you should all know this?

[smiffy]

The scratch pictures of the left side(as viewed) of the aga surround Mike posted up are most interesting.
It seems the photograph showing no scratches must be from when Jean Boutell had cleaned up and laid the kitchen out as it normally was...we have the date for that.
The second picture showing the 2 distinct pieces of damage must have been taken on a date later than that.

HOWEVER..of even greater interest on this issue is what covered at least one of those scratch areas at the time of the murder. A calender covers one of those scratches...gauge height by door catch...
So at the time of the murder ..nothing should have made that scratch...PERFECT!

apolologies for black and white piccy of Ralph...

[mike tesko]

The scratch pictures of the left side(as viewed) of the aga surround Mike posted up are most interesting.
It seems the photograph showing no scratches must be from when Jean Boutell had cleaned up and laid the kitchen out as it normally was...we have the date for that.
The second picture showing the 2 distinct pieces of damage must have been taken on a date later than that.

HOWEVER..of even greater interest on this issue is what covered at least one of those scratch areas at the time of the murder. A calender covers one of those scratches...gauge height by door catch...
So at the time of the murder ..nothing should have made that scratch...PERFECT!

apolologies for black and white piccy of Ralph...

It should be possible for an expert like Mr Sutherst, to enlarge the image of the calender, by use of available negative, to check surface of the calender, for any sign of corresponding damage, either to help establish marks were made later, or if any damage is visible on the surface of the calender, it might be possible to identify the object which struck it, for example, something other than the end of a silencer?

I personally do not think the surface of the calender was damaged at all on the morning of the shootings...

[mike tesko]

Come to think of it, I have a feeling that police seized that calender, and made it an exhibit, it could have been one of DS `Stan` Jones, SBJ, exhibits, which police conveniently disposed of once the nature of the investigation changed...

[mike tesko]

A clear picture has emerged concerning three main areas of the aga surround where scratch marks have been found at one time or another. These areas can be identified as follows:-

(1) Underneath mantle shelf
(2) Upper front right hand face of aga
(3) Left hand side face of aga

Marks made at (2) and (3) were not present on the morning of the shootings, but were deliberately made there when someone deliberately scratched the end of a silencer against it...

It must follow, therefore, that the only marks which could have been present at the time of the shootings, were those underneath the mantelpiece. This being the case, one is then left to contemplate what DS Davidson told COLP in his 1990 interviews, about the reason why a paint sample, RC/1, was taken from underneath the aga by DI Cook (SOC), on 8th August - because some similar red paint had been found to be present on the end of a guns barrel...

When asked by COLP whether he was referring to paint found on the end of the silencer, Davidson responded by saying, "No”, some paint had been found on the end of a guns barrel, a gun which had been found downstairs, not upstairs...

It must follow then, by a reliance on the power of deduction, that a silencer did not make the marks underneath the aga mantelpiece, but that the end of a guns barrel did...

Moreover, the gun in question was one which was found downstairs at the scene, not upstairs...

It must also follow, based on logic, that the marks on these other two areas of the aga, (2) and (3), were made by a silencer striking the aga, on an occasion long after the shootings, and that this leads to the inevitable conclusion that there was no silencer fitted to the barrel of the gun which struck the aga, during a purported struggle involving Ralph and his killer, which is contrary to what the prosecution alleged during the trial...

It is possible to reconstruct when one or more of the prosecutions witnesses deliberately contaminated the end of the silencer, so that it could allow the court to be deceived into accepting that a silencer was used in these shootings, which produced other advantages to the prosecution case, but which was grossly unfair to the defendant... 

[mike tesko]

Rather more interestingly...

The two damaged areas (2) and (3) of the aga, were protected at the time of the shootings, by a blue striped jacket, and a calender, which would have prevented any direct contact between the end of any silencer and either area described...

More importantly, photographs taken at the scene, show the two aforementioned areas to be unmarked, on occasions prior to further pictures which were took, showing marks there...

It is safe to assume, therefore, that somebody with a vested interest in wanting there to be paint from the aga to be found on the end of a silencer, which got there when marks were made upon it, deliberately falsified this evidence.
..

[mike tesko]

One thing we can all be certain about, is the fact that marks on the left hand panel, were made at the time police were at the scene this can be proven by reference to the negatives numbered 7 and 9 - which show no marks at the time the former was taken, but which had materialised there by the time the latter one (9) was taken. Opne is left to wonder if the materialisation of these marks has got anything at all top do with comments made to Ann Eaton by the police, during a visit to the. Scene, where police told her that she had not seen what they had been doing, but if anyone asked, she was to say police had been taking measurements around the aga...

[mike tesko]

Comments made by police to Ann Eaton, `You haven`t seen what we are doing`, and the sudden appearance of scratch marks, on the left panel as detailed in negative 9, which are absent in negative 7, can be dated and if as suspected the photographs were taken in September 1985, it exposes another part of case which has been falsified relating to the find of the silencer by the relatives, which we now know was moved forward a month, from its actual recovery from the scene on 11th September, to 10th August...

[Roch]

Comments made by police to Ann Eaton, `You haven`t seen what we are doing`, and the sudden appearance of scratch marks, on the left panel as detailed in negative 9, which are absent in negative 7, can be dated and if as suspected the photographs were taken in September 1985, it exposes another part of case which has been falsified relating to the find of the silencer by the relatives, which we now know was moved forward a month, from its actual recovery from the scene on 11th September, to 10th August...

Was that statement made to COLP or was it in her notes?  Seems an odd statement for her to make, if she had been involved with the falsification process at some point.  It is a statement which leaves a potential marker for others later attempting to solve what took place.  Why leave a marker like that?

[mike tesko]

Comments made by police to Ann Eaton, `You haven`t seen what we are doing`, and the sudden appearance of scratch marks, on the left panel as detailed in negative 9, which are absent in negative 7, can be dated and if as suspected the photographs were taken in September 1985, it exposes another part of case which has been falsified relating to the find of the silencer by the relatives, which we now know was moved forward a month, from its actual recovery from the scene on 11th September, to 10th August...

According to Robert Boutflours typed notes, which date back to 7  August 1985, but which in fact were not typed out until late September 1985, Ann was asked by the police to open up whf, and she was told by the police that she had not seen what they had done, or what they were doing, on 14th August, burt this could easily have taken place in September...

[mike tesko]

Robert Boutflour recorded In his notes that silencer was found on Sunday 11th August...

[mike tesko]

Robert Boutflour recorded In his notes that silencer was found on Sunday 11th August...

How can the same silencer have been found in the gun cupboard on two different dates, involving the same people, once on 10th August 1985, and once on 11th August 1985?

[mike tesko]

Silencer found by relatives on 11th September 1985, was not sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985:-

[mike tesko]

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?

Here are some more images taken of the relevant parts of the aga surround where someone made additional scratch marks after the date of the shootings:-

[mike tesko]

None of us should be in any doubt that there were no visible scratch marks on two crucial areas of the aga on the morning of the shootings. These two areas were deliberately marked by someone who wanted the silencer to be fitted to the guns barrel, and to try and prove this they scratched the aga surround with the end of the silencer, later on...

[mike tesko]

None of us should be in any doubt that there were no visible scratch marks on two crucial areas of the aga on the morning of the shootings. These two areas were deliberately marked by someone who wanted the silencer to be fitted to the guns barrel, and to try and prove this they scratched the aga surround with the end of the silencer, later on...

Three important events

(1) date photographs were taken at scene on 7th August 1985
(2) date photographs were taken at scene when house cleaner reconstructed kitchen
(3) date photographs were taken showing marks on other areas of aga at scene