Here, 'are the 5 problems' surrounding 'what the photograph in question' establishes beyond 'any reasonable doubt' that 'cops', 'relatives', and 'so called experts at Huntingdon Lab', 'staged the photographic evidence', the 'various bodily postures' and ( also) 'they faked the validity' of 'many crime scene [referenced] exhibits', 'at', or 'from the scene' including 'facts regarding', 'who found' it, or 'seized' it and 'the occasion', that 'such an exhibit', 'was first discovered' or 'taken possession of' (initially) on 'the very first occasion' it became an item of interest' [to them] - a typical example, is the faked claim that 'there was only one silencer at the heart of the police` and `the prosecutions corrupt case', involving, 'one' or 'more', silencers!
Surely, 'no honest decent member of the public', 'believes that' there was 'only ever just one silencer' that was 'found', 'seized' or 'taken possession of'? A 'legitimate court hearing' 'does not', and 'should not', have 'more than one exhibit reference', in 'any' or 'under any circumstances' [unless, 'there is confirmation' in 'a witness statement', that 'the reason for such discrepancies [may], `exist' , because 'the witness in question', as 'the actual person', who they received it (the item in question) from 'whom' they refer to by a different t exhibit (and 'item referenced') ...
I mean, 'SJ/1', 'SBJ/1', DB/1', 'AE/1', 'CAE/1' and 'DRB/1' [ various ' exhibit references']
[problem (4) - the 'white arrow', 'shown on the rifles wooden butt', denotes 'the date' that 'Di Cook' Fingerprinted the rifle in question [ 23rd August 1985] using the 'oblique light test procedure / process' and the finding 'Sheila Caffells fingerprints' on the wooden butt of the rifle]
problem (3) - the 'wooden [piece of] stock belonging to a rifle [photographed at the scene on the first morning of the police investigation] 'cannot have belonged to', or 'have originated' from' the 'Bamber owned', '. 22 semi-automatic Anshuzt rifle' at the time of any attack upon 'Neville Bamber' during the circumstances of any struggle prior to him losing the battle to survive, because at the time the crucial photograph of '. That rifle fitted with a silencer, telescopic site, and after which it had already been fingerprinted by' Di Cook' using the all important oblique light test/procedure [performed on the 23rd August 1985] does 'not appear to be damaged at all' in 'the area of that rifles wooden butt', a factor suggestive of 'that broken piece of a wooden rifle butt', could 'not have derived' from the. 22 semi-automatic rifle at the scene (during any struggle with 'Neville Bamber') in the kitchen, which is 'inconsistent' with 'photographic content', that was 'taken at the scene', on 'the first morning of the police investigation' which depict 'a broken piece of a rifles wooden butt', discarded upon 'the kitchen floor' in 'an area beneath the aga surround','Close' to 'the body' [7th August 1985] ..
problem (1) - there is 'no exhibit label attached to the silencer', despite the suggestion that 'DI Cook' states in his evidence, that on the date that he first took the silencer to the laboratory [`13th August 1985'] to be examined by 'Glynis Howard', that 'it' did not have an exhibit label attached to it, so 'Cook' attached a blank one, after both 'he' and 'Glynis Howard' signed it at positions 2 and 3 [he states, that position 1 on the label was 'left blank' for 'the finder of the silencer' to 'sign later on']. 'He' added, that because he had been handed 'this' /'that' silencer on that very same morning by 'DS Jones', that 'he' gave that an exhibit reference of 'SJ/1', which was allocated, along with 'an item reference number of 22'.[much `later`] which when 'he' was 'questioned' by 'COLP INVESTIGATORS' [1991] regarding why there existed more than three exhibit references [`SJ/1'(22), 'DB/1' (23), `AE/1'(?), 'CAE/1'(?) and 'DRB/1' (23/22)], 'DI COOK' gave the explanation, that 'he was not aware' (at that time) that 'DS Jones' had a middle Christian name ['Brian'] and 'only knew him', as 'Stan Jones' [hence, why he gave the silencer the exhibit reference of', `SJ/1'] - CODSWALLOP'!!!
Problem (2) - 'The telescopic site', was 'not received' by 'the Essex police' from 'Ann Eaton'/'David Boutflour' until 'the 11th September 1985', along with 'a silencer' [ originally given the following 'two exhibit references' - `AE/1' - 'CAE/1', and which subsequently became exhibit (reference) 'DRB/1' (Court exhibit no. 9). Between the '11th September 1985' and 'the 20th September 1985', 'this' / 'that', 'silencer exhibit' remained 'in the possession of Essex police' which 'had associated to it', 'three separate versions' of 'an exhibit reference' [`AE/1', 'transfigured' (at the stroke of a pen) into 'CAE/1', until the powers that be, decided to refer to it, by the 'exhibit reference' of 'DRB/1' ('laboratory item no. 23', and 'Court item no. 9'). This 'latest alteration' coincided `with the date` [`20th September 1985'] when 'this particular silencer' (in all of 'its previous exhibit reference disguises', was 'sent' or 'taken' to 'Huntingdon Laboratory' for 'the very first time' , on 'the 20th September 1985'. In other words, this particular silencer ( in all its various exhibit reference disguises' was not the / a silencer, taken by 'Di Cook' to the Laboratory to be examined by 'Glyniss Howard' on 'the 13th August 1985 referred to by' Di Cook' as 'exhibit reference', 'SJ/1' yet referred to, by 'Glyniss Howard' in one of her witness statements regarding the same occasion of 'that examination, by referring to 'it'/'that silencer', as bearing 'exhibit reference', 'DRB/1'. This is indicative, of someone in authority, altering 'Glynis Howards' witness statement without her knowledge, for the purpose of 'merging the identity of two or more different silencers that were taken or submitted to the lab' to be examined on 'the 13th August 1985' and on the 30th August 1985'.. Moreover, once 'Ann Eaton' handed over the silencer to Essex police' on 'the 11th September 1985' and the date of `its first submission` to `Huntingdon Laboratory` [on 'the 20th September 1985'] `Essex police' 'fingerprinted', 'that' / 'this silencer' using 'cynoacrylate technique' at 'Chelmsford police headquarters' ('superglue treatment'), despite the fact that 'if' there had been, or was, only ever one silencer used at the heart of the police/prosecutions case, that 'DI Cook' had
the ['15th August 1985' by way of an 'oblique light test technique' and 'on a second occasion', the[/u][/color]'23rd August 1985' [/u][/color] when 'he re-fingerprinted' the 'same silencer', by way of 'superglue treatment'. As far as scientific technique are concerned, it 'is impossible' to 'successfully refingerprint', 'a silencer' on a later date, than 'it was originally fingerprinted' using 'the cynoacrylate practice' already 'carried out on the ('alledged') same silencer', [previously] which 'in this case`, 'took place' on the 23rd August 1985 by 'Di Cook',
Foolowed later on by refingerprinting of a silencer, on the '13th September 1985'and ['WHICH' took place] 'after the second submission of a silencer' which supposedly took place, between 'Essex police' and 'Huntingdon Laboratory' on 'the 30th August 1985'. If the second submission of a silencer by 'Essex police', to 'Huntingdon Laboratory' took place as the powers that be have claimed, then how could 'DS Eastwood' and 'DS Davison' have got the same silencer in their possession at 'Chelmsford police HQ' on the '13th September 1985' on the pretense that they were 'tasked to fingerprint it' by 'senior officers' who seemed 'HELL BENT' upon changing the focus of the police INVESTIGATION (from that stage onward), from, one of 'four murders' and 'suicide' into a different narrative, where 'they targeted', 'Jeremy Bamber' as being involved in a case of 'five murders' [`THE SAME SILENCER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LOCATIONS', [Huntingdon Laboratory' and 'Chelmsford police HQ', at 'the same time', on 'the same date' (and that is 'A FACT' which no-one can argue with). The absolute truth of the matter, was / is that the silencer found by 'David Boutflour' at the scene, 'was not found by him' on 'Saturday 10th August 1985', (a proposal given by me in this instance, which can be proven by reference to sequences of documented events which those involved know and accept to be true which I will be alluding to in due course) since, 'he actually found it' at the scene [WHF] on a date, after 'Jeremy Bambers' first arrest which occurred on the
