Author Topic: And so, the truth about when the marks on the aga were reported to police?  (Read 1966 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
And so, the truth about when the marks on the aga were reported to police?

According to this document, David Boutfour did not bring the score marks on the underside of the mantelpiece in the kitchen at whf, to the police until 18th September 1985?
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 10:20:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

chochokeira

  • Guest
Thanks for posting this, Mike.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Yet...

DI Cook (SOC) is supposed to have taken a paint sample (RWC/1) from the same area, on 14th August 1985, whilst Ann Eaton was present at whf with him - why is David Boutflour reporting the marks on the underside of the mantelpiece at whf to the police on 18th September 1985, when marks have already supposedly been noted a month previously, and a paint sample taken, which was subsequently matched to red paint found ingrained into the knurled pattern of the silencers end cap??
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 10:25:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

chochokeira

  • Guest
Yet...

DI Cook (SOC) is supposed to have taken a paint sample (RWC/1) from the same area, on 14th August 1985, whilst Ann Eaton was present at whf with him - why is David Boutflour reporting the marks on the underside of the mantelpiece at whf to the police on 18th September 985, when marks have already supposedly been noted a month previously,. and a paint sample taken?

Wilkes says that, on the day following the murders, Stan Jones had convinced himself beyond a shadow of doubt that Jeremy was the murderer and managed to persuade Mick Clark to agree with him.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 10:31:PM by chochokeira »

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Yet...

DI Cook (SOC) is supposed to have taken a paint sample (RWC/1) from the same area, on 14th August 1985, whilst Ann Eaton was present at whf with him - why is David Boutflour reporting the marks on the underside of the mantelpiece at whf to the police on 18th September 985, when marks have already supposedly been noted a month previously,. and a paint sample taken?

Wilkes says that, on the day following the murders, Stan Jones had convinced himself beyond a shadow of doubt that Jeremy was the murderer and managed to persuade Mick Clark to agree with him.
----------------

I think this was / is linked to the fact that DS Jones found the original silencer at the scene (SBJ/1)...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

chochokeira

  • Guest
Yet...

DI Cook (SOC) is supposed to have taken a paint sample (RWC/1) from the same area, on 14th August 1985, whilst Ann Eaton was present at whf with him - why is David Boutflour reporting the marks on the underside of the mantelpiece at whf to the police on 18th September 985, when marks have already supposedly been noted a month previously,. and a paint sample taken?

Wilkes says that, on the day following the murders, Stan Jones had convinced himself beyond a shadow of doubt that Jeremy was the murderer and managed to persuade Mick Clark to agree with him.
----------------

I think this was / is linked to the fact that DS Jones found the original silencer at the scene (SBJ/1)...


Wilkes states that Stan Jones gave three, extremely weak reasons - each of these based on total misconceptions - to explain his belief that Jeremy was the murderer. Wilkes quotes Jones as stating:


"...in my mind something wasn't right. I kept thinking about the hearty breakfast, his general demeanour, and the feeling of the family that Sheila just couldn't have done it."


1. The hearty breakfast. 

My mother and I, both of us in shock following my much loved father's sudden and premature death, sat giggling as we ate a hearty breakfast within hours of my father's death. We couldn't cry and were in complete denial, it was as though we'd both lost our marbles - and in a sense, we had. This is such a common initial experience among the bereaved.

The strangely incongruous effects of the shock and denial that often follow bereavement are well documented.

What's interesting about shock is that those who tend to be most affected by it are those who were closest to the deceased, the ones who loved them the most. Those who were not so close often bypass shock, are able to accept the death and can cry freely to express their grief from the outset.

Stan Jones' failure to grasp this basic fact of bereavement is shocking. Had my father died in suspicious circumstances and had Stan Jones, with his woeful lack of understanding of the effects of shock, interviewed us, might Jone have thought that my mother and I had killed my father?


chochokeira

  • Guest
Yet...

DI Cook (SOC) is supposed to have taken a paint sample (RWC/1) from the same area, on 14th August 1985, whilst Ann Eaton was present at whf with him - why is David Boutflour reporting the marks on the underside of the mantelpiece at whf to the police on 18th September 985, when marks have already supposedly been noted a month previously,. and a paint sample taken?

Wilkes says that, on the day following the murders, Stan Jones had convinced himself beyond a shadow of doubt that Jeremy was the murderer and managed to persuade Mick Clark to agree with him.
----------------

I think this was / is linked to the fact that DS Jones found the original silencer at the scene (SBJ/1)...


Wilkes states that Stan Jones gave three, extremely weak reasons - each of these based on total misconceptions - to explain his belief that Jeremy was the murderer. Wilkes quotes Jones as stating:


"...in my mind something wasn't right. I kept thinking about the hearty breakfast, his general demeanour, and the feeling of the family that Sheila just couldn't have done it."



 2. The feeling of the family that Sheila just couldn't have done it.

I think this must have been the crux of it for Jones as his other reasons were so shockingly flimsy.

From what I've read, it appears that AE sat in on Jeremy's interviews during the first few days, constantly interjecting doubt and disbelief at Jeremy's words and offering her own alternative views. If this is true, she should never have been allowed to do this and I cannot understand why Jones allowed it to happen. Was Jeremy invited to sit in on AE's interviews and allowed to criticise her statement?

Was Jones aware at this stage, as he should have been, that although Jeremy was the main beneficiary of his parents' estate, that would be reversed in favour of his extended family if Jeremy was found guilty of the murders?

If what I've read in Wilkes and Shaw is true, and that's obviously a big 'if', Stan Jones appears to have disliked self assured, arrogant and wealthy Jeremy Bamber from their first meeting, outside WHF on the night of the murders.

The circumstances of Jeremy's interviews during those early days following the murders does not seem to me to have been conducive to either a balanced interview situation or the emergence of truth.

In my opinion.