At 11am, on 11th September 1985, police told Jeremy in an interview that it had now been proved that Sheila had not killed herself, but by that stage no evidence had been obtained or existed, so why did DS "Stan" Jones, lie about this during the interview?
(taken from official interview by police, with Jeremy Bamber)...
Also attached, for consideration, is a copy of the front page of DS "Stan" Jones, pocketbook which contained all his evidence in connection with this case, including the interview on 11th September 1985, at 11am, when he told Jeremy that police could now prove that Sheila had in fact been murdered, but police had no such proof at that time, or stage, so he is/was lying. Look at the dates on the front cover of his pocketbook, see how he has changed these, does it not give a clear indication that he has re-written his notes, and got all muddled up about when the book was issued and entries recorded inside it?
The official Essex police stamp shows the date it was issued to DS "Stan" Jones, as 5th November 1984, yet Jones has altered this to 5th April 1985, so as to allow him to accommodate evidence in this case (whf) which did not commence until 7th August 1985, including the interview on 11th September 1985, at 11am, when Jones told Jeremy that police could prove at that stage that Sheila had been murdered...
So...
Where is the evidence that DS "Stan" Jones, was talking about?
11th September 1985, was a pivotal date in the time line of the investigation, because this was the occasion when the relatives found the second silencer in the gun cupboard at whf, which was handed to the police by Ann Eaton, on that date...
No blood had been analysed by that stage, or produced any blood group activity linking it to Sheila, and so Jones must have been referring to the find of the second silencer by the relatives, or perhaps to the fact that by that stage he was aware of the small flake of blood which David Boutflour had scraped off it, which was handed to the police. Jones would also perhaps have been aware that the silencer found by the relatives at the scene that day, had red paint ingrained upon it, as a result of either the relatives or the police deliberately making an additional mark on the front face of the aga surround in the kitchen at whf, with the intention iof trying to show that the silencer had been fitted to the guns barrel at the time of the shootings?
::) http://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/p/kitchen-mantle.html
Good work, and highly significant...
My question would be, what was the delay between both of these photographs being taken? Since, the two identified marks on the second negative must have been made at a time when police were present at the scene. It would be very interesting to know or to find out when both of these photographs were taken, to see if they match up with or can be linked to the date when the second silencer was submitted to the lab' on 20th September 1985, and examined and found to contain paint from the aga surround on 25th September 1985?
Evidence now exists, to show that additional marks were not only made on the upper forward face of the aga, but that additional marks were also made on the left hand panel...
Of interest to this particular feature...
If there was only one silencer, which wended uop with red paint from the aga ingrained upon it, and this silencer was handed to DS "Stan the man" Jones, by Peter Eaton, on evening of 12th August 1985, which ended up at the lab' on 30th August 1985, where it remained until it was produced at the trial in October 1986, what the hell could have been used to make these additional marks on the front face of the aga surround?
THE SECOND SILENCER of course, the one found at the scene by the relatives on 11th September 1985, the one which did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, but upon which no such evidence was found, save for some red matching paint from the aga...
DS "Stan the man" Jones, had involvement in producing this falsified evidence which was relied upion to successfully prosecute and convict Jeremy Bamber for these murders. Jones was one of the key witnesses who helped to introduce and to produce this evidence to the court which tried and convicted Bamber for these murders, there can be little doubt that "Stan the man" Jones, was deeply involved with others, who all conspired to pervert the course of justice, by introducing false evidence relating to the discovery of two separate silencers, one which "Stan the man" Jones found at the scene (SBJ/1), on 7th August 1985, and another found there by the relatives (DRB/1), on 11th September 1985...
The additional mark on the front upper fascia of the aga surround, and one of the additional marks made on the left hand fascia of the same aga (in September 1985) appear to have been made by the same instrument, possibly the end of a silencer, so as to transport paint from the aga into its knurled end, so that by the time the silencer which was used to make these additional marks there in September 1985, was sent to the lab' to be checked for paint and fibres, ended up having paint from the aga surround upon it, not surprising then in view of the fact that the second silencer (DRB/1) was used to make these additional marks there, on an occasion liong after the shootings, with a view of introducing such evidence to indicate that the silencer must have been fitted to the barrel of the gun at the time of the shootings?
