Author Topic: you should all know this?  (Read 284311 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1155 on: November 17, 2011, 11:18:PM »
Police Interviews of Jeremy Bamber, 9th September, 1985:-

Interview (3)

Commenced at 12:50hrs and concluded at 14:25hrs
« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 11:23:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1156 on: November 17, 2011, 11:28:PM »
Police Interviews of Jeremy Bamber, 12th September, 1985:-

Interview (4)

Commenced at 12:05hrs and concluded at 23:03hrs
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 03:43:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1157 on: November 18, 2011, 12:29:AM »
Visit to the wood:-
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 01:10:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1158 on: November 18, 2011, 04:48:AM »
Why are the police saying that when they saw Sheila`s body, that it appeared that she was dead?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1159 on: November 18, 2011, 12:18:PM »
Why are the police saying that when they saw Sheila`s body, that it appeared that she was dead?

I have a feeling you're gonna tell us why.  I still cant get my head around how RWB can have knowledge of Police v Sheila and still run with his self convinced obsession that Jeremy was behind it all.  It's not like the original response from the police wasn't vehemently opposed to his suspicions.  That.. and the information he may have received from Carr etc. should have been enough to plant at least a seed of doubt in his own mind, regarding the validity of his suspicions?

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1160 on: November 18, 2011, 01:56:PM »
Ripped from Bambertweets Twitpics:

Not heard in Court...

http://twitpic.com/7fgjm7

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1161 on: November 18, 2011, 10:09:PM »
Countryside visits:-

Perception...
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 11:14:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1162 on: November 18, 2011, 10:49:PM »
I saw this car which was covered in artificial grass, whilst in the Chiswick, earlier today...

For sale, at a cut price...

Excellent trim features...

Driven by a clever sod...

Runs on unleaded grass...

Owner purchased this car with a low cost lawn...

"Flymo", is an optional extra, grass trimmed twice a week in height of summer...

« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 07:39:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1163 on: November 18, 2011, 11:34:PM »
What really happened according to Jeremy:-

What really happened?

1.            Before-the-TFG entered WHF, Collins and Delgado looked through the kitchen window. Collins reports by radio that two bodies, one female and one male, have been seen in the kitchen. Both appeared to be dead.

2.    Collins, Delgado and others briefly enter the kitchen and confirm the two bodies by radio and telephone. They then continue to search the much of the downstairs and the back of the house upstairs.
3.     At some point, Sheila recovers consciousness, staggers upstairs to the main bedroom and shoots herself with the rifle which WPC Jeapes had seen leaning against the window.
 
4.     To conceal their incompetence, TFG officers, probably in collusion with Inspector Montgomery and Ps Adams, decide to 'cover up' that SC had first been seen in the kitchen. At this stage, it was only a mild manipulation of the truth; she had, as they announced publicly, committed suicide upstairs, in the main bedroom.

5.     Accordingly, Collins and Delgado omit from their statements any reference to looking through the kitchen window and seeing SC's body there; only one body, NB's, was in the kitchen and they first saw that after they had entered WHF.

6.     All went well; the inquest ruled that SC had killed her parents and two sons and then committed suicide.

7.     As August advanced, the police found themselves facing increasing difficulties. JB's relatives were determined to establish his guilt and began to demand a full murder investigation. Detective Chief Inspector 'Taff Jones knew that JB was innocent but to explain why he was so sure he would have to admit that SC was alive when the police entered WHF and that the police had concealed this. He would also have been concerned that information about the contamination of the crime scene by more officers being drafted in for training exercises using the bodies in situ was going to become public making a mockery of crime scene preservation and showing utter disrespect for Jeremy Bamber's dead family.

8.     'Taff Jones is delighted to be removed from heading the investigation. He is replaced by Ainsley, who had the reputation of being tough and ruthless. These qualities are required to prevent the police being exposed for concealing the truth about S C.

i. First line of defence: all records of police radio and telephone communications indicating that SC was still alive when the police entered WHF to be withheld from the defence.
 
ii. Second line of defence: in case JB's defence got wind of any of these radio or telephone messages, select TFG statements to mention mistaking NB's body for a woman.

9.    Highly irregularly, the coroner took home with him all papers relating to the inquest into the deaths of NB, June, SC and her sons. The inquest, it will be recalled, had endorsed the 'four murders and one suicide' interpretation of the deaths at WHF. The prosecution only called one firearms officer as witness at JB's trial. This spared them the choice between committing perjury or exposing the truth.
 
10.   At least eight or nine, perhaps a dozen or so, EP officers know the truth about WHF and that JB did not murder SC. I am told they were frightened by Andrew Hunter’s revelations in the House of Commons in 2005 but they are more frightened of losing their police pensions or even imprisonment. One has 'come out' over an important minor detail (the issue of silencers) but will say no more. Another has allegedly confessed to a third party that he feels dreadful guilt about JB's imprisonment.
 
All of the above is supported by documentary evidence.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1164 on: November 18, 2011, 11:39:PM »
Jeremy's take on the telephones in use/not in use at whf:-


Telephones at White House Farm

There has recently been much discussion over the telephones at White House Farm. This was brought up at the 1986 Trial of Jeremy Bamber. Key witnesses made statements and gave testimony about the phones that were at the farm.

Firstly there were usually three phones at White House Farm; a cream dial phone in the master bedroom; a blue digital dial one in the upstairs office; and a cordless phone which was kept in the kitchen. There was also another phone at the Farm that was a ‘fawn’ colour and it also had a digital key pad and it is unclear where this phone was usually kept although it was found in the kitchen under some magazines.

There had been a thunderstorm which had caused damage to the phone system and an engineer called Mr Pike made a statement that he took away the cordless phone and that he did not leave a replacement. The farm secretary Mrs Wilson had been on holiday and was not entirely sure where the phones were moved to as a result of this storm. Nevertheless Mrs Jean Bouttell testified in court that the phones had gone wrong so many times in the past year that she described it as “musical phones” when asked in court simply because the phones were moved around so frequently by the Bamber Family. She said it was common practice for the cream phone from the bedroom to be moved down into the kitchen.

After the tragedies happened on the 7th of August 1985, Chief Supt Harris used the phone to call Assistant Chief Constable Simpson on that morning before SOCO carried out their search of the house but this was denied at the 2002 appeal, evidence released in 2004 now proves he did make this call using the cream telephone in the kitchen. When the police finished their SOCO investigations and handed the keys to the family, by the weekend of the 10th of August Ann Eaton and Jean Bouttell started cleaning the house. Additionally numbers of people had been in and around the house including, Basil Cock, Barbara Wilson, Robert Boutflour, Pamela Boutflour, Chris Nevill, David Boutflour, Karen Boutflour and Anthony Pargeter.

On the 23rd of August Jeremy had been back to the farm, Barbara Wilson had commenced her duties as farm secretary reporting to Jeremy. Jean Bouttell had also commenced her regular cleaning duties. Jeremy had increased the wages of the farm workers during this time. And he asked Barbara Wilson to clear out many of the papers in the office for him.  It was on this date that he asked Jean Bouttell to clear out other belongings in the house. As we all know after a family member has died we have to face the difficult task of removing their belongings from our lives and Jeremy was no different from any other person in facing the emotional and practical difficulties of doing this.

Jean Bouttell testified that Jeremy had asked her to remove the pile of magazines in the kitchen and it was during this clear out that she found the fawn coloured phone. She said that she asked Jeremy what she should do with it and he replied that it was just a spare. When she later checked the phone some three weeks later at the request of the police she found that it was working. Barbara Wilson also states that she checked the phone and found it to be working. Neither of these witnesses stated that Jeremy had told them that the phone was broken. The police asked Jean to check the phone some three weeks later and she found it to be working.

It has been suggested that Jeremy deliberately removed the phone from the bedroom that his father slept in so that he could not call the police when Jeremy allegedly broke into the house to kill the family. Firstly, Jeremy could not be responsible for the storm which had again damaged the telephone equipment and secondly is Jeremy expected to remember where each phone was at each moment when he didn’t even live in the house? Is it reasonable to expect Jeremy to know which phones were supposed to be where at this time? Is it not a reasonable assumption that if the Bamber’s phone was broken that one of them would take a phone from the upstairs bedroom and use it to replace the broken one? Particularly if, amongst the piles of untidy clutter littered throughout the house they didn’t know where the spare phone was.

Considering the number of moves that the telephones had made during the last year which seems to have been at least two or three times up until the 7th of August is it not reasonable that Jeremy wouldn’t have spent his days thinking about where the phone was? Is it not reasonable to wonder at how many people had been in the house ‘looking for evidence’ long after the initial police SOCO search between the 7th of August and the 23rd of August? Is it not reasonable to assume that the ‘spare’ phone could have been moved at any time by anyone to its position under the magazines during Ann Eaton’s clean up of the farm house?

The other area for concern is the amount of rumour which has emerged into the media since the trial of Jeremy Bamber. Barbara Wilson made no less than 14 statements to the police before Jeremy’s trial  all dated 16.12.85, 05.10.85, 06.10.85, 11.10.85, 17.09.85, 19.09.85, 22.11.85, another on 05.10.85, and more on 08.11.85, 12.09.85, 16.11.85, 25.10.85, 26.11.85, and 27.09.85. In one statement she even described Jeremy as "a likeable young man". Out of all of these statements she never mentioned at any time that Nevill had told her that Jeremy had intended to kill him or anything which could be interpreted as such, Nevill had no premonition whatsoever that he might die in the near future. Neither did Barbara Wilson mention this at trial. If Nevill Bamber had told an employee such a thing why did this employee not mention this at trial to assist in the conviction of Jeremy Bamber and why did she not go to the police with this ‘story’ on the 7th of August? It is only in the Roger Wilkes book and on various television programmes that this has been suggested and we will leave you to make your own conclusions about why this story has been invented for various forms of media.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1165 on: November 18, 2011, 11:43:PM »
Two silencers - Jeremy's take on this feature:-

Two Moderators


So why was the silencer's reference number tampered with? Simply because the second silencer had been found much later than the Police originally stated. The Police merged the two silencers together to try to create continuity of the trail of evidence.

But this was difficult, all documents relating to finding the silencer had to be backdated, as there were none that were written on the 10th of August when it was supposed to have been found. 

The moderator which was found at the farm originally had been taken for forensic examination and it was not considered to have been used in the shootings.

Updated 23/06/10

The latest evidence to emerge in this case is the startling fact that the original exhibit labels for the Sound Moderator contained the wrong case reference number, this highlights the backdating of evidence by Police.

The first exhibit label shown on here is one fabricated by Essex Police to give a false ‘chain of evidence’ trail. Key to showing that this is a faked document is that its case number is SC/786/85 which DID NOT exist on 13th August 1985. This case number was not allocated to the investigation until after 7thSeptember 1985.

From the 8th August 1985 to 7th September 1985 this case was numbered SC/688/85. So if this exhibit label was a genuine original it would have the case number SC/688/85 on it and not SC/786/85. A Police Inspector saidhe produced this exhibit label on 13th August 1985.

So why did the Police backdate evidence? Clearly they didn’t find this sound moderator at the scene because if they had it would have the original case number on it and not one that hadn’t even been assigned to the case at the time it was supposed to have been found.

This is quite simply a disgrace. Backdating evidence in this way is a serious offence. The CCRC have had this document for some considerable amount of time and still nothing has been done.

14/06/10

The evidence of the photographic specialist Peter Suthurst is supported by a large number of documents which also prove that the scratches were made the following month and not on the 7th August 1985.

So why is the silencer so important in this case?
 
 
The 1986 trial the judge stated that it is “inconceivable” that Sheila committed the killings.  This is because it would have meant her attaching the sound moderator the gun, fighting in the kitchen, going upstairs shooting herself with the silencer attached to the gun, going back downstairs, putting the silencer away in the cupboard, going back upstairs to shoot herself and this time fatally.

The judge goes on to repeat this four times saying each time “Is it conceivable” or it is “inconceivable” stating that the defence case upon this red/paint/silencer/scratch mark issue alone has no merit at all, and over two pages he instructs the jury to accept the prosecutions case as it is inconceivable that Sheila was in any way responsible for the killings.

We now know that in fact the silencer did not make those scratch marks in the paint on the underside of the mantle shelf until sometime after all the crime scene photographs had been taken, rendering the judges summing up to be factually incorrect, and therefore the trial unfair.

The silencer was hugely important to the prosecution because blood which allegedly came from Sheila was found inside on the baffle plates. As the scratches on the mantle are proven to have been made after the first crime scene photographs were taken, the evidence of the silencer is now invalid, this includes the paint on the silencer, and the blood inside the silencer too.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 11:50:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1166 on: November 18, 2011, 11:56:PM »
Two silencers - Jeremy's take on this feature:-

Two Moderators


So why was the silencer's reference number tampered with? Simply because the second silencer had been found much later than the Police originally stated. The Police merged the two silencers together to try to create continuity of the trail of evidence.

But this was difficult, all documents relating to finding the silencer had to be backdated, as there were none that were written on the 10th of August when it was supposed to have been found. 

The moderator which was found at the farm originally had been taken for forensic examination and it was not considered to have been used in the shootings.

Updated 23/06/10

The latest evidence to emerge in this case is the startling fact that the original exhibit labels for the Sound Moderator contained the wrong case reference number, this highlights the backdating of evidence by Police.

The first exhibit label shown on here is one fabricated by Essex Police to give a false ‘chain of evidence’ trail. Key to showing that this is a faked document is that its case number is SC/786/85 which DID NOT exist on 13th August 1985. This case number was not allocated to the investigation until after 7thSeptember 1985.

From the 8th August 1985 to 7th September 1985 this case was numbered SC/688/85. So if this exhibit label was a genuine original it would have the case number SC/688/85 on it and not SC/786/85. A Police Inspector saidhe produced this exhibit label on 13th August 1985.

So why did the Police backdate evidence? Clearly they didn’t find this sound moderator at the scene because if they had it would have the original case number on it and not one that hadn’t even been assigned to the case at the time it was supposed to have been found.

This is quite simply a disgrace. Backdating evidence in this way is a serious offence. The CCRC have had this document for some considerable amount of time and still nothing has been done.

14/06/10

The evidence of the photographic specialist Peter Suthurst is supported by a large number of documents which also prove that the scratches were made the following month and not on the 7th August 1985.

So why is the silencer so important in this case?
 
 
The 1986 trial the judge stated that it is “inconceivable” that Sheila committed the killings.  This is because it would have meant her attaching the sound moderator the gun, fighting in the kitchen, going upstairs shooting herself with the silencer attached to the gun, going back downstairs, putting the silencer away in the cupboard, going back upstairs to shoot herself and this time fatally.

The judge goes on to repeat this four times saying each time “Is it conceivable” or it is “inconceivable” stating that the defence case upon this red/paint/silencer/scratch mark issue alone has no merit at all, and over two pages he instructs the jury to accept the prosecutions case as it is inconceivable that Sheila was in any way responsible for the killings.

We now know that in fact the silencer did not make those scratch marks in the paint on the underside of the mantle shelf until sometime after all the crime scene photographs had been taken, rendering the judges summing up to be factually incorrect, and therefore the trial unfair.

The silencer was hugely important to the prosecution because blood which allegedly came from Sheila was found inside on the baffle plates. As the scratches on the mantle are proven to have been made after the first crime scene photographs were taken, the evidence of the silencer is now invalid, this includes the paint on the silencer, and the blood inside the silencer too.

This exhibit label could not have been signed by any of the relatives until after 20th September 1985, when the silencer which was found by the relatives on 11th September 1985, was first submitted to the lab', to be checked for blood and fibres, but upon which was only found to be paint from the deliberate scratching of the aga in the kitchen at the scene...
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 11:59:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1167 on: November 19, 2011, 12:03:AM »
On the other hand, this exhibit label, is the one signed by all the experts at the lab' after its submission on 30th August 1985, or is it?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1168 on: November 19, 2011, 12:38:AM »
I am convinced that the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, did not find the small flake of blood (which produced the blood group activity, matching Sheila's) trapped inside the baffle plates of the silencer he dismantled after it had been returned to the lab' by DI Cook (SOC) on 30th August 1985. I arrive at this conclusion after careful study of all the facts relating to the dismantling of the same silencer by Cook (S)C) on 29th August 1985, activities which Cook photographed - if there had been a small dried flake of blood inside the baffle plates on 29th August 1985, Cook would not only have found it whilst dismantling the silencer, but he would have photographed the flake, and it would have been given an exhibit reference, linking it to him?

I cannot see how when Cook could have been dismantled the silencer on 29th August 1985, and there be no small flake of blood found inside it, yet once it was rebuilt and sent to the lab' how could such a small dried flake suddenly and unexpectedly materialize there?

I am drawn to the strong possibility that the flake of blood tested at the lab' between 12th and 19th September 1985, was the one which David Boutflour scraped from the silencer he found at whf, on 11th September 1985, by use of an hacksaw blade...

The only thing I am not 100% sure about, is whether or not this small flake of dried blood, in question, had the exhibit reference of either DB/1, or DRB/1?

I am almost certain that this flake of blood, originally had the exhibit reference of DB/1, and that the silencer found at the scene by the relatives on 11th September, and subsequently sent to the lab' on 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, had the exhibit reference of DRB/1...

I have strong reasons for believing this to be true...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1169 on: November 19, 2011, 07:35:AM »
I am convinced that the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, did not find the small flake of blood (which produced the blood group activity, matching Sheila's) trapped inside the baffle plates of the silencer he dismantled after it had been returned to the lab' by DI Cook (SOC) on 30th August 1985. I arrive at this conclusion after careful study of all the facts relating to the dismantling of the same silencer by Cook (S)C) on 29th August 1985, activities which Cook photographed - if there had been a small dried flake of blood inside the baffle plates on 29th August 1985, Cook would not only have found it whilst dismantling the silencer, but he would have photographed the flake, and it would have been given an exhibit reference, linking it to him?

I cannot see how when Cook could have been dismantled the silencer on 29th August 1985, and there be no small flake of blood found inside it, yet once it was rebuilt and sent to the lab' how could such a small dried flake suddenly and unexpectedly materialize there?

I am drawn to the strong possibility that the flake of blood tested at the lab' between 12th and 19th September 1985, was the one which David Boutflour scraped from the silencer he found at whf, on 11th September 1985, by use of an hacksaw blade...

The only thing I am not 100% sure about, is whether or not this small flake of dried blood, in question, had the exhibit reference of either DB/1, or DRB/1?

I am almost certain that this flake of blood, originally had the exhibit reference of DB/1, and that the silencer found at the scene by the relatives on 11th September, and subsequently sent to the lab' on 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, had the exhibit reference of DRB/1...

I have strong reasons for believing this to be true...

Silencer bearing the mark SBJ/1 appears to have been sent to the lab' twice, once on 13th August 1985, and secondly, on 30th August 1985...

Small flake of blood scraped from the silencer by use of a razor blade which was handed in by the relatives on 11th September 1985, was taken to the lab' and analysed, by the blood expert, John Hayward, between 12th and 19th August 1985...

Silencer bearing the mark DRB/1, from which this flake was allegedly scraped, by David Boutflour, was subsequently sent to klab' to be checked for blood and fibres, on 20th September 1985, and paint from aga surround found upon it...
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 08:26:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...