you should all know this?

[mike tesko]

Whilst COLP were interviewing SOC officers in 1991, they referred to the silencer that was subject of questioning, as "THE SIGNED SILENCER”, which gives the impression that COLP knew about a second silencer, that could be referred to as "THE UNSIGNED SILENCER”...

Why would COLP be seeking to distinguish the silencer, in these interviews, by referring to it as ”THE SIGNED SILENCER”, if there was in truth only one?

[smiffy]

In Davidsons COLP interview he was asked by Supt. McKay

"Knowing there was one silencer there did you have knowledge at all of the second silencer"

PROOF INDEED that COLP knew of the second silencer by use of the word "the" which has to relate to an identified item.

If COLP were unaware of a second silencer the question would be addressed using an "a" to cover any silencer and thus show doubt of its existence.

[Roch]

In Davidsons COLP interview he was asked by Supt. McKay

"Knowing there was one silencer there did you have knowledge at all of the second silencer"

PROOF INDEED that COLP knew of the second silencer by use of the word "the" which has to relate to an identified item.

If COLP were unaware of a second silencer the question would be addressed using an "a" to cover any silencer and thus show doubt of its existence.

Even if they had used an 'a' instead of a 'the' ... alarm bells ringing. 

[smiffy]

Cook and paint sample RC/1.
lets see documentation all says taken on the 8th of august...yet Cook in his COLP interview makes claims that he did not take the sample that day but took it on the 14 th.
Cook suggests the date of the 8th is a typo...from typing pool or some other such error...he seems to agree the entry on the original form could indeed by Davidsons writing.....

OK maybe we can buy Cook's explanation for the wrong day and the paint sample was taken on the 14th.

Davidson is totally clear he was handed a paint sample and a reason for its taking (paint on barrel of weapon found downstairs that had taken a knock). He is sure on this.

Who is correct....ANSWER Davidson.
why....
Davidson was on duty on the 8th august....
he was not on duty on the 13th and 14 th of august (his days off as mentioned in his COLP interview.

SO IT HAD TO BE THE 8TH AUGUST.
Cook LIED when he claims it was the 14th....

[mike tesko]

Not only did COLP know about the existence of two identical looking Parker hale silencers which were at the heart of this investigation, they knew that one of the silencers (1) had been recovered from the scene at a very early stage, by DS ”Stan” Jones, and that the other silencer (2), had been found by the relatives a month later. COLP also knew that the two silencers which should have been present at the scene at the material time, were in fact both present...

[mike tesko]

Cook and paint sample RC/1.
lets see documentation all says taken on the 8th of august...yet Cook in his COLP interview makes claims that he did not take the sample that day but took it on the 14 th.
Cook suggests the date of the 8th is a typo...from typing pool or some other such error...he seems to agree the entry on the original form could indeed by Davidsons writing.....

OK maybe we can buy Cook's explanation for the wrong day and the paint sample was taken on the 14th.

Davidson is totally clear he was handed a paint sample and a reason for its taking (paint on barrel of weapon found downstairs that had taken a knock). He is sure on this.

Who is correct....ANSWER Davidson.
why....
Davidson was on duty on the 8th august....
he was not on duty on the 13th and 14 th of august (his days off as mentioned in his COLP interview.

SO IT HAD TO BE THE 8TH AUGUST.
Cook LIED when he claims it was the 14th....

Cook made a false entry in his pocketbook for 14th August 1985, relating to the alleged taking of a paint sample (RWC/1), which is an entry he squeezed in later, once the additional scratch marks had been made on the aga surround, on 12th September (when Cook and Bird were both present at the scene). Whereas, by that stage any marks found on the aga, were known to have been made by the end of a guns barrel, in keeping with what DS Davidson told COLP in his 1991 intervie...

The paint on silencer (2), and scratch marks on the aga surround, only became an issue, once additional marks were made on the aga surround, on 12th September 1985...

It was at some stage after those additional marks were made on the aga surround, that Cook sought to introduce the reference to paint sample RWC/1 on 14th August, since before marks were added on 12th September, there simply would have been no need to take a paInt sample to compare against paint from the aga on a silencer, because by that stage, a guns barrel had made marks there, not a silencer...

[smiffy]

In her COLP interview Ann refers to a question posed to her about the 14th.
In the question the silencer is referred to as "a silencer"...indicating any silencer ..ie more silencers involved than just one. If only one silencer had been involved then they would have used "the" silencer in being able to be specific as this one silencer if true and been handed to police by the relatives should be the only one.

thus again COLP demonstrate knowledge that more than one silencer was involved in the case.

on a sidebar....Ann Eaton, DS Jone and Miller all fall into colluding in the same false story of Cook's about a paint sample being taken on the 14th of August.

[mike tesko]

If Cook took two paint samples, he took RC/1 from aga surround (whf) on 8th August, and other (RWC/1) from a similar location on 12th September...

I personally think he only took one paint sample (RC/1) on 8th August, that was later altered to RWC/1, and the date it was taken was altered to 14th August...

[mike tesko]

On 21st December 1998, Martyn Ismail, received the sound moderator in an unsealed box. There was no identifying mark upon or with it, and so it is not possible to say which of the two silencers (1 or 2) it is/was?

Here is a copy of a letter addressed to Ms dawn Butler, CCRC, dated 22nd March, 2000:-

Please note, that on 29th March 1999, in the company of Mark Webster, he examined the moderator for blood, and that no blood was detected on the inside and outside of the moderator body or on the seventeen internal discs.

[mike tesko]

On 21st December 1998, Martyn Ismail, received the sound moderator in an unsealed box. There was no identifying mark upon or with it, and so it is not possible to say which of the two silencers (1 or 2) it is/was?

Here is a copy of a letter addressed to Ms dawn Butler, CCRC, dated 22nd March, 2000:-

Please note, that on 29th March 1999, in the company of Mark Webster, he examined the moderator for blood, and that no blood was detected on the inside and outside of the moderator body or on the seventeen internal discs.

There was supposed to be a considerable amount of blood in the silencer, so where did all of it go to?

Unless, of course, this was the other silencer (2), the one found by the relatives on 11th September 1985, which did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, and which was examined on 25th September 1985, and paint found upon it (but no blood)?

[mike tesko]

David Boutflour recovers guns and ammunition, on 10th August 1985, from the scene:-

Supposed to be 4 pages, but there are only two....

[mike tesko]

On 21st December 1998, Martyn Ismail, received the sound moderator in an unsealed box. There was no identifying mark upon or with it, and so it is not possible to say which of the two silencers (1 or 2) it is/was?

Here is a copy of a letter addressed to Ms dawn Butler, CCRC, dated 22nd March, 2000:-

Please note, that on 29th March 1999, in the company of Mark Webster, he examined the moderator for blood, and that no blood was detected on the inside and outside of the moderator body or on the seventeen internal discs.

There was supposed to be a considerable amount of blood in the silencer, so where did all of it go to?

Unless, of course, this was the other silencer (2), the one found by the relatives on 11th September 1985, which did not get sent to the lab' until 20th September 1985, and which was examined on 25th September 1985, and paint found upon it (but no blood)?

Does it surprise any of you to learn, that Martyn Ismail, and Mark Webster, should be checking the outside of the silencer for blood, if this was the very same silencer (1) which on 23rd August 1985, was exposed to, and saturated with cynoacrylate fumes (super glue treatment)? You would think that experts such as these would be able to tell, and should have been informed that if this was the first silencer (1) which found its way into the possession of Essex police, it would obviously be coated completely on the outside with super glue residue, and of course, you would not be expected to detect or find any trace of blood - yet these experts did not even recognise that any part of the silencer (2) which they examined, was coated with any trace of super glue residue, and so a huge question mark hangs over its identity?

[mike tesko]

Another David  Boutflour statement:-

[mike tesko]

Report submitted by DI Cook (SOC) for the attention of DCS "Mick" Ainsley, after nature of investigation changed/altered:-

“However before undertaking such examinations it is the usual practice, as in this case, to submit the items to the forensic Science Laboratory to make an initial examination as chemicals involved in any fingerprint treatment may have a possible adverse effect on Laboratory examinations, i.e. blood grouping etc.”

[mike tesko]

The crucial blood group evidence ( A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) was not obtained (between 12th and 19th September 1985) until after the silencer had been exposed to cynoacrylate fumes on 23rd August 1985, contradicting what Cook wrote to Ainsley about - in other words, the blood group activity obtained after 23rd August 1985, was at peril of having been adversely effected, yet the jury were not told about this, either by the police who testified, or by the experts who also testified in support of the prosecutions case...