FSS examined at least two different silencers.

Please understand that I am not saying any of this is the case.  I only offer you possible replies to the objections raised. 

I have my own private suspicions about it all, but it is for you to decide what you think.

QC I think you should follow this post with another long informative post on the inheritance issue. If we are discussing tampering with evidence you have to talk in detail about why anyone had a motive to plant evidence/pervert the cause of justice

It is continually written that Jeremy’s motive to murder his family was money but because of the murders the family were left in a very precarious situation financially which would impact on all there lives

The inheritance issue is such an important factor in this case that cannot be ignored

[killingeve]

QC I think you should follow this post with another long informative post on the inheritance issue. If we are discussing tampering with evidence you have to talk in detail about why anyone had a motive to plant evidence/pervert the cause of justice

It is continually written that Jeremy’s motive to murder his family was money but because of the murders the family were left in a very precarious situation financially which would impact on all there lives

The inheritance issue is such an important factor in this case that cannot be ignored

Please explain.

Perpetrators usually need the means, motive and opportunity to commit a crime.  Even if 'supporters' believe the relatives had the motive how do you explain the means and opportunity of fabricating the silencer?  Opportunity may be less of a problem given they found it but having the means is altogether a different animal! 

[Adam]

QC I think you should follow this post with another long informative post on the inheritance issue. If we are discussing tampering with evidence you have to talk in detail about why anyone had a motive to plant evidence/pervert the cause of justice

It is continually written that Jeremy’s motive to murder his family was money but because of the murders the family were left in a very precarious situation financially which would impact on all there lives

The inheritance issue is such an important factor in this case that cannot be ignored

Now that is the kind of reply QC wants.

If I start disecting his long posts he either -

Starts calling me names.

Complains to NGB

Tells me to create seperate threads.

[guest29835]

Now that is the kind of reply QC wants.

If I start disecting his long posts he either -

Starts calling me names.

Complains to NGB

Tells me to create seperate threads.

Thanks Adam.  Appreciate you need to give me the 'hard word' now and then.

Adam provides moral support to waverers like myself, via the PM system, and with a ‘hard word’ occasionally on the Forum.

Cambridgecutie is handing out some good old-fashioned discipline.  Just the ticket to deal with recalcitrant youngsters like Roch and Rob!

Real Justice is in charge of physical fitness and puts me through my paces, with early reveilles and country runs.

Steve looks after ethics and makes sure that posters don’t stray too far off-course.

Judge Jane is available to sentence transgressors.  Serious offenders like QCChevalier can expect some hard time.  Young, first-time offenders like Rob should expect to be given a second chance, but with conditions, such as not being allowed near a sun bed for a set period.

It’s all falling into place.

[Adam]

I suspect it was Ann Eaton acting alone. And I'm not the first.

As for libel, will they really take the risk of being cross-examined again, and under a different pretence that the defence should have used 35 years ago? I think there are two chances of that happening, slim and none and slims out of town.

Who else is there?

[killingeve]

They did have means and opportunity.

They knew Jeremy said he left the rifle out without the silencer on. Thus they could seemingly contradict his statements.

They knew where Nevills body was found.
They knew Nevill had bad facial injuries.
They knew the coat was obscuring an area of the mantle from crime scene photos where they later showed the scratches to the police.
They knew there was a mess in the kitchen.
Thus they could make it seem the silencer was involved in the kitchen altercation.


They knew Sheila was shot under the chin/neck.
They had both Sheila's bloodand the silencer in their possession.
They had unlimited access to the crime scene.
Thus they could make it appear she was shot with the silencer attached and a killer put it away.

They didn't have Sheila's blood.  They had a pair of period blood stained knickers found soaking in a bucket of water.  There's a world of difference.  To produce results for the enzyme and protein markers you need good quality DRIED stains of a certain size.

[Inserted Comments, by 'miketesko' (ADMIN) '3rd December 2021' at '8.40am', below..
   'A blood sample that was taken at the time of the autopsy performed on 'Sheila Caffell' [7th August 1985] went missing. IT WAS ONE OF 'DI Cooks' exhibits! This could be significant because 'DI Cook', 'dismantled one of the silencers' [`DB/1'] on the '29th August 1985', prior to him forwarding the rebuilt silencer in question, to the Lab' at 'Huntingdon' for the attention of 'Malcolm Fletcher'. It is 'suspected', that 'DI Cook' 'introduced 'the missing blood sample' that had been 'taken' from the body of 'Sheila' beforehand by 'himself'

It should be noted, that at the time 'DI Cook' dismantled the aforementioned silencer, that 'he did not see any evidence of blood' (whatsoever) 'on internal baffle plates' which as it turns out, 'he had separated the first half dozen' or so, of 'the silencers 17 baffle plates'! [by the way 'DI Cook' took photographs of the dismantled silencer] It was this particular silencer [`DB/1'] inside of which 'John Hayward' discovered the key blood source of 'Sheila Caffells' blood groups, on the following dates:- 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985'. This is bewildering, since `David Boutflour', 'Ann Eaton', 'Robert Boutflour', 'DI Cook' and 'Malcolm Fletcher', 'never saw any blood' on 'any of the 17 baffle plates' until then [ 12th to 19th September 1985]...

[killingeve]

They didn't have Sheila's blood.  They had a pair of period blood stained knickers found soaking in a bucket of water.  There's a world of difference.  To produce results for the enzyme and protein markers you need good quality DRIED stains of a certain size.

[Inserted Comments, by 'miketesko' (ADMIN) '3rd December 2021' at '8.40am', below..
   'A blood sample that was taken at the time of the autopsy performed on 'Sheila Caffell' [7th August 1985] went missing. IT WAS ONE OF 'DI Cooks' exhibits! This could be significant because 'DI Cook', 'dismantled one of the silencers' [`DB/1'] on the '29th August 1985', prior to him forwarding the rebuilt silencer in question, to the Lab' at 'Huntingdon' for the attention of 'Malcolm Fletcher'. It is 'suspected', that 'DI Cook' 'introduced 'the missing blood sample' that had been 'taken' from the body of 'Sheila' beforehand by 'himself'

It should be noted, that at the time 'DI Cook' dismantled the aforementioned silencer, that 'he did not see any evidence of blood' (whatsoever) 'on internal baffle plates' which as it turns out, 'he had separated the first half dozen' or so, of 'the silencers 17 baffle plates'! [by the way 'DI Cook' took photographs of the dismantled silencer] It was this particular silencer [`DB/1'] inside of which 'John Hayward' discovered the key blood source of 'Sheila Caffells' blood groups, on the following dates:- 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985'. This is bewildering, since `David Boutflour', 'Ann Eaton', 'Robert Boutflour', 'DI Cook' and 'Malcolm Fletcher', 'never saw any blood' on 'any of the 17 baffle plates' until then [ 12th to 19th September 1985]...

It's the 2nd December today not the 3rd. 

I believe you're wrong about the above.

[Adam]

The idea that the relatives would use diluted period blood & scratch the aga, to frame an innocent man (according to Taff) of killing his own family, is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

[Adam]

The idea that the relatives would use diluted period blood & scratch the aga, to frame an innocent man (according to Taff) of killing his own family, is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Nevill ringing Bamber & Julie committing massive perjury because Bamber apparently jilted her, comes a close second.

[David1819]

The idea that the relatives would use diluted period blood & scratch the aga, to frame an innocent man (according to Taff) of killing his own family, is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

The relatives believed JB was guilty and to them they were doing justice. If you don't realize how suspiciously convenient it is them "finding" it, then you probably have some form of Asperger's syndrome.

[Adam]

The relatives believed JB was guilty and to them they were doing justice. If you don't realize how suspiciously convenient it is them "finding" it, then you probably have some form of Asperger's syndrome.

Do you not believe Bamber would use a silencer. In a silent massacre attempt?

Then take it off after shooting Sheila?

[Adam]

The idea that the relatives would use diluted period blood & scratch the aga, to frame an innocent man (according to Taff) of killing his own family, is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

[lookout]

The idea that the relatives would use diluted period blood & scratch the aga, to frame an innocent man (according to Taff) of killing his own family, is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Nothing's ridiculous if you don't particularly like a person. People go to great lengths to claw back what they think is, or should be theirs. Wouldn't you if you could get away with it ?