Brief clip audio of Jeremy Bamber

[Hardy Boy]

She swabbed the outside and the inside but only about 1/4"  or so. She did not look inside to a greater depth. Believe it is in one of her statements or trial testimony. In her trial testimony she says just inside. She gave reasons for not dismantling.

The question was, when did she start the tests, before JM testimony or after.  You’ve now come up with something completely different to try to distract from the original question.

[snow66!]

The question was, when did she start the tests, before JM testimony or after.  You’ve now come up with something completely different to try to distract from the original question.

No no, the question was, when was specifically the inside tested, HB, and the results documented?

[Hardy Boy]

No no, the question was, when was specifically the inside tested, HB, and the results documented?

She gave it as the 13th of August, I can see where you are going now, the reason she gives as having a different date, it was altered (without telling her, and it does give a suspicion I agree) because of the mix up and renaming of the silencer to DRB1, you’ll have to excuse me I’m only using my iPhone.

[Hardy Boy]

No no, the question was, when was specifically the inside tested, HB, and the results documented?

Bubo’s answer was nothing to do with your question about dates.

This was part one of your original question, I was answering this part

Was the silencer tested on the inside before or after Julie went to the police, Dan?

[snow66!]

Bubo’s answer was nothing to do with your question about dates.

This was part one of your original question, I was answering this part

Was the silencer tested on the inside before or after Julie went to the police, Dan?

OK, thanks, HB!
I better take a look at the statements myself, cant expect everyone else to do the work!

[Bubo bubo]

The question was, when did she start the tests, before JM testimony or after.  You’ve now come up with something completely different to try to distract from the original question.

Sorry HB that was not my intention. I believe Dan answered your question I was moving the debate on with additional information. Dan posted your answer while I was researching.  No intention to deceive. It is clear they were testing blood on a SM before JM came forward. These seem to be initial tests to establish whether it was human or animal. The amounts involved were only small and precise tests were not possible to identify type etc and 'human' was the outcome.

[Bubo bubo]

For the record; RWC took a SM to the FSS and waited for the results and returned with it on the same day if my memory is correct.

[Hardy Boy]

Sorry HB that was not my intention. I believe Dan answered your question I was moving the debate on with additional information. Dan posted your answer while I was researching.  No intention to deceive. It is clear they were testing blood on a SM before JM came forward. These seem to be initial tests to establish whether it was human or animal. The amounts involved were only small and precise tests were not possible to identify type etc and 'human' was the outcome.

No problem, cutie is moving the goal posts each statement she makes, I thought you was doing the same, she’s gone From Stan climbing through the window to not doing so now, now she’s trying to link the FSS and Julie’s statement in some way, by saying the FSS went with the snowballing effect, then she throws another case in, nothing at all to do with Bamber, just  to bolster her theory.  She’s all over the place, because she realises what a fool she made of herself by accusing Stan of climbing through the window.

[Bubo bubo]

No problem, cutie is moving the goal posts each statement she makes, I thought you was doing the same, she’s gone From Stan climbing through the window to not doing so now, now she’s trying to link the FSS and Julie’s statement in some way, by saying the FSS went with the snowballing effect, then she throws another case in, nothing at all to do with Bamber, just  to bolster her theory.  She’s all over the place, because she realises what a fool she made of herself by accusing Stan of climbing through the window.

If you wish to dig deeper on the blood in the SM read posts 39,40 and 41 on this thread.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4779.msg200844.html#msg200844

You will see that PL came to his conclusions and reported to JB's solicitor 27/05/86. However he was forced to revise his opinion 19/09/86 because of the flake evidence. This suggests that the FSS did not find the flake until after PL's original visit and his report had been completed. If it was found before April 86 when was it found? and who found it? If the FSS were testing it before April why did they not tell PL of any ongoing investigations that might have a bearing on his conclusions and report.

[ILB]

What's the story about the blood ( blood group of DB) found in the silencer?

[snow66!]

If you wish to dig deeper on the blood in the SM read posts 39,40 and 41 on this thread.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4779.msg200844.html#msg200844

You will see that PL came to his conclusions and reported to JB's solicitor 27/05/86. However he was forced to revise his opinion 19/09/86 because of the flake evidence. This suggests that the FSS did not find the flake until after PL's original visit and his report had been completed. If it was found before April 86 when was it found? and who found it? If the FSS were testing it before April why did they not tell PL of any ongoing investigations that might have a bearing on his conclusions and report.

So the flake of blood was found by Hayward on 12 sept 1985 a few days after Julie went to the police, is this correct, Bubo?

[Bubo bubo]

So the flake of blood was found by Hayward on 12 sept 1985 a few days after Julie went to the police, is this correct, Bubo?

Where did you get this date? The second report (19/09/86) of PL mentions that Hayward found the flake but no date is given.

[Hardy Boy]

OK, thanks, HB!
I better take a look at the statements myself, cant expect everyone else to do the work!

Im not quite sure when the results came back though, they could have come after both JM and JB had been questioned?

[Cambridgecutie]

So the flake of blood was found by Hayward on 12 sept 1985 a few days after Julie went to the police, is this correct, Bubo?

We are told a flake of blood was found inside the silencer which matched SC's blood groups.  I believe the 'find' was 12th Sep '85.  A few days after we are told JM went to EP.

[Cambridgecutie]

Who did they agree with to get the case over the line?   Stop diverting your nonsense with another case. So you say the FSS agreed in the Bamber case to get it over the line to convict Jeremy, who did they agree with?   Who in their wisdom decided to put blood on the inside of the silencer on the baffle plates creating back splatter?

Another case where the forensic scientist who went on to be charged with perverting the course of justice also went on to head up FSS Huntingdon when and where the Bamber exhibits were under examination.  How is this a diversion and nonsense with another case?  I would have thought by most people's standards it is highly relevant?

Who did they agree with?  Look at my post: head of FSS Huntingdon and obviously some senior heavyweight with EP, DPP or HO.  Of course they didn't say 'fabricate the evidence' just 'pull out all the stops'.  Use your loaf Softy Boy.