you should all know this?

[clifford]

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.

The use of the term family was mine. David said the silencer was returned to him, or at least this was the way I interpreted it.

[clifford]

Also remember the silencer was origanally accredited with exhibit number AE1 by the exhibits officer.

[DCrump]

My informant tells me that the small flake of dried blood was actually taken from the bloodstained knickers belonging to Sheila

I cannot see how you could obtain a flake of blood from bloodstained knickers, particularly if they've been soaking in a bucket of water. Without getting too graphic, the blood would have soaked into the fibres and then become diluted by the water. To obtain a flake it would have to sit on the surface so that you could then scrape it off once dry, and it just doesn't do that.

[clifford]

It may be me reading this wrong Mike, but is your informant telling you what you already know, and so do we. Are you being taken for a ride here Mike.
His theories have been speculating on this forum for yonks, and have been discussed.
I suppose you will get your head up your arse again for me daring to question you, but I am nobodies patsy, and have grave doubts of the authenticity of Z.

[mike tesko]

My informant tells me that the small flake of dried blood was actually taken from the bloodstained knickers belonging to Sheila

I cannot see how you could obtain a flake of blood from bloodstained knickers, particularly if they've been soaking in a bucket of water. Without getting too graphic, the blood would have soaked into the fibres and then become diluted by the water. To obtain a flake it would have to sit on the surface so that you could then scrape it off once dry, and it just doesn't do that.

it was originally a clot of blood which came from panties, which apparently was left to dry, I wasn't there so I cannot give you the exact or precise circumstances of its find or recovery...

[mike tesko]

It may be me reading this wrong Mike, but is your informant telling you what you already know, and so do we. Are you being taken for a ride here Mike.
His theories have been speculating on this forum for yonks, and have been discussed.
I suppose you will get your head up your arse again for me daring to question you, but I am nobodies patsy, and have grave doubts of the authenticity of Z.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want to...

[clifford]

It may be me reading this wrong Mike, but is your informant telling you what you already know, and so do we. Are you being taken for a ride here Mike.
His theories have been speculating on this forum for yonks, and have been discussed.
I suppose you will get your head up your arse again for me daring to question you, but I am nobodies patsy, and have grave doubts of the authenticity of Z.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want to...

Quite.

[Reader]

. . . my informant says the date was always the 20th September 1985, and that my interpretation of 26th September 1985, was a misreading of the date on the form mentioned...

My misreading too, then, as it is quite clearly "26" on that form.

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

If that's the case, there should be documents available to back it up, and some explanation as to why other firearms exhibits attributed to DRB were being sent off at such a late stage. Even if your informant knew that the exhibits were ready to be sent off on 20th September, and made a note in is pocketbook, he probably wouldn't know for certain that they were actually sent on that date unless he was the officer who completed the form and dispatched them. We know two things for certain: one is that on the form we've seen the day appears to be "26", and the other is that it's really difficult (try it) to write a "0" that accidentally looks like a "6".

it was originally a clot of blood which came from panties, which apparently was left to dry, I wasn't there so I cannot give you the exact or precise circumstances of its find or recovery...

Your informant presumably wasn't in the room when it occurred either. He could have heard about it, but that doesn't guarantee that it's correct.

The use of the term family was mine. David said the silencer was returned to him, or at least this was the way I interpreted it.

Can you give a link so that we can see the exact wording in Pargeter's statement?

[clifford]

You wont like what you see as Pargeter is on funny ground. I encourage you to read the whole of Pargeters statements.
I am not clever enough to paste here, but if you go to statements and transciripts, you will find it there

[clifford]

Reader you obviously knew about the Pargeter statements, because I have just read your past posts
Are you distancing yourself from AP

[mike tesko]

The 1635 action reports connected with the investigations into these five deaths:-

Here is a list of all the relevant action reports instigated by Essex police in connection with this case, somewhere amongst all these enquiries, lies the truth about what really did occur with respect to these murders,and how the police gathered evidence for use in Jeremy Bambers prosecution and conviction...

I have most of the hand written action reports, in my possession, but some are obviously missing and unaccounted for, some have been withheld under pii. I could post some of them, if relevant..

[Reader]

Reader you obviously knew about the Pargeter statements, . . .

The statement you seem to be referring to does use the word "family".

[mike tesko]

Reader you obviously knew about the Pargeter statements, . . .

The statement you seem to be referring to does use the word "family".

Anthony Pargeter refers to the silencer having been handed back to the family, in one of his statements

[mike tesko]

The forged, handwritten notes, of Julie Mugford (so called Diary entries)

These notes are supposed to represent a contemporaneous account of what was going on between Jeremy, others and herself, at the material time. I am posting them here on the forum to help facilitate debate about the alleged role Jeremy/Mugford played in these murders:-

[mike tesko]

How the silencer Conspiracy, unfolded:-

I would also like to add, that on 29th August 1985, that DI Cook (SOC) dismantled the silencer (SBJ/1) and rebuilt it, before screwing the rebuilt unit directly onto the barrel of the rifle, exposing it to the risk and possibility of contamination...

Also...

that this silencer (bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1) with blood on its end cap, was not the same silencer examined at the Lab' on 25th September 1985, bearing the same identifying (SBJ/1) mark, which only had opaint upon it...