Bamber didn't mention anything about a silencer on day one? The relatives did indeed tell Taff about the items on 9th both he and Stan Jones went out to see Bamber and asked him if they were attached to the rifle when he left it out. Bamber told him they were not attached. That was enough for Taff, he didn't request the items be found and didn't order a search when he handed Ann Eaton the keys back that evening. It was the next day that the relatives found both items. If a silencer had already been collected, why is Taff making a special trip to ask Bamber about a silencer?
The relatives were more concerned about the sights not being attached, not too much about the silencer.
Please think it through!
The Case of Jeremy Bamber - condensed from Jeremy Bamber’s original 38 page document
The red paint/ sound moderator/ scratch mark issue
The courts have been misled for twenty-five years by evidence distorted and manipulated by Essex Police: this duplicitous handling of evidence used to incriminate Jeremy Bamber and mislead everyone who has examined this case, until now.
The Crown’s case is that the sound moderator (DRB/1) was attached to the .22 Ashultz rifle (the murder weapon), and that during a struggle in the kitchen between Nevill Bamber and his assailant, this sound moderator scratched the mantle shelf’s underside, so depositing red paint onto the knurled end of the sound moderator. Without evidence being made available to the Defence pre-trial, Mr Rivlin QC acting for the defence ‘agreed’ to this version of events. However, had the Forensic Science Service discovered that someone had used a sound moderator to scratch the mantle shelf some time after the crime, it is contended the CPS would have had all charges against Jeremy Bamber dropped.
Documental evidence has emerged revealing that after Essex Police seized a sound moderator SBJ/1 from White House Farm shortly after the crime took place and before the 9th August 1985, a second sound moderator was found at White House Farm on the 11th September 1985, given to Essex Police and submitted for forensic examination. A conspiracy was then entered into by DI Ron Cook, DS Stan Jones, Ann Eaton, David Boutflour and Forensic Scientist Malcolm Fletcher to deceive the prosecuting authorities, the Defence and the Courts by amalgamating evidence from these two sound moderators making it appear that there was only ever one sound moderator in this case.
Both David Boutflour and Ann Eaton stated that the Police were told about their discovery of the red paint on a sound moderator at White House Farm on the 10th and 12th August 1985 (Doc P20 and Doc P5). Robert Boutflour’s notes (Doc P4) reaffirm this. A further entry in Robert Boutflour’s notes for the12th August 1985 also states “Went to Maldon Police, they rang Witham Police and arranged for meeting about silencer, collected from Oak Farm later that evening”.
However, had Ann Eaton telephoned Essex Police on the 10th and 12th August 1985 regarding the finding of a sound moderator there would be a police telephone message report saying so, and there is not. Nor is there a police record of the aforementioned meeting. This is because the sound moderator was not found by Ann, David and Robert until the 11th September 1985. This is evident in Document P31 a phone message log dated the 11th September 1985 stating that “David Boutflour has found a silencer”. Document P35 Action report 88: “Collection of silencer AE (Ann Eaton) 11th September to Wright items obtained by DC Oakey”.
These references make it quite clear that the sound moderator was found on the 11th September 1985 and not the 10th August 1985 as stated in Court. The original finding of the first sound moderator SJB/1 was then concealed to give the impression that only one sound moderator was ever found, on the 10th August 1985. Document P7 DI Cook appears to have swapped the forensic reference number from SBJ/1 to DB/1 and finally to DRB/1 in order to confuse the identity of the first sound moderator with the other: being the same make and model this was easy for the police to do.
Mr Peter Sutherst established from the photographs taken by DC Bird on the 7th August 1985 that there was no evidence of scratch marks on the underside of the mantle nor was there any paint debris on the floor. This is clear photographic proof that someone had used the sound moderator to scratch the mantle between the time of the crime scene photographs on the 7th August 1985 and the 10th September 1985 when we know that Ann Eaton reported the finding of the sound moderator.
In Document P25 DI Cook states that on the 14th August1985 “Ann Eaton pointed out scratch marks” where “the silencer could have come into contact with the shelf” in the kitchen of White House Farm. A paint sample RWC/1was then taken by DI Cook “from an area near scratch/score marks ND/58 and ND/59 in the reddish paint on the right hand underside of the mantel piece” and handed to DS Davidson “at the scene” (Doc 26) to match against the red paint on the sound moderator.* However DS Davidson’s trial transcript (Doc P18) states that he received the paint sample seized by Mr Cook on 14th September 1985.
This confirms the discovery of the scratch marks being shown to DI Cook not on 14th August but one month later. Therefore, suggesting that Ann Eaton returned to White House Farm with DI Cook on 14th September 1985.
Two Silicoset impressions were taken of the scratch marks ND/58 and ND/59 by DS Davidson and Mr B Elliott on 1st October 1985 (Doc P8). Brian Elliott’s witness statement (Doc P12) confirms that the paint on the sound moderator matches that of the sample taken (part of RWC/1). He also states in this same document: “Item 114 ND/58 cast of impression mark; Item 115 ND/59 cast of scratch mark”. However it is quite unclear from looking at the photograph (Doc P14) which of the three scratches and which of the two impressions Mr Elliot is referring to. DS Davidson and Mr Elliott seem vague about where exactly on the mantle ND/58 and ND/59 came from. It is possible that DS Davidson knew that these were additional scratches and chips made in the paintwork after SOCO’s search of the house on the 7th, 8th and 9th August 1985 and was being deliberately obtuse to avoid exposing this fabricated evidence to either Brian Elliott or to the Court.
When questioned during the trial about whether or not he had seen scratch marks on examining the kitchen’s fireplace surround on the 7th, 8th and 9th August (Doc P19) DI Cook states that he did examine this area and the underside of the mantle but he “did not see any scratch marks – consciously”. DI Cook cannot bring himself to admit in Court that there were no scratch marks on the underside of the mantle during the SOCO’s search.
During the trial Mr Elliott was asked to comment on two photographs: one taken at the crime scene, the other on the 10th September 1985. Mr Elliott stated that scratch marks were present on one photograph yet missing from the other. Only one conclusion can be drawn from this: somehow additional scratch marks were made between the taking of one photograph and the other. It was this fact that formed the basis of Jeremy Bamber’s complaint about ‘The red paint/ sound moderator / scratch mark issue’.
Document P24 consists of a series of documents regarding a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority in 1990. These include amongst others (please see Jeremy Bamber’s full thirty-eight page document for fuller details): a series of photographs of the scene which should have been examined in relation to ‘The red paint/ sound moderator/ scratch issue’; the possible collusion between police and relatives over the putting of paint onto the sound moderator; financial gain being a motive for Bamber’s family to tamper with evidence; the dismissal of ‘The red paint/ sound moderator/ scratch mark issue’ because there was no red paint found on the barrel of the murder weapon.
*An earlier paint sample RC/1 was taken on the 9th August 1985 in relation with some red paint found on the barrel of an air rifle thought initially to have been the murder weapon.
The Police Complaints Authority letter, dated the 15th July 1992 states that none of Jeremy Bamber’s complaints were upheld.
A letter dated the 7th September 1992 from the Home Secretary states that “none of the photographs taken in the kitchen prior to the discovery of the sound moderator on the 10th August 1985 show the underside of the mantle shelf. Police attention was not drawn to it until after the discovery of the paint stained sound moderator”. This is untrue as Police attention was drawn to the mantle, because of the discovery of red paint found on the barrel of the air rifle, as proven by DC Bird’s photograph, strip 7 negative 1.
The Police Complaints Authority and the City of London Police deliberately misled the Home Secretary in 1991 regarding ‘The red paint/ sound moderator/scratch mark issue’.
As a result the Home Secretary dismissed Jeremy Bamber’s leave to appeal.
This was a clear case of misfeasance in Public Office: legal action should now be undertaken against both parties.
Document P22 This is part of the Judges summing up: “The red paint on the knurled end of the silencer and the mark on the mantelpiece show that on this fact alone, that the silencer was on the gun during the fight in the kitchen”. Furthermore he states that it is “inconceivable that Sheila committed the killings” and that “it is inconceivable that Sheila was in any way responsible for the killings”.
It is now known that the silencer did not make those scratch marks in the paint on the underside of the mantle thus rendering the judges summing up to be factually incorrect and therefore the trial unfair.
The Defence now states that the scratch marks were created between the 9th August 1985 and the 10th September 1985. Ann Eaton and David Boutflour both had motive and opportunity to introduce this contaminated piece of evidence into the case. However they needed the cooperation of DI Cook and DS Jones who could alter the necessary paperwork and substitute one sound moderator for the other. DC Oakey, DI Cook and DS Jones decided to back date the finding of the second sound moderator in order to give the impression that only one sound moderator was found, on the 10th August 1985.
There is no doubt that somebody made those scratch marks although facts alone cannot identify whose hand was holding the sound moderator when it was maliciously used to scratch the mantle’s underside therefore making Ann Eaton, David Boutflour, DI Ron Cook and DS Brian Stanley Jones all equally culpable in the eyes of the law.
This article contains proof that the sound moderator evidence can no longer be relied upon by the Crown Prosecution Service. The Prosecution’s case was that only one sound moderator was found at White House Farm and that it was found by David Boutflour on the 10th August 1985. As it has now been proven that this is a lie, the Defence submit that there is now no longer a case for Jeremy Bamber to answer to.
