you should all know this?

[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. 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?

I have briefly spoken to my informant about this matter, only last last week, and the explanation I was given is very interesting...

[mike tesko]

Informant provided me with an explanation about the handing over of the silencer by Ann Eaton to the police on 11th September 1985, again this explanation is very interesting and revealing...

[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. 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?

I have briefly spoken to my informant about this matter, only last last week, and the explanation I was given is very interesting...

Small flake which David Boutflour scraped off one of the silencers was sent to the lab' to be checked and analysed and this is what produced the crucial blood group evidence (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) - this evidence was supposedly removed from the silencer David Boutflour found on the silencer at the scene on 11th September 1985, and upon which he had used a razor blade to scrape it from the silencer with, on that occasion...

[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. 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?

I have briefly spoken to my informant about this matter, only last last week, and the explanation I was given is very interesting...

Small flake which David Boutflour scraped off one of the silencers was sent to the lab' to be checked and analysed and this is what produced the crucial blood group evidence (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) - this evidence was supposedly removed from the silencer David Boutflour found on the silencer at the scene on 11th September 1985, and upon which he had used a razor blade to scrape it from the silencer with, on that occasion...

This was why, the silencer sent to the lab' on 20th /  26th September 1985 was sent there to be checked for the presence of blood and fibres, and which resulted in only paint being found upon it...

[mike tesko]

Small flake of blood containing Sheila's blood group activity was not found inside any of the silencers whilst either was at the lab', either on or after 30th August 1985, or on or after 20th/26th September 1985...

It was merely a small flake of dried blood which the police took possession of from David Boutflour, after he told them that he had used a razor blade to scrape it off the end of one of the silencers...

The flake was incorporated into one of the silencers because by so doing it would be more believable, and it allowed the ballistic expert to introduce his theory of backspatter...

[tyler]

So in theory,the small piece of blood scraped off of the silencer found by David,could have been Robert Boutflours blood,seeing as he shared the same blood group as Sheila?

And remember,blood found in the original silencer was determined to be Sheilas or a mix or Nevill and Junes.But when DNA testing became avaliable,Sheilas DNA was not found to be present in that silencer.

[Reader]

Pargeter's statement is rather vague, as "after the 10 Aug. 1985" could refer to any date from 11 Aug. 1985 up to the 10 Sept. 1985 date of the statement, and David didn't explicitly state who originally found the silencer mentioned. The police could have "returned" a silencer that they had found or one that David had found. Had David said that the police returned the silencer to him, as distinct from to the family, that might have suggested that he had found it originally, but use of the word "family" gives no indication of who found the silencer originally. In any case, I'd be reluctant to treat Pargeter's statement as a reliable account of what exactly David said.

[mike tesko]

Listen up, and listen good

Ann Eaton handed over the silencer which her brother David found in the gun cupboard at whf on 11th September 1985, to DC Oakley, or a DC Oakey, who was at the scene on 11th September 1985, along with PC David Bird (SOC). My informant has told me that PC Bird at that time, was handed this silencer by the other police officer, and at that stage, PC Bird made notes in his pocketbook about it, referring to the find and seizure of exhibit DB/1...

My informant tells me that PC Bird recorded the recovery of exhibit DB/1 twice in his pocketbook, namely once on 10th September 1985, which was a reference to a soil sample, and secondly on 11th September 1985, as a reference to the silencer (albeit, the silencer was not actually mentioned in his pocketbook entry)...

'Z' pointed out to me, that the handing over of the second silencer to the police by Ann Eaton on this (11th September 1985) day, was responsible for the alteration in one of the submission documents from the police to the lab' where the exhibit reference for the silencer which had been submitted to the lab'on 30th August 1985, was altered from SBJ/1 to DB/1 (by hand) as part of the ploy to merge both silencers into the same one...

The small flake of dried blood was supposedly scraped off the silencer found by David Boutflour in the gun cupboard on 11th September 1985, and sent to the lab' upon which it was immediately analysed, producing the blood group activity of A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1)....

[mike tesko]

My informant has told me that I will find evidence for this in the COLP interview of PC Bird (SOC), and this is the reason why I have recently posted his trial transcript, and why I am in the process of posting PC Birds (SOC) COLP interview transcript from 1991...
#
There is mention in those interviews by PC Bird about the fact that he records the seizure or find of exhibit DB/1, twice, once on 10th September 1985, and the other on 11th September 1985...

[mike tesko]

So in theory,the small piece of blood scraped off of the silencer found by David,could have been Robert Boutflours blood,seeing as he shared the same blood group as Sheila?

And remember,blood found in the original silencer was determined to be Sheilas or a mix or Nevill and Junes.But when DNA testing became avaliable,Sheilas DNA was not found to be present in that silencer.

My informant tells me that the small flake of dried blood was actually taken from the bloodstained knickers belonging to Sheila, but I suppose in theory at least it could also have been provided by Robert Boutflour who as you point out had the same blood group activity as Sheila (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1)...

In any event, my informant says that this was the reason why the second silencer was sent to the lab' on 20th / 26th September 1985, by the police, to be checked for blood and fibres. Police suspected that the relatives may have got some of the blood from Sheila's heavily stained panties and introduced it as though it had been found on or inside the silencer that had been found on 11th September 1985...

[mike tesko]

I am going to copy the remainder of the COLP interview with PC Bird (SOC) now, so I will be away for awhile...

I will add newly copied pages of interview to original post...

In fact...

Go there now, and I will introduce the copies piecemeal...

[Reader]

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...

Is any document available that either suggests this date was 20th September 1985 or gives another date? The only relevant document I can recall seeing gives "26", with a "6" that is a bit large, but doesn't appear to have been altered from "0". Was there any motive for changing "20" to "26" anyway, or any explanation as to why 'Z' would recall the exact date?

[mike tesko]

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...

Is any document available that either suggests this date was 20th September 1985 or gives another date? The only relevant document I can recall seeing gives "26", with a "6" that is a bit large, but doesn't appear to have been altered from "0". Was there any motive for changing "20" to "26" anyway, or any explanation as to why 'Z' would recall the exact date?

Only the submission of articles, which is dated, in my opinion, 26th September 1985, but which Jeremy says is actually a reference to the 20th September 1985, because he has got copy of some other lab' documents which confirm that there were submissions from the police to the lab' on that date...

My informant had access to SOC material at the time of the investigation, pertaining to firearms and accessories, and this is why 'Z' has information about the second silencer which was sent to the lab' on 20th September 1985, in keeping with what Jeremy stated previously, contradicting my findings...

[Reader]

These other lab documents would be relevant only if they related to items that were also listed on the same form that I mentioned above, as items could have been submitted on both dates.

I understand that your informant had access to the information, but that doesn't explain why he would remember this specific date or why the day number would be given as, or altered to, "26" on the form that we've seen.

[mike tesko]

These other lab documents would be relevant only if they related to items that were also listed on the same form that I mentioned above, as items could have been submitted on both dates.

I understand that your informant had access to the information, but that doesn't explain why he would remember this specific date or why the day number would be given as, or altered to, "26" on the form that we've seen.

Without giving to much away about the identity of my informant, it would be true to say that other firearms accessories were submitted to the lab' (20th September 1985) along with the second silencer, and that my informant does not say that the date has been altered with regard to the submission of the second silencer, from 26th to 20th September 1985, or vice versa, my informant says the date was always the 20th September 1985, and that my interpenetration of 26th September 1985, was a misreading of the date on the form mentioned...

Informant says that a number of exhibits bearing the DRB mark were all submitted to the lab' on the same date, and that the second silencer (DRB/1) was one of these submitted articles on that date. Informant remembers these items and the date because they were all firearms exhibits, in particular, the fact that a second silencer was being sent to the lab' on a date after another silencer was already present at the lab'. Informant remembers the date in question because 'Z' may have had to handle some of them, that date, and have notes in my informants pocketbook, to confirm that this is what took place...