you should all know this?

[jon]

I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.

Is this mentioned in any statement's ?

Yes Oakey made a statement on 25th October 1985 which described the collection of the scope, unfortunately I don't think it is on the forum.

Have you read this yourself ?

Yes I have, it mentions the collection of the Nikkon scope and various boxes of ammunition including the Eley .22 hollowpoint and Raker shotgun cartridges, it also mentions a spot of blood on one of the boxes.

Do you know if Oakey mention's it anywhere , notebook , statement , before 25th October ? , also is it possible for you to ask AE , why she make's no mention of ' The Silencer ' before September ?

[Hartley]

I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.

Is this mentioned in any statement's ?

Yes Oakey made a statement on 25th October 1985 which described the collection of the scope, unfortunately I don't think it is on the forum.

Have you read this yourself ?

Yes I have, it mentions the collection of the Nikkon scope and various boxes of ammunition including the Eley .22 hollowpoint and Raker shotgun cartridges, it also mentions a spot of blood on one of the boxes.

Do you know if Oakey mention's it anywhere , notebook , statement , before 25th October ? , also is it possible for you to ask AE , why she make's no mention of ' The Silencer ' before September ?

No I do not know.

No it is not.

[mike tesko]

I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.

Well then, this creates an even bigger mystery, because how then did police still have a silencer in their possession after 30th August 1985, to enable them to be able to send it to the lab' on 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres from a tampon?

So...

Somebodies not telling the truth about this other silencer - I wonder who that could be?

Could the answer be in the word 'resubmitted'?

So...

You are suggesting that at some stage after 30th August 1985, that the silencer was handed back to Essex police from the lab', to enable them to be in possession of it so that they could resubmit it to the lab' again, by 20th September 1985? Yet, there is no evidence at all to remotely suggest that this is what did take place, on the contrary once the silencer was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, it remained there until the trial, so where does that leave your theory?

Furthermore...

Silencer which got sent to the lab' was fingerprinted by oblique light test on 15th August 1985, and by superglue treatment on 23rd August 1985, so why would police be fingerprinting the same silencer on 13th September 1985?

Why also would the police be resubmitting a silencer to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres if blood had already been found inside it by that stage?

Yet still puzzling...

is why there exists a police record to the effect that Ann Eaton handed a silencer to DC Oakley on 11th September 1985, if she didn't?

[mike tesko]

Why does it take until 11th September 1985, for David Boutflour to ring up Essex police to tell them that he has found a gun silencer in the gun cupboard at whf, if he found it a month earlier?

Why does he ask the police to meet him at whf at about that time, and why does he then give two accounts where he describes how the silencer was found?

Even more disturbingly...

Why do scratch marks which were not on the front face of the aga surround on the morning of the shootings, suddenly appear there on 12th September 1985, and why is it that it was not until 1st October 1985, that paint from the marks made on the aga, was identified as being present on the end of the silencer?

[mike tesko]

Whilst all of this was going on, where was Anthony Pargeters Parker hale silencer that was normally kept at whf?

[Hartley]

I think that very few people really follow your silencer theories, I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get.

How about laying all out, idiot proof including all attachements that you are relying to validate your theory. Include the lab documents and any other references to finger print testing, blood and fibre testing, etc.

The whole lot, as a stand alone, all in one, easy to digest serving.

I know it's tedious and time consuming but it would certainly help.

[Hartley]

By the way Jon, Oakleys statement actually is on the forum, it was just hiding , there is a link to it in the library thread.

[mike tesko]

By the way Jon, Oakleys statement actually is on the forum, it was just hiding , there is a link to it in the library thread.

According to Jeremy, there were two police officers with very similar names, one called PC Oakley, and the other PC Oakey, Ann Eaton handed over the silencer to one, and the telescopic sites and other stuff to the other, at least that is what my understanding of Jeremy's findings are on this matter...

[Hartley]

By the way Jon, Oakleys statement actually is on the forum, it was just hiding , there is a link to it in the library thread.

According to Jeremy, there were two police officers with very similar names, one called PC Oakley, and the other PC Oakey, Ann Eaton handed over the silencer to one, and the telescopic sites and other stuff to the other, at least that is what my understanding of Jeremy's findings are on this matter...

Okay, that's interesting, my understanding is different though.

[Roch]

I think that very few people really follow your silencer theories, I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get.

How about laying all out, idiot proof including all attachements that you are relying to validate your theory. Include the lab documents and any other references to finger print testing, blood and fibre testing, etc.

The whole lot, as a stand alone, all in one, easy to digest serving.

I know it's tedious and time consuming but it would certainly help.

Hartley, it's a bit ironic, since it's the one part of the defence based arguments that even some posters disposed towards guilt concede they have doubts.  I've said a few times that I was there was some kind of flow chart or line chart with different colours to represent the alleged different silencer.  So for example SBJ1 , DB1, DRB1

You could then map the alleged journey of the exhibit/s in date order, adding inserts either side of the coloured line, relating to key events in the time-line of the case.

[jon]

I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.

Is this mentioned in any statement's ?

Yes Oakey made a statement on 25th October 1985 which described the collection of the scope, unfortunately I don't think it is on the forum.

Have you read this yourself ?

Yes I have, it mentions the collection of the Nikkon scope and various boxes of ammunition including the Eley .22 hollowpoint and Raker shotgun cartridges, it also mentions a spot of blood on one of the boxes.

Hartley thx for link !! Are you saying DB was mistaken when he claimed he had found a silencer and it was actually a Nikkon scope ?

[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.

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.

Furthermore, and it is my understanding because I have been a victim of this type of falsified evidence, if a supervisory officer found a pocketbook in the possession of a police officer which had been issued to him six months previous to the date of the first entry written into that pocketbook, I would expect that supervisory officer to seize the pocketbook in  question and report the officer concerned subject to possible disciplinary proceedings. Police officers have to keep up to date notes in the pocketbooks in their possession and they may on ly have one pocketbook at a time, not horde them for use at a later date...

There was something clearly very wrong with the fact that DS Jones pocketbook was issued to him six months before the date of the first entry contained within it on page 1...

This is very serious in my opinion...

[mike tesko]

So what was this all about, on 11th September 1985, when David Boutflour contacted Essex police and spoke to WPC 3250 Dodd, saying that he "would like to speak to Mr Ainsley and make a statement as soon as possible regarding the gun. It is quite important"...

[mike tesko]

Here are some page extracts from DI Cooks (SOC) 39 page statement, that he made to COLP in 1991:-

[Roch]

If SBJ1 wasn't found on the morning of the tragedy, then ACC Simpson must be getting befuddled.

28. However, in his broadcasts to various media organisations, that were notably later
retracted, ACC Simpson was quoted in ‘The Mirror,’ on the 17th September 1985,


‘A heavily bloodstained silencer was found by the police hours after the gruesome
massacre,’ in addition, ‘Police discovered a blood stained gun silencer at the farm on
the day of the massacre.’

29. Furthermore on 16th September 1985, ACC Simpson informed Paul Davidson of ‘The
Essex Gazette,’


‘Although a silencer was found shortly after police broke into the house, a few hours
after the killings on 7th August 1985, it was not until after enquiries were reopened
that this was regarded as significant'.