'IT'S NOW OFFICIAL' - COPS knew about the silencer [7th - 9th August 1985] *****

[mike tesko]

Anthony Pargheter brought up the silencer on the first day. The police then asked Jeremy about it in his witness statement. Ann Eaton overheard this and was then able to later contradict JBs statement by making it seem the silencer was on the gun.

[mike tesko]

Mike,

Are you sure those notes are from DS Jones' interview with COLP?  I will of course defer to your greater knowledge of the documentation, but I always thought they were from his interview by the Dickinson Inquiry in 1986.

The reason I mention this is that, as you will know but others here may not, Stan Jones did give a statement to COLP in 1991.  That was a statement dated 29th. August 1991.
 

'Gascoigne' thank you, for 'taking an interest in this matter'. In particular,  I agree with your view, that the responses given by 'reference to the exracts I have posted' were 'taken at the time of the 'DICKINSON Enquiry' in 1986. Nevertheless, it still formed part and parcel of the 'COLP' enquiry of 1991.

[Bubo bubo]

Hi Mike
It is clear from your excellent and detailed research that SJ revisited the scene. I have wondered whether he was being 'Nosey'. [`a Senior officer who had, or was present at the scene, requested (him) to return to the farmhouse and collect 'a silencer' and convey it to 'Witham police stations' DCI JONES' office desk! This was the main reason why 'DS JONES' left 'Jeremy's cottage' and returned to the scene!]

Do we have any documentation showing what if any items he collected [`YES'] or did he just take some polaroid's? [`upon arrival back at the scene, he did indeed take control of 'the Silencer' ('SBJ1') as well as, 'a calender' that was originally fastened onto the left hand leg of the kitchen aga surround (as viewed from the vantage point of an observer looking forward to it). In addition, he took a couple of photographs, which were never disclosed, one such photograph was taken by him, in the downstairs bathroom/toilet, where 'Anthony Pargeter' kept his. 22 bolt action rifle, 'silencer', and 'a variety of. 22  ammunitions'. 'HE' also, took a further photograph in the kitchen of the view of the aforeme tioned 'calender in position attached to the red painted kitchen aga!  These are, were the four pieces of evidence, that' DS JONES' was/is responsible for having removed or taken at the farmhouse, upon his return there, 'ITEM entries' which are recorded in the original 'Property book Register' (SC/688/85), bearing exhibit references, 'SBJ/1', 'SBJ/2', 'SBJ/3', and 'SBJ/4' [`entries in that property book register', (are) is recorded the following significant information, 'DESTROYED']

If he and Clarke were told to clear off when they visited the main bedroom he may have wondered why.  'It' is with certainty, that 'DS JONES' and 'DC CLARK' left the scene, in order to accompany 'Jeremy' back to 'his cottage', for the purpose of obtaining a witness statement from 'him' I find it hard to think that RC thought SBJ found a silencer. All he had to do was ask the exhibits Officer who found it.

He was the senior crime scene officer on the day and would surely have not attributed an important piece of evidence without ensuring who found it was correct. [`I agree']

I wonder whether SBJ sensed something was 'OFF' and wanted to dig deeper. [`this/that', came 'later']If this was the case was he angry that he was outside 'the loop' of privileged information. [`DS JONES' was 'problematic', in the sense that 'his rank' was insufficient for senior officers to welcome and embrace himself, in a highly sensitive, 'police cover up'

[guest29835]

Mike, Bubo bubo,

I personally think the discrepancy between Stan Jones' 1986 and 1991 statements could be of significance.  Stan Jones clearly misled the Bamber Inquiry.  The question is whether this was due to mistake or on purpose.

I would like to put to you both an alternative explanation for all this, which is a bit more modest than your theories but not too far removed from what you are saying.

I don't believe Essex Police did find a silencer on the 7th. August 1985.  I think what actually could have happened is as follows (some of this is purely speculation as to the actions of individuals):

(i). Firearms officers at the scene may well have noticed the absence of a silencer with the rifle and commented on it.

(ii). There was a search of the gun cupboard that morning and later.  It seems likely to me that the silencer was found at this point but disregarded as it didn't seem of significance - hence the great defensiveness of some Essex police officers later on over the issue.

(iii). Independently of (i) and (ii), Anthony Pargeter was suspicious of Jeremy from the start and queried about the silencer and rifle scope.  He was a more regular gun user than some of the other family, so certain points will have 'clicked' in his head quite quickly.

(iv). The reality for Essex Police now is that part of Nevill Bamber's certificated arsenal is missing.  Normally this would warrant a police inquiry in its own right.  When there's a homicide case involving the rifle that went with the silencer, this should have given officers pause for thought.

(v). As a result of these 'rumblings', DCI Jones and DS Jones mentioned the silencer to Jeremy, but neither saw it as of particular significance.  Nothing further happened.  Despite DS Jones' voiced misgivings, the murder-suicide narrative was maintained.

(vi). The relatives then found the silencer on their search of the White House.  I doubt David Boutflour recognised the significance of it, and this explains why he tampered with it.  Peter Eaton, a gun dealer, understood its significance straight-away, perhaps having discussed it with Anthony Pargeter previously. 

(vii). At this point, I believe there is a real possibility - I won't put it stronger than that on an open forum - that there was contamination of the silencer during its chain-of-custody.

(viii). The finding of blood in the silencer was of major embarrassment to Essex Police, as the artefact had been recovered from the crime scene in a location that the police did search on the 7th. August.  Not only that, if it transpired that officers had indeed found the silencer on the 7th. and seen no significance to it, that would bolster the argument for contamination.

(ix). We now fast forward to the Dickinson Inquiry and the interview of DS Jones, which probably took place in November 1986.  Stan Jones is asked about the silencer.  It needs to be understood that the Dickinson Inquiry was into the police failure to identify Jeremy Bamber as a suspect in August.  It wasn't an inquiry into complaints from Jeremy Bamber, so Stan Jones will have seen no reason other than to give the answers he did about the silencer. 

(x). Now we move forward five years to the Bamber Inquiry in 1991.  This is specifically a complaint from Jeremy Bamber and we can see clearly that Stan Jones is being asked by COLP officers to account for the silencer.  Nothing else is on the agenda for discussion.  Stan Jones fundamentally contradicts his statements to the Dickinson Inquiry. 

Why did he mislead them? 

Three possible explanations:

1. Mistake - perhaps due to the difficulty of memory, coupled with not having access to his notes.  (He may have been retired by this stage).

2. He misled them on purpose about a missing silencer. 

3. He misled them on purpose about a hidden exhibit.

I believe option 2 is the most likely.  In a nutshell, the reason Stan Jones did not want to reveal there had been discussion about a missing silencer is because it would imply by a process of extension that the silencer had been intentionally contaminated.  This is logical because otherwise you would have to wonder how police officers could (a). miss the silencer on a search of the gun cupboard; and (b). on finding the silencer, not notice blood on it.

I am not suggesting Stan Jones himself could have been involved in contaminating the silencer, but he may have suspected the family of having planted the evidence and wanted to put the COLP officers off that line of inquiry.

[guest29835]

Mike, Bubo bubo,

I personally think the discrepancy between Stan Jones' 1986 and 1991 statements could be of significance.  Stan Jones clearly misled the Bamber Inquiry.  The question is whether this was due to mistake or on purpose.

I would like to put to you both an alternative explanation for all this, which is a bit more modest than your theories but not too far removed from what you are saying.

I don't believe Essex Police did find a silencer on the 7th. August 1985.  I think what actually could have happened is as follows (some of this is purely speculation as to the actions of individuals):

(i). Firearms officers at the scene may well have noticed the absence of a silencer with the rifle and commented on it.

(ii). There was a search of the gun cupboard that morning and later.  It seems likely to me that the silencer was found at this point but disregarded as it didn't seem of significance - hence the great defensiveness of some Essex police officers later on over the issue.

(iii). Independently of (i) and (ii), Anthony Pargeter was suspicious of Jeremy from the start and queried about the silencer and rifle scope.  He was a more regular gun user than some of the other family, so certain points will have 'clicked' in his head quite quickly.

(iv). The reality for Essex Police now is that part of Nevill Bamber's certificated arsenal is missing.  Normally this would warrant a police inquiry in its own right.  When there's a homicide case involving the rifle that went with the silencer, this should have given officers pause for thought.

(v). As a result of these 'rumblings', DCI Jones and DS Jones mentioned the silencer to Jeremy, but neither saw it as of particular significance.  Nothing further happened.  Despite DS Jones' voiced misgivings, the murder-suicide narrative was maintained.

(vi). The relatives then found the silencer on their search of the White House.  I doubt David Boutflour recognised the significance of it, and this explains why he tampered with it.  Peter Eaton, a gun dealer, understood its significance straight-away, perhaps having discussed it with Anthony Pargeter previously. 

(vii). At this point, I believe there is a real possibility - I won't put it stronger than that on an open forum - that there was contamination of the silencer during its chain-of-custody.

(viii). The finding of blood in the silencer was of major embarrassment to Essex Police, as the artefact had been recovered from the crime scene in a location that the police did search on the 7th. August.  Not only that, if it transpired that officers had indeed found the silencer on the 7th. and seen no significance to it, that would bolster the argument for contamination.

(ix). We now fast forward to the Dickinson Inquiry and the interview of DS Jones, which probably took place in November 1986.  Stan Jones is asked about the silencer.  It needs to be understood that the Dickinson Inquiry was into the police failure to identify Jeremy Bamber as a suspect in August.  It wasn't an inquiry into complaints from Jeremy Bamber, so Stan Jones will have seen no reason other than to give the answers he did about the silencer. 

(x). Now we move forward five years to the Bamber Inquiry in 1991.  This is specifically a complaint from Jeremy Bamber and we can see clearly that Stan Jones is being asked by COLP officers to account for the silencer.  Nothing else is on the agenda for discussion.  Stan Jones fundamentally contradicts his statements to the Dickinson Inquiry. 

Why did he mislead them? 

Three possible explanations:

1. Mistake - perhaps due to the difficulty of memory, coupled with not having access to his notes.  (He may have been retired by this stage).

2. He misled them on purpose about a missing silencer. 

3. He misled them on purpose about a hidden exhibit.

I believe option 2 is the most likely.  In a nutshell, the reason Stan Jones did not want to reveal there had been discussion about a missing silencer is because it would imply by a process of extension that the silencer had been intentionally contaminated.  This is logical because otherwise you would have to wonder how police officers could (a). miss the silencer on a search of the gun cupboard; and (b). on finding the silencer, not notice blood on it.

I am not suggesting Stan Jones himself could have been involved in contaminating the silencer, but he may have suspected the family of having planted the evidence and wanted to put the COLP officers off that line of inquiry.

I've just realised, there's another way of putting the opening idea in that post.

I said that I don't believe Essex Police found a silencer that morning, by which I mean they didn't find a silencer that was covered up.

What I meant to say is:

They DID find a silencer, as you (I think rightly) say, but at the time they saw no significance to it.

Thus, the cover-up in this respect, and the reason for Stan Jones misleading COLP, was that the original finding of the silencer on the 7th. implied that the family must have contaminated it after they found it mere few days later.

[guest29835]

'Gascoigne' thank you, for 'taking an interest in this matter'. In particular,  I agree with your view, that the responses given by 'reference to the exracts I have posted' were 'taken at the time of the 'DICKINSON Enquiry' in 1986. Nevertheless, it still formed part and parcel of the 'COLP' enquiry of 1991.

Mike,

Just to be clear, are you saying here that when Stan Jones was interviewed by COLP in 1991, they showed him the handwritten notes of his interview in 1986 by Dickinson Inquiry officers?  If so, then the contradictory statements look still more odd.

As an aside, in 2002 the CPS told Jeremy's solicitors of the time, Glaisyers, that this same Stanley Brian Jones had never been interviewed in connection with the case.  That was clearly a mistake or lie.  I wonder if there was a motive to cover up his evidence to the Dickinson Inquiry?  Anthony Pargeter's statement does indicate that Jeremy was asked about the silencer, but that could have been routine questioning by the officer to hand as a result of prompting from Mr Pargeter rather than a focus of the investigation at that stage.  It seems to me that nobody grasped the significance of the silencer until much later.

You seem to be saying a silencer was seized on the morning of the 7th., whereas I suspect it was merely that a silencer was found in the gun cupboard and disregarded as not being of significance.  DCI Jones and DS Jones then asked Jeremy about 'the' silencer (definite article) either because, like the firearms officers, they had not been told about the earlier find and assumed it was missing, or because they had been told of the earlier find and, on prompting from Mr Pargeter, were just asking a routine question about why the silencer and scope were off the gun. 

Either way, if a silencer was found and left in the gun cupboard, the fact is significant because it implies contamination, otherwise the police have to explain why it wasn't seized, which they can't - hence Stan Jones' statement in 1991 in which he contradicts what he said to the Dickinson Inquiry in 1986!

[mike tesko]

A total of 4 exhibits ['SBJ/4', 'SBJ/3', 'SBJ/2' and 'SBJ/1'] formed part and parcel, of the original police investigation [SC/688/85], ' four murders and a suicide'! What exhibits were these? Who took possession of them?When were they taken into the possession of the cop mob?

'SBJ/1' was a silencer merged into exhibit 'DB/1', and subsequently morphed into exhibit reference 'DRB/1'. THINK ABOUT IT, what alternative exhibit references were items 'SBJ/2', 'SBJ/3', and 'SBJ/4', altered into?

The 'cop mob' are evil, vile, despicable monsters!!!

[Bubo bubo]

I would ask memebers to please read the accompanying posts and those surrounding them.

There never was a SBJ1. It was made up to get over the fact that DB found AP’s SM on the first day. They needed to misdirect everyone to get over how this SM was found. There is no documentation for SBJ1 but there is for SBJ2 – SBJ4. These three were all photographs and it is likely that SBJ1 was also a photograph and not a SM. They needed photos of where DB’s finds of cover-up items were found. Especially those items that pointed clearly to a cover-up.

DB could not take the pictures himself because they would be embedded in the original case files film strips. So they sent SJ to take the photos that would be used for any internal enquiry into the actions of the TFG raid. So just as they kept the David Bird items out of the picture by having DB collect them and keeping them separated them from items of the true SOCO officers (they were headed NR not required/ not relevant) so they used SJ to take photos that could be hidden from the main case photos album.

They used the story of SJ collecting the SM from PE and RC receiving it and labelling it as SJ1 SBJ1. In that way they re-enforce the notion that there was only one SM involved found days later by the family in the cupboard.

The label we have has no reference to SBJ1 only DB1. It is possible they faked the label in the same way that DB made two different statements on the same day. So there may be two different labels. Using this method also helped in case there was other documentation of DB’s finds on the day which they had not accounted for and they could use this excuse to get round the problem.

They had to use this method because they could not go straight from DB1 to DRB1 without signalling that DB may have found the SM in the first instance and so that it could be seen that  no policeman found a SM at any time.

The SM was of great importance from the word go. Not to frame JB but to ensure that the TFG were being truly accurate in evidence that they would give to the internal enquiry (s) which would follow.

It was by chance that very small blood deposits of SC’s blood were found when it was internally examined. This was AP’s SM and rifle which were used to inflict the second survivable wound and blood was blasted into the SM from blood on the tip of the muzzle when the TFG fitted the SM.

Remember no flake was found when RC dismantled the SM before its second inspection at the lab.
They knew about the silencer because one had been collected by DB on the day. They took a second statement from JB dated 08/09/85 which is a detailed description of what he did with his rifle and the SM before he left on 06/08/85. They had a SM and clearly they were concerned to find out to whom it belonged. This is at the very start of the investigation.

The family knew a silencer was involved because AP was asking about his equipment. The family were asking for return of their property according to the Dickinson enquiry. Somewhere within the Dickinson (whitewash) Report there is a reference to the family saying they wanted their property returned. It is hard to conceive that the property was not at least the rifle and SM and other shooting paraphernalia belonging to AP. What other property belonging to the family could possibly have been taken, kitchenalia? They could not want WHF handed back because it was not even NB’s property, he rented it. The tenancy was most likely to go to JB at that stage. This may have been part of the ‘heated’ meeting on the morning of 09/08/85.


At this stage of the case with Taff in charge he would not take any notice of the family if they presented the family owned silencer. They were not so incompetent that they had not checked on the first day and not checked again after them asking JB about his SM and rifle in great detail and taking his statement dated 08/08/85.

The whole and over embellished story told by the family of how they discovered the family SM, what they did with it and to it and a microscopic description, including a hair was created by the family when Ainsley was put in charge. It was created retrospectively.


They could not have found it prior to the return of the keys and it had to be found as early as possible before Cook took the SM DB1 to the lab.


https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6621.msg309540.html#msg309540
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6621.msg309566.html#msg309566
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6621.msg309569.html#msg309569
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3471.msg137077.html#msg137077
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,921.msg27595.html#msg27595

[Bubo bubo]

The Scarlet Pimpernel SBJ AKA Stanley Brian Jones.

With respect to Baroness Orczy and QC who found my posts interesting.

We seek him here, we seek him there, Those Frenchies seek him everywhere. Is he in heaven?—Is he in hell?
That dammed, elusive Pimpernel. AKA Stanley Brian Jones

Stan Jones was involved in the police informatives. His role was to take photos that ‘Taff’ did not want mixed with the crime scene photos. In addition he had to be ‘Taffs’ eyes and ears while he left WHF to attend a previously arranged meeting.

At least DB was a SOCO (photography and fingerprinting), SJ was just a Detective Sergeant. (Ds). He did not arrive at the scene with Clark. He arrived with Davidson Henderson and Miller at 09.16. Clark arrived with ‘Taff’ at 09.14.

He did not go with JB and Clark to 9 Head Street as is made clear in the Dickinson Enquiry Report. Paragraph 214. It does not say at what time he went to JB’s. This paragraph raises further questions because the trip by Clark and JB is timed at 10.10.

In her 08/09/85 statement AE says she tried to reach JB but did not make contact until 08.40. (sheet 20) How can this be if JB was still at WHF?

She also makes reference to JB checking with his policeman whether it would be OK for her to visit. Note policeman not policemen. She says she arrived at 09. 10 and hugged JB (sheet 20) and that SJ was present (sheet 21).

If these timings are right and the Dickinson report wrong, then there is no way Clarke could have entered the premises with SJ because even the SOCO team had to wait till 10.00

SJ did not return to WHF from Head street. The entry is an error by Chaplin. I believe this is ‘Taff’ returning and she has put Ds instead of Det Sup. He had left the scene early for a pre-arranged meeting and returned. She made the same mistake earlier for ‘Taffs’ entry to the property at 09.33 along with other senior officers.

She also made another recording error. At 10.40 she records a special vehicle CT? arriving for informatives and then leaving at 10.59 with SJ as well as others leaving at this time. I believe it should read remained on informatives for SJ and CT not left on informatives. Why would they leave the scene having just arrived if the informatives were taking place inside WHF

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11177.0;attach=58686;image

There is further evidence that SJ did not return to WHF from Head street. Why when asking for SJ to contact him at JB’s does Clark tell him where he is and what he is doing. If he had been to Head street, he would know where Clark was and what his allocated task was. He would surely have just asked for him to get in touch at 12.20 and the contact number.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11177.0;attach=58676

Apart from the perhaps obvious errors by Chaplin this looks like a concerted effort to disguise and hide the tasks performed by SJ on the morning of 07/08/85.

They had no choice but to use SBJ in the SM deception. Only someone who knew exactly what had happened could be persuaded to create the false find by the family on 10/08/85 and produce the appropriate paperwork such as statements and manipulated pocket books.

What other Policeman of any rank could have fulfilled this role? He was used in this role to draw attention away from DB’s find of the SM on the 07/08/85 and place the find as being made by the family.

[mike tesko]

Refer to what 'DS Jones', told that 'DCI Jones' discussed the silencer with Jeremy on that occasion, whilst also admitting that he ['DS Jones'] that 'he knew about the silencer'! Despite the fact, that 'David Boutflour' hadn't yet found the 'other silencer, and that' he would not do so', for another 'some 30 - 36 hours' later!!

[mike tesko]

'Lab item no. 22 [' SBJ/1'/ 'SJ/1'] went to lab' at Huntingdon, on the 13th August 1985. [17 'BAFFLED SILENCER' long 'version' belonging to 'Pargeter']

'Lab item no. 23 [`DB/1'] went to lab' at Huntingdon, on the 30th August 1985. [`15 BAFFLED SILENCER' short 'version' belonging to 'Bamber family'] [`this silencer was contaminated with the small flake of dried blood which 'David Boutflour' scraped off the (outside surface) end cap of, ('DB/1') the same silencer, soon after his 10th August 1985 discovery] !

'Exhibit reference' DRB/1'went to lab' at Huntingdon, on the 20th September 1985.[17 'BAFFLED SILENCER' long 'version' belonging to 'Pargeter'] [`This silencer, was the one used to make the scratch marks on the kitchen aga, and upon the knurled pattern of its metal end-cap  were deposited on the 14th September 1985']

[Bubo bubo]

Every exhibit ever seized in any investigation, has always been given an exhibit reference, commencing with the index reference , "SJ". This is confirmed by notes Stan Jones recorded in his own pocket book entries, so why would DS Jones change the habit of a lifetime, in favour of RON Cook marking the silencer given to him by Jones on 13th August 1985, " SBJ/1"? Why did Ron Cook also make reference in his own notebook that the silencer was labelled, "SJ/1", rather than, " SBJ/1"? You see, there is no evidence that the silencer which DS Jones handed to Ron Cook on the 13th August 1985, which Cook in turn took to the lab' for Glynis Howard to examine, that same date, was ever marked, "SBJ/1", at all...

[Bubo bubo]

Quote from: mike tesko on April 26, 2021, 09:17:PM
Where is exhibit label marked ' SBJ/1' or 'SJ/1
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10588.0;attach=57444

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10588.0;attach=57443

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10588.0;attach=57442

[Bubo bubo]

From Mike Tesco
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2011, 08:44:AM »
Quote


Lets have a look at the exhibit Label, Glynis Howard, the Expert signed, which she claims was marked by the exhibit reference, SBJ/1?

Can't see it...

I can only see where label has been altered from DB/1 to DRB/1...

I am struggling to see any reference on this signed exhibit label to SBJ/1?

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=921.0;attach=4574

[mike tesko]

There has been disclosed, two examples of a signed exhibit Label, which I produce forthwith, in order to try and shed some light on a third signed exhibit label, that according to 'Di Cook' he marked up, as Exhibit 'SJ/1', and to which both 'he' himself and 'Glynis Howard' both entered their signatures at position 2 and 3 on the label. 'Cook' has stated that, the space at position 1 of the label, was left 'blank' for the signature of the 'silencers finder', to 'sign at a later date'!