you should all know this?

[Reader]

sorry to go off topic, but how do i enable cookies, i cant read my emails.

Cookies aren't needed to read email. Are you referring to a new email address, on which you've never received email? Are you trying to read emails on a computer, having previously always used a mobile phone? What error message(s) do you get when trying to access your emails?

[Hartley]

This bit's interesting. Monday 12th August 1985.

Oak Farm Pick up silencer.

[mike tesko]

This bit's interesting. Monday 12th August 1985.

Oak Farm Pick up silencer.

Page 38 of DS Jones re-written pocketbook notes, which corresponds with sheet 19...

Sheet 19 - pages 37/38 - 67/68

Page 37 - refers to entries dated, 6th, 7th and 8th August 1985
Page 38 - refers to entries dated, 8th, 9th 10th and 11th August 1985
Page 67 - refers to entries dated,
Page 68 - refers to entries dated,

These entries in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROPERTY REGISTER are also very interesting, since these are exhibits SBJ/2, DS Jones recovered from the scene on 7th August 1985, the details of which are omitted from the pocketbook entry of the day...

Now...

What I don't get, is how could DS Jones be taking a photograph at the scene on 7th August 1985, bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/2, and then some five days later, on 12th August 1985, be collecting a silencer from Oak farm which ends up having the original exhibit mark of SBJ/1? How can DS Jones, take exhibit SBJ/2, before he was handed exhibit SBJ/1 five days later?

Like you say - this is very interesting...

Lets also not forget, that David Boutflour did not contact the police about finding the silencer in the gun cupboard until 11th september 1985, and his sister Ann eaton did not hand over that silencer until that same day, so why would DS Jones be going to Oak farm on 12th August 1985, to collect a silencer that the police did not know anything about because by that stage the relatives had not yet reported its find to the police, and which they had not handed it over, and which they did not hand over to the police, until 11th September 1985...

[Hartley]

Would you agree that regardless of everything else, if Jones collected the silencer, as per the current 'official line', then it should never have been an SBJ exhibit number at all, it should have been named after the person who found it?

What is the earliest reference to SBJ/1 that you have come across?

[mike tesko]

Would you agree that regardless of everything else, if Jones collected the silencer, as per the current 'official line', then it should never have been an SBJ exhibit number at all, it should have been named after the person who found it?

What is the earliest reference to SBJ/1 that you have come across?

I will answer your points shortly, but for now please try to bear with me, because I want to draw your attention to something of great importance, which cannot be overlooked and swept under the carpet. Now, you have pointed out the entry contained in DS Jones pocketbook, dated, 12th August 1985, and it is your suggestion (I assume) that this in some way proves that he collected the silencer from the relatives on this occasion, and that in some way proves that the relatives did find a silencer in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, which they duly handed over to DS Jones, on 12th...

Could you please take a look at the following copies of paged entries in that re-written pocketbook belonging to DS Jones, for example, the page you posted, and one showing the middle pages (52 and 53) of the same pocketbook, and would you agree that the pages of this particular forged pocketbook has got three staples fastening it all together?

Please take a good look, and tell me if I have interpreted it correctly?

[Hartley]

You crack on and say what it is that you want to.

[mike tesko]

Pocketbook of DC Hammersley, containing dated entries between 14th July 1985 and 13th October 1985:-

Please note, that there are only two staples fastening the pages of this pocketbook together inside its card cover...

[mike tesko]

You crack on and say what it is that you want to.

Well, explain this to me, how come police pocketbooks only have two lots of fastening staples, which join the cover of the pocketbook to the inner pages, yet at a very crucial stage or point inside DS "Stan" the man Jones pocketbook, where it mentions him going along to collect the silencer from Oak farm, on 12th August 1985, there appears to be three separate fastening staples, so if this was a genuine pocketbook, how could the original pages which were fastened inside the original cover of that pocketbook which was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, which only had two staples, has actually got pages contained within it that has got three staples?

How can a pocketbook which should only have two lots of fastening staples holding the cover and inner pages together, actually have some pages being held together by use of three staples?

Does this not lead one to the conclusion that the inner pages from the original pocketbook that was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, have been replaced by new pages upon which he has re-written his notes, and that a consequence of re-writing his notes in this book, involves pages with additional staples, and the fact that the body of the book does not fit snugly with its outercover?

[mike tesko]

Would you agree that regardless of everything else, if Jones collected the silencer, as per the current 'official line', then it should never have been an SBJ exhibit number at all, it should have been named after the person who found it?

What is the earliest reference to SBJ/1 that you have come across?

I will now respond to your point...

First of all, the silencer which was sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, did so under the identifying mark of SBJ/1, so if the identifying mark given to an item found, seized or retained at the scene is given the initials of the person who finds it, or seizes it or whatever, then do you agree that the silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, must have been a silencer found by DS Jones at the scene, and not the one allegedly found by the relatives?

Secondly...

Do you accept that once Jeremy was convicted of the murders, that Essex police handed back two silencers to the relatives? According to David Boutflour, he told COLP in 1991, that police returned two silencers to the family, one belonging to his father (Robert Boutflour) and the other belonging to himself? Now, at what stage did the relatives hand over the two Parker hale silencers belonging to them? Could you please try to find out for me, so that I can reconstruct exactly what took place regarding the seizure or retention of the two silencers belonging to the relatives, and the one belonging to the Bambers?

Thirdly...

If David Boutflour found a silencer at the scene, or produced it to the police from elsewhere, it should have been given his initials, and identifying mark (DRB). You will note that it was not until after early September 1985, was any silencer referred to, by the exhibit reference of DRB/1, and this is consistent with David Boutflour contacting the police by telephone on 11th September 1985, to report the finding of that silencer, so we can be sure that this particular silencer was not the same one that was sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, under the identifying mark of SBJ/1...

Fourthly...

We know police had at least three identical looking parker hale silencers in their possession and under their control at one time or another, and is it really just a coincidence that three different exhibit references have been given to a silencer, which have since all been merged into one and the same, where SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, are one and the same, but in reality are all different ones...

Could you please try to find out what exhibit references were given to the two Parker hale silencers which were given to the police by the relatives, which belonged to them? Once this is achieved it would be very helpful and all this business about silencers would be cleared up in an instant...

[Hartley]

You crack on and say what it is that you want to.

Well, explain this to me, how come police pocketbooks only have two lots of fastening staples, which join the cover of the pocketbook to the inner pages, yet at a very crucial stage or point inside DS "Stan" the man Jones pocketbook, where it mentions him going along to collect the silencer from Oak farm, on 12th August 1985, there appears to be three separate fastening staples, so if this was a genuine pocketbook, how could the original pages which were fastened inside the original cover of that pocketbook which was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, which only had two staples, has actually got pages contained within it that has got three staples?

How can a pocketbook which should only have two lots of fastening staples holding the cover and inner pages together, actually have some pages being held together by use of three staples?

Does this not lead one to the conclusion that the inner pages from the original pocketbook that was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, have been replaced by new pages upon which he has re-written his notes, and that a consequence of re-writing his notes in this book, involves pages with additional staples, and the fact that the body of the book does not fit snugly with its outercover?

No, it really doesn't. For two reasons.

The first being, that an extra staple doesn't equal extra or replaced pages, it equals extra staple. If I wanted to remove and replace pages, I would not need an extra staple in order to achieve it, two staples would be just fine.

The second reason, is that there is a much simpler and plausible explanation. Is it not more likely that the pocket book which was well used, simply got a bit tatty and the pages were a bit loose, so using the world renowned 'outside the box thinking' that Essex Police officers are apparently blessed with, he added a staple to hold it all together? Seems pretty reasonable to me.

[bigpod]

I can't see the pictures, so can't comment on what is being shown.

However, when my dad died we had to sort out many documents for probate on the will, and were specifically told not to staple, pin or even use paperclips to join documents, as unaligned marks caused by these could be used to challenge legal documents.

If that is the case with a relatively simple, unchallenged will, how much more should that apply to a murder case and associated documents?

[mike tesko]

You crack on and say what it is that you want to.

Well, explain this to me, how come police pocketbooks only have two lots of fastening staples, which join the cover of the pocketbook to the inner pages, yet at a very crucial stage or point inside DS "Stan" the man Jones pocketbook, where it mentions him going along to collect the silencer from Oak farm, on 12th August 1985, there appears to be three separate fastening staples, so if this was a genuine pocketbook, how could the original pages which were fastened inside the original cover of that pocketbook which was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, which only had two staples, has actually got pages contained within it that has got three staples?

How can a pocketbook which should only have two lots of fastening staples holding the cover and inner pages together, actually have some pages being held together by use of three staples?

Does this not lead one to the conclusion that the inner pages from the original pocketbook that was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, have been replaced by new pages upon which he has re-written his notes, and that a consequence of re-writing his notes in this book, involves pages with additional staples, and the fact that the body of the book does not fit snugly with its outercover?

No, it really doesn't. For two reasons.

The first being, that an extra staple doesn't equal extra or replaced pages, it equals extra staple. If I wanted to remove and replace pages, I would not need an extra staple in order to achieve it, two staples would be just fine.

The second reason, is that there is a much simpler and plausible explanation. Is it not more likely that the pocket book which was well used, simply got a bit tatty and the pages were a bit loose, so using the world renowned 'outside the box thinking' that Essex Police officers are apparently blessed with, he added a staple to hold it all together? Seems pretty reasonable to me.

And where might I ask, did he get the third staple from?

More significantly, how did he manage to staple the inner pages with a third staple, without making corresponding holes in the outer cover?

Have you ever tried stapling 26 folded sheets of paper with an ordinary stapler?

Me thinks your theory would not stand up to any sort of scrutiny, if tested or testable...

Because of the alteration to the start dates on the front cover bearing the official Essex police stamp dated 5th November 1984, it seems the most likely explanation is that DS Jones re-wrote his notes, after replacing inner pages...

[Hartley]

You crack on and say what it is that you want to.

Well, explain this to me, how come police pocketbooks only have two lots of fastening staples, which join the cover of the pocketbook to the inner pages, yet at a very crucial stage or point inside DS "Stan" the man Jones pocketbook, where it mentions him going along to collect the silencer from Oak farm, on 12th August 1985, there appears to be three separate fastening staples, so if this was a genuine pocketbook, how could the original pages which were fastened inside the original cover of that pocketbook which was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, which only had two staples, has actually got pages contained within it that has got three staples?

How can a pocketbook which should only have two lots of fastening staples holding the cover and inner pages together, actually have some pages being held together by use of three staples?

Does this not lead one to the conclusion that the inner pages from the original pocketbook that was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, have been replaced by new pages upon which he has re-written his notes, and that a consequence of re-writing his notes in this book, involves pages with additional staples, and the fact that the body of the book does not fit snugly with its outercover?

No, it really doesn't. For two reasons.

The first being, that an extra staple doesn't equal extra or replaced pages, it equals extra staple. If I wanted to remove and replace pages, I would not need an extra staple in order to achieve it, two staples would be just fine.

The second reason, is that there is a much simpler and plausible explanation. Is it not more likely that the pocket book which was well used, simply got a bit tatty and the pages were a bit loose, so using the world renowned 'outside the box thinking' that Essex Police officers are apparently blessed with, he added a staple to hold it all together? Seems pretty reasonable to me.

And where might I ask, did he get the third staple from?

More significantly, how did he manage to staple the inner pages with a third staple, without making corresponding holes in the outer cover?

Have you ever tried stapling 26 folded sheets of paper with an ordinary stapler?

Me thinks your theory would not stand up to any sort of scrutiny, if tested or testable...

Because of the alteration to the start dates on the front cover bearing the official Essex police stamp dated 5th November 1984, it seems the most likely explanation is that DS Jones re-wrote his notes, after replacing inner pages...

Probably from a third staple shop. Either that or from the same place they get all their other office stationary from.

Sorry I don't see the link, to get from that, to your accusation.

[ngb1066]

You crack on and say what it is that you want to.

Well, explain this to me, how come police pocketbooks only have two lots of fastening staples, which join the cover of the pocketbook to the inner pages, yet at a very crucial stage or point inside DS "Stan" the man Jones pocketbook, where it mentions him going along to collect the silencer from Oak farm, on 12th August 1985, there appears to be three separate fastening staples, so if this was a genuine pocketbook, how could the original pages which were fastened inside the original cover of that pocketbook which was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, which only had two staples, has actually got pages contained within it that has got three staples?

How can a pocketbook which should only have two lots of fastening staples holding the cover and inner pages together, actually have some pages being held together by use of three staples?

Does this not lead one to the conclusion that the inner pages from the original pocketbook that was issued to DS Jones on 5th November 1984, have been replaced by new pages upon which he has re-written his notes, and that a consequence of re-writing his notes in this book, involves pages with additional staples, and the fact that the body of the book does not fit snugly with its outercover?

No, it really doesn't. For two reasons.

The first being, that an extra staple doesn't equal extra or replaced pages, it equals extra staple. If I wanted to remove and replace pages, I would not need an extra staple in order to achieve it, two staples would be just fine.

The second reason, is that there is a much simpler and plausible explanation. Is it not more likely that the pocket book which was well used, simply got a bit tatty and the pages were a bit loose, so using the world renowned 'outside the box thinking' that Essex Police officers are apparently blessed with, he added a staple to hold it all together? Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Not reasonable at all.  That would be a wholly inappropriate way for a police officer to deal with his notebook.  Police notebooks are not just bits of scap paper for doodling notes.  There is a formal procedure for issuing and handling notebooks.  If a notebook became damaged it should be produced to the duty Inspector to be examined and signed.  Any remaining pages would then be crossed through and signed, and a new notebook should then be issued and signed for. 

[Hartley]

I will now respond to your point...

Thank you.

First of all, the silencer which was sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, did so under the identifying mark of SBJ/1, so if the identifying mark given to an item found, seized or retained at the scene is given the initials of the person who finds it, or seizes it or whatever, then do you agree that the silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, must have been a silencer found by DS Jones at the scene, and not the one allegedly found by the relatives?

Well, no, basically because there is no reference whatsoever to a silencer being found at the scene. If that was the case, is it not an amazing coincidence that it was Jones who found the silencer at the scene and took it with him, bearing in mind all of the other firearms which they did not take, they left in the house whilst the relatives had the somewhat horrific job of cleaning up the murder scene.

there is clearly an issue with the references and their is clearly a trail between the three different initials, SJB (Jones), DB (Bird but should refer to David Boutflour) and DRB (David Robert Boutflour).

Secondly...

Do you accept that once Jeremy was convicted of the murders, that Essex police handed back two silencers to the relatives? According to David Boutflour, he told COLP in 1991, that police returned two silencers to the family, one belonging to his father (Robert Boutflour) and the other belonging to himself? Now, at what stage did the relatives hand over the two Parker hale silencers belonging to them? Could you please try to find out for me, so that I can reconstruct exactly what took place regarding the seizure or retention of the two silencers belonging to the relatives, and the one belonging to the Bambers?

You are fully aware that a motorcycle courier was sent from court to fetch their sound moderators, why I do not know.

Thirdly...

If David Boutflour found a silencer at the scene, or produced it to the police from elsewhere, it should have been given his initials, and identifying mark (DRB). You will note that it was not until after early September 1985, was any silencer referred to, by the exhibit reference of DRB/1, and this is consistent with David Boutflour contacting the police by telephone on 11th September 1985, to report the finding of that silencer, so we can be sure that this particular silencer was not the same one that was sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, under the identifying mark of SBJ/1...

No it isn't, as you well know and as per various witness statements such as Glynis Howards COLP statement.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,411.msg6234.html#msg6234

Fourthly...

We know police had at least three identical looking parker hale silencers in their possession and under their control at one time or another, and is it really just a coincidence that three different exhibit references have been given to a silencer, which have since all been merged into one and the same, where SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, are one and the same, but in reality are all different ones...

Could you please try to find out what exhibit references were given to the two Parker hale silencers which were given to the police by the relatives, which belonged to them? Once this is achieved it would be very helpful and all this business about silencers would be cleared up in an instant...

I think I've answered this above, one a single silencer was in their possession and thus given an exhibit reference.