Author Topic: you should all know this?  (Read 284347 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hartley

  • Guest
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1995 on: December 13, 2011, 11:27:AM »
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 ?

Jon why do you bother?

Yes that's the relatives never found a silencer at all, just a scope, that's exactly what I've said.  :P

Pathetic!
So Acc Simpson was wrong when he stated ' silencer was found soon after entry to house ' , DB mistook a ' silencer ' for a ' nikkon scope ' even though he was used to seeing and using such thing's , then AE does not mention the find of any silencer till mid September , all at a time when exhibit label's are being changed ,  Hartley , it begs the question to my mind why would you come on here when you know full well an innocent man lay's in prison and argue for him to be kept there , pathetic indeed it will look you in the mirror this morning !!

Well it's pretty clear that I disagree with your view of the case, your ability to read my mind and your ability to tell the future.

Why engage me in discussion if they are your thoughts, what possible purpose does it achieve?

You suggest that I know that he is innocent, you really should have your own stand up comedy show, I respect that other people have a different view and opinion on the case but please do not tell me what my own view is. I truly believe that he is guilty, I'm not making that up, I think that my view is abundantly clear to all.

Which is also why a little while ago I asked you not to address questions to me when you are quite clearly not interested in my response.

So yes, pathetic is a rather apt and appropriate word. ::) 

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1996 on: December 13, 2011, 11:33:AM »
Mike,

You appear to have an arch competitor...

Quote
The true facts concerning the silencer/sound moderator


I notice that Teskowski is again attempting to make some mileage out of the referencing of the sound moderator. Given this continued nonsense I have gone back over the various statements and trial evidence and can report the following.


DS Davidson was interviewed at length by the City Of London Police on 16 October 1991. In addition to other matters he was asked about the silencer which was submitted in evidence.

He stated that DI Cook collected a sound moderator from DS Jones on the morning of Tuesday 13 August 1985, some 6 days after the murders. He was asked about the sound moderator and admitted that he had never seen it before. He was then shown the sound moderator by his interviewers. He stated that the sound moderator was recorded by him as SBJ/1 on the basis that it had been collected by Stanley Brian Jones. DI Cook asked DS Davidson to raise a log entry in relation to the silencer, this was done over the phone.

Davidson said that Cook spent a long time going backwards and forwards from Sandridge Forensic Laboratory with the sound moderator. He said that for some reason the moderator seemed to be taken care of solely by DI Cook. Davidson commented, "He (DI Cook) had full control over it"

DI Cook for his part states on page 2 of his statement of 24 October 1985, that at 9.15am on Tuesday 13 August 1985, he received a silencer ref DB/1 from DS Jones. Later that day he conveyed DB/1 and other exhibits to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Huntingdon. The silencer DB/1 was returned to him the same day.

At 7pm on Wednesday 14 August 1985, DI Cook along with DI Miller and DS Jones went to White House farm and met with Ann Eaton. They were shown the scratch marks above the Aga cooker on the underside of the mantelpiece and control samples of paint were taken for analysis. This sample was referenced as RWC/1 and was later handed to DS Davidson.

DI Cook was shown a silencer ref DRB/1 by City of London Police in October 1991 and admitted that the initials on the sticker were his. He stated that he had incorrectly given the sound moderator the ref SBJ/1 as he had assumed that DS Jones had recovered it. He states that he resubmitted the sound moderator for testing to the FSS laboratory at Huntingdon again on 30 August 1985.

During the trial DI Cook gave the following evidence in relation to the sound moderator. He confirmed the receipt of a silencer from DS Jones on the morning of 13 August 1985 and stated that it was packed in a cylindrical cardboard container. He commented that it was nowhere near the same condition it was at the time he had received it. It had been well handled and desecrated since that particular time. He confirmed that there was a greyish hair attached to the end which was furthest away from the rifle muzzle. The hair was not attached when it arrived at the FSS lab at Huntingdon.

He was asked about the gun cupboard and he stated that he had looked into it but had not searched it neither had he asked any other officer to do so.

It is crystal clear that what started out as SBJ/1 was later changed to DB/1 and later again DRB/1.

There only ever was ONE SILENCER/SOUND MODERATOR

How strange then, that whilst this one silencer with all these different exhibit references (SBJ/1, DB/1, and DRB/1) was already at the lab` from 30th August 1985, Essex police found themselves in possession of a second silencer, which they fingerprinted on 13th September, and then sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres...

Now...

What was the exhibit reference for the silencer that police had possession of, whilst the other one with three exhibit references was already at the lab?

And when this mysterious second silencer was sent to the lab` on 20th September 1985, what lab` item number was assigned to it?

Who found it, where was it found, and when?

 THERE WERE TWO SILENCERS...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline smiffy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1997 on: December 13, 2011, 12:07:PM »
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 ?

Jon why do you bother?

Yes that's the relatives never found a silencer at all, just a scope, that's exactly what I've said.  :P

Pathetic!
So Acc Simpson was wrong when he stated ' silencer was found soon after entry to house ' , DB mistook a ' silencer ' for a ' nikkon scope ' even though he was used to seeing and using such thing's , then AE does not mention the find of any silencer till mid September , all at a time when exhibit label's are being changed ,  Hartley , it begs the question to my mind why would you come on here when you know full well an innocent man lay's in prison and argue for him to be kept there , pathetic indeed it will look you in the mirror this morning !!

Well it's pretty clear that I disagree with your view of the case, your ability to read my mind and your ability to tell the future.

Why engage me in discussion if they are your thoughts, what possible purpose does it achieve?

You suggest that I know that he is innocent, you really should have your own stand up comedy show, I respect that other people have a different view and opinion on the case but please do not tell me what my own view is. I truly believe that he is guilty, I'm not making that up, I think that my view is abundantly clear to all.

Which is also why a little while ago I asked you not to address questions to me when you are quite clearly not interested in my response.

So yes, pathetic is a rather apt and appropriate word. ::)

yes someone is very pathetic for making false claims on this forum that Ann Eaton mentioned the finding of a silencer in a statement made before September 1985 when the facts are provable that she did not.
Due to the making of such big false claims the person responsible will be looked upon as having no real credibility .
After admitting to being wrong on in regards to a statement  made on the 14th of august 1985 this person then tried to claim a statement was made on the 16th of august which again was wrong as no statement was taken on the 16th of august from Ann Eaton. All implied claims that they had read a statement made in August 1985 by Ann Eaton than mentioned the finding of the silencer clearly are false and accusations made that Mike knew of such a statement and was not being fortthcoming with it on the forum were also based on this falsity that this said person uses.

How a person may claim they believe someone is guilty when if in truth they are using a false belief that Ann had made a statement about finding a silencer in August 85 shows their claimed belief is based not on provable fact but upon a deception. However should the said person be making deliberately false claims knowing that to be the case and relying on these false claims to justify their position they they truly know that their claims are not sound which weakens that claim substantially. In fact the opposite view comes into play in that to try selling the belief in guilt that they are forced to deceive to maintain that position publically betrays that their true knowledge is that JB indeed is innocent.

ie the said person is fully aware JB is innocent but fears the consequences in some manner should this become public.

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1998 on: December 13, 2011, 12:36:PM »
If Ann's statement which she made in August could be found and put up on the forum, then that would establish whether or not she did actually find a silencer? If she did then clearly there were two silencers. If not, then there must have been only one. But in any event there must have been two because two silencers were mentioned by the police. But they mysteriously fused together into one when finally exhibited in court at the trial?

Offline smiffy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #1999 on: December 13, 2011, 12:44:PM »
If Ann's statement which she made in August could be found and put up on the forum, then that would establish whether or not she did actually find a silencer? If she did then clearly there were two silencers. If not, then there must have been only one. But in any event there must have been two because two silencers were mentioned by the police. But they mysteriously fused together into one when finally exhibited in court at the trial?

The Ann Eaton COLP interview seems to establish beyond any DOUBT that a silencer finding was not part of the only statement she made in august 1985 on the 14th as taken by DS Jones.

Offline campion

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1967
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #2000 on: December 13, 2011, 12:45:PM »
touche, and HURRAGH!   SMIFFY. HaveA PUTTEE mEDAL. Can your protagonist Confirm or Deny? Or has he yet again, - Not got the 'Foggiest' ? WELL DONE!

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #2001 on: December 13, 2011, 12:47:PM »
touche, and HURRAGH!   SMIFFY. HaveA PUTTEE mEDAL. Can your protagonist Confirm or Deny? Or has he yet again, - Not got the 'Foggiest' ? WELL DONE!
Are you sure you aren't related to Stanley Unwin?

Offline campion

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1967
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #2002 on: December 13, 2011, 07:48:PM »
Well Grahame. we had a Seance. Professor Unwi n came over.  He warned us to be cautious. He Spelt out that 'Arters was a somewhat abrading, fishy character, who hauls out exceeding Whoppers in the murky depths of the BLACKwater estuary!

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #2003 on: December 14, 2011, 10:28:AM »
Police took photographs of the two different identical looking Parker hale silencers...
"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 #2004 on: December 14, 2011, 10:42:AM »
Police took photographs of the two different identical looking Parker hale silencers...

These photographs help to establish that there` WAS A CONSPIRACY` to merge the two silencers into one, irrespective of the fact that blood evidence could only be linked to one of these silencers, whilst paint from the aga surround was found on the other...
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 12:05:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline smiffy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #2005 on: December 14, 2011, 11:08:AM »
Well David Boutflour gets quite specific about a scratch on the silencer he claimed to find.
He describes the scratch as quite deep, elongated, bits of blue missing, shiny, and about half way down the barrel of the silencer. He describes the scratch as being about an inch long.Though he fails to describe the orientation of the scratch...oh dear...still plenty stated.

So we should not miss it then!

oh and neither should the forensics lab...it should be very obvious indeed.

Offline jon

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1437
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #2006 on: December 15, 2011, 06:18:PM »
I have also been told that Oakey collected the scope from Ann on the 11th September, not the silencer.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1415.0.html 58-60 is JB's view !!
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 06:21:PM by jon »

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #2007 on: December 15, 2011, 07:34:PM »
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 ?

Jon why do you bother?

Yes that's the relatives never found a silencer at all, just a scope, that's exactly what I've said.  :P

Pathetic!
So Acc Simpson was wrong when he stated ' silencer was found soon after entry to house ' , DB mistook a ' silencer ' for a ' nikkon scope ' even though he was used to seeing and using such thing's , then AE does not mention the find of any silencer till mid September , all at a time when exhibit label's are being changed ,  Hartley , it begs the question to my mind why would you come on here when you know full well an innocent man lay's in prison and argue for him to be kept there , pathetic indeed it will look you in the mirror this morning !!
That is an excellent point Jon and it is fascinating how hartley avoids the question. There were indeed two silencers as Mike said. Not a scope. If someone who was used to handling guns that certainly would be unbelievable to mistake a scope for a silencer?

Offline jon

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1437
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #2008 on: December 15, 2011, 08:19:PM »
Could someone put a photograph up of a ' nikkon scope ' and a ' parker hale silencer ' ?

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: you should all know this?
« Reply #2009 on: December 16, 2011, 11:03:PM »
Could someone put a photograph up of a ' nikkon scope ' and a ' parker hale silencer ' ?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...