you should all know this?

[mike tesko]

My Informant ('Z') has told me that the same silencer was sent to the lab'on both 13th and 30th August 1985, and that Sheila's blood was found inside that silencer. This silencer was not the one found by the relatives in the gun cupboard...

The one found by the relatives on 11th September 1985, did not go to the lab' until later...

I spoke to my informant about the date when the seciond silencer was sent to the lab', since Jeremy and I were in dispute as to the actual date it went there? Jeremy has been saying it was not sent until 20th September 1985, whilst I was under the impression it was not sent until 26th September 1985? 'Z' told me that Jeremy's interpretation is the correct one...

In other words, second silencer was sent to the lab' on 20th September, not 26th September 1985...

In any event, my informant says that the silencer which was found by relatives was not the silencer inside which was found Sheila's blood, only paint was found on the second silencer sent to the lab' on 20th September 1985...

'Z' has asked me to post a copy of a document on the forum which gives a clear indication that it was the same silencer which the police sent to the lab' on 13th and 30th August 1985, and that this silencer was not the one found by the relatives in the gun cupboard, since they did not find that silencer there until 11th September 1985, long afterwards...

My informant has told me that the silencer sent to the lab' on both of these occasions had the original exhibit reference of SBJ/1, and not SBJ/1 on 13th August, and DB/1 on 30th August 1985. Informant says the exhibit references were swapped around to accommodate the evidence of the finding of the second silencer by the relatives, so as to produce it as though it had been found a month earlier (on 10th August 1985)...

[mike tesko]

As you can see, the identifying mark for the submission of the silencer to the lab' on 30th August 1985, was originally given as SBJ/1, not DB/1 (which was added, and altered, later on)...

[mike tesko]

The silencer found in the gun cupboard by the relatives on 11th September 1985, and which got sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres, on 20th/26th September 1985, was originally given the identifying mark of DB/1...

[mike tesko]

Exhibit references for both silencers were interchanged, so that police and lab' records suggested silencer DB/1 was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and that it was therefore the original silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and attempts were made to suppress any information about the actual date when the relatives had found the silencer on 11th September 1985, and or that it had been sent to the lab' on 20th/26th September 1985?

[mike tesko]

Informant says this was why the silencer sent to the lab' on 20th/26th September had the identifying mark of SBJ/1 upon it, rather than DB/1 (which later got changed again into DRB/1), so that by the time the case came to trial in October 1985, the silencer evidence was presented as though there had only ever been one silencer, sent to the lab' once on 30th August 1985, and that once it had been examined blood from Sheila was found inside it. This silencer which was court exhibit 9, had the identifying mark of DRB/1...

Nobody knew about the second silencer at that stage...

Nobody knew that there had been three submission dates for a silencer to the lab' (13th and 30th August 1985, and 20th/26th September 1985)...

Nobody knew that relatives did not find silencer in gun cupboard at whf until 11th September 1985, on a date which was after the silencer containing Sheila's blood had already been sent to the lab' (30th August 1985)...

Nobody knew that these two identical looking Parker Hale silencers had been merged into one and the same silencer by a team or gang or conspirators involving police officers, relatives and some experts at the lab'...

We now know, for example, that the silencer marked SBJ/1, was not the same silencer, as DB/1, and that DRB/1 could not have been both of them, only one of them...

[mike tesko]

(A) Original silencer found by DS "Stan" Jones, had the identifying mark of SBJ/1,he found this at the scene on 7th August 1985, and both he and DCI "Taff" Jones, spoke to Jeremy about this when they went to see him at his cottage, 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, on 9th August 1985...

(B) Silencer found by relatives in gun cupboard on 11th September 1985, was found there on that occasion along with the telescopic site and other items which Ann Eaton handed over to the police that same day, which was provisionally given the exhibit mark of DB/1, but this was later changed to DRB/1...

Silencers mentioned at (A) and (B) were merged into the same silencer, which sparked off a mission to alter exhibit references in statements and police / lab' documentation, where references to a silencer on the different occasions, were altered from SBJ./1 into DB/1 and subsequently altered again, into DRB/1...

When challenged about these alterations in 1991 as part of the COLP investigation, Essex police came up with a story saying the reason for the changes and alterations in the silencer exhibit reference's from SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1 because of clashes to do with other witnesses in the case having an identical exhibit reference. But when this was looked into, DS "Stan" Jones did not produce or find (officially) any exhibit SBJ/1,and the references to him taking possession of other exhibits from the scene, marked SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4,were removed altogether, so as to try and prevent anyone doing a reconstruction. Additionally, DB was the identifying mark given to exhibits by PC David Bird, but he has not produced any exhibit marked DB/1, so the claim by Essex police that there was some sort of a clash involving the exhibit references of different witnesses in the case is and was a false one...

Officially there is a missing exhibit found by DS "Stan" Jones, marked SBJ/1, and another missing exhibit found by PC Bird, marked DB/1...

[mike tesko]

The attempt to reconstruct what actually took place with these silencers, and the different identifying marks of SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, has been made difficult and could not easily have been recognised but for the information recently provided to me by my informant ('Z') who has told me that the deception occurred because of the swapping over of exhibit references, which became interchangeable at different stages of the police investigations, merged as it were into one and the same silencer, so that references to a silencer marked SBJ/1, and DB/1 were the same silencer (DRB/1) when in actual fact they were two different ones, namely, one found by DS "Stan" Jones at the scene, and the other found by the relatives much later...

[mike tesko]

(1) Silencer found by DS "Stan" Jones - originally marked SBJ/1
(2) Silencer found by relatives - originally marked DB/1
(3) both merged into same silencer - marked DRB/1

Hence, how silencers SBJ/1, and DB/1, were merged into the same silencer, DRB/1...

As they say...

"Jobs a gud en"...

[mike tesko]

I will be posting the COLP interview records of PC Bird, later on today, to facilitate debate, and for comparison with his court transcript given at Jeremy's trial...

[grahameb]

Exhibit references for both silencers were interchanged, so that police and lab' records suggested silencer DB/1 was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and that it was therefore the original silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and attempts were made to suppress any information about the actual date when the relatives had found the silencer on 11th September 1985, and or that it had been sent to the lab' on 20th/26th September 1985?

Mike. If the silencer that was found originally by the police, the one that had the incriminating evidence of the blood of Sheila on it was the one sent to the lab. Why would they go to the trouble of sending the silencer that the relatives found which had less incriminating evidence on it? Surely the first silencer would have been enough evidence on it to put Jeremy in the dock without the evidence of the one with paint on it? Why would they go to the trouble of changing things round?
Surely the silencer found by the police which had the blood of Sheila on it was the stronger evidence?

[grahameb]

Picture hallway2.jpg on page 53. Where the gun is leaning up against the window. Is that a silencer on it?

No.

Not?

[smiffy]

Exhibit references for both silencers were interchanged, so that police and lab' records suggested silencer DB/1 was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and that it was therefore the original silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and attempts were made to suppress any information about the actual date when the relatives had found the silencer on 11th September 1985, and or that it had been sent to the lab' on 20th/26th September 1985?

Mike. If the silencer that was found originally by the police, the one that had the incriminating evidence of the blood of Sheila on it was the one sent to the lab. Why would they go to the trouble of sending the silencer that the relatives found which had less incriminating evidence on it? Surely the first silencer would have been enough evidence on it to put Jeremy in the dock without the evidence of the one with paint on it? Why would they go to the trouble of changing things round?
Surely the silencer found by the police which had the blood of Sheila on it was the stronger evidence?

If a silencer was submitted on the 13th august...and the lab report is genuine...then all they could say about it was that human blood was found on the silencer. It did not state whose blood and it could not be grouped.
So at that stage there was little it could do to incriminate anyone...
More blood was supposedly found inside a silencer when tested later on....but there is no evidence that this blood found later on was actually in the silencer on the 13th or wether it was another silencer entirely. Ie blood or flakes could have been added later.

[clifford]

Exhibit references for both silencers were interchanged, so that police and lab' records suggested silencer DB/1 was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and that it was therefore the original silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and attempts were made to suppress any information about the actual date when the relatives had found the silencer on 11th September 1985, and or that it had been sent to the lab' on 20th/26th September 1985?

Mike. If the silencer that was found originally by the police, the one that had the incriminating evidence of the blood of Sheila on it was the one sent to the lab. Why would they go to the trouble of sending the silencer that the relatives found which had less incriminating evidence on it? Surely the first silencer would have been enough evidence on it to put Jeremy in the dock without the evidence of the one with paint on it? Why would they go to the trouble of changing things round?
Surely the silencer found by the police which had the blood of Sheila on it was the stronger evidence?

If a silencer was submitted on the 13th august...and the lab report is genuine...then all they could say about it was that human blood was found on the silencer. It did not state whose blood and it could not be grouped.
So at that stage there was little it could do to incriminate anyone...
More blood was supposedly found inside a silencer when tested later on....but there is no evidence that this blood found later on was actually in the silencer on the 13th or wether it was another silencer entirely. Ie blood or flakes could have been added later.

In a statement dated 10 Sept. 1985 Pargeter said this.
" Sometime after the 10 Aug. 1985 David phoned me, and told me that the police had RETURNED the silencer to the family. DB said that there was a large scratch on it, some paint on the nurled end and what appeared to be blood. I advised DB to  RETURN it to the police.
Now does mean this that when the police took the silencer it did not have a large scratch ect. and when they returned it, it did.
Even so it appears the police had "a" silencer BEFORE the 10 AUG 1985. or have I got this wrong?

[Reader]

Picture hallway2.jpg on page 53. Where the gun is leaning up against the window. Is that a silencer on it?

No.

Not?

Considerably enlarge the image for convenience. As a consequence of the lighting, there is what initially appears to be a change in the width of the barrel halfway along it. However, one can't see a line across the barrel where the sound moderator would start, and the overall length of the barrel is too short for a sound moderator to be present. If the silencer were present, it would constitute the final third of the overall length of the barrel, not half of the overall length. I previously posted these points here.

Now does mean this that when the police took the silencer it did not have a large scratch ect. and when they returned it, it did.

I assume you intended the following: "Now does this mean that when the police took the silencer it did not have a large scratch etc., and when they returned it, it did?"

[grahameb]

Now does mean this that when the police took the silencer it did not have a large scratch ect. and when they returned it, it did.

I assume you intended the following: "Now does this mean that when the police took the silencer it did not have a large scratch etc., and when they returned it, it did?"

go on, shoot him.