David Boutflour makes statement same day as marks appear on aga surround?

[JackiePreece]

David Frank have you introduced yourself in the foyer?

[grahameb]

I do not believe any member of the family is involved in Lamberton's forum.    They do not want to be associated with him in any way.  Vidvic and Hartley have made that very clear, both here and on Lamberton's forum.  Lamberton is desperate to gain credibilty by claiming contact with and support of the family, but that is simply not true.

I think that you are right there Neil.

[ngb1066]

I don't know definitely but when people use user names you will never know

Ngb you could never know if Vidvic or Hartley are telling you the truth

We will never know unless the police are involved because of the abuse

We know who the main culprits are.  I believe what I have been told by those closely connected with the family.

 

[JackiePreece]

I bet I can prove you wrong Grahame!

[JackiePreece]

I think you will find David Frank has been abusing me on the other forum

[grahameb]

I bet I can prove you wrong Grahame!

pm me Jackie.

[mike tesko]

I remember seeing a statement made by DS Jones, I think it was part of the old file (SC/688/85) in which DS Jones mentions returning to the scene on the morning of the shootings, at about or around 11am, and taking possession of exhibits marked SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4. I believe that I have a copy of this statement somewhere amongst the 50,000 or so documents currently in my possession and I really should make an effort and try to lay my hands on it. In the statement I am talking about there is mention of DS Jones going along with DC Clark to Jeremy's cottage to take a witness statement from Jeremy, and it was at some point after this that DS Jones returned to the scene and took the aforementioned items, albeit he did not make any mention of any exhibit bearing the crucial identifying mark of SBJ/1 in this statement.

[mike tesko]

I remember seeing a statement made by DS Jones, I think it was part of the old file (SC/688/85) in which DS Jones mentions returning to the scene on the morning of the shootings, at about or around 11am, and taking possession of exhibits marked SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4. I believe that I have a copy of this statement somewhere amongst the 50,000 or so documents currently in my possession and I really should make an effort and try to lay my hands on it. In the statement I am talking about there is mention of DS Jones going along with DC Clark to Jeremy's cottage to take a witness statement from Jeremy, and it was at some point after this that DS Jones returned to the scene and took the aforementioned items, albeit he did not make any mention of any exhibit bearing the crucial identifying mark of SBJ/1 in this statement.

It was whilst reading this statement many years ago that I first became interested in exhibit SBJ/1, because it turned out to be the silencer which was used to help prosecute and convict Jeremy...

[mike tesko]

What everybody should not forget is that by the time Jeremy came to trial nobody had looked deeply into the background of the silencer, all anybody appears to have known about it was that it belonged to the Bamber rifle, that David Boutflour found it in the gun cupboard after the police gave the keys to whf back to the family, and that blood that originated from Sheila was found inside it, and paint from the aga in the kitchen was found upon it, and that when police found the body of Sheila in the bedroom there was no silencer fitted to its barrel, and that this must mean that Sheila did not kill herself, she could not have done so because with the silencer fitted to the end of the guns barrel it would have been too long to enable or allow her to shoot herself by use of it so configured, even if she had wanted to, and in any event because blood got into the silencer at the time she was shot and killed, she could not very well have removed the silencer after she was already dead and taken it to conceal it downstairs in the gun cupboard and then walk back upstairs and lay down dead again with the rifle minus the silencer atop herself?

As far as anybody and everybody was concerned the silencer in question that proved all these points had an exhibit reference of DRB/1, lab' item number 22, court exhibit number 9...

[mike tesko]

What everybody should not forget is that by the time Jeremy came to trial nobody had looked deeply into the background of the silencer, all anybody appears to have known about it was that it belonged to the Bamber rifle, that David Boutflour found it in the gun cupboard after the police gave the keys to whf back to the family, and that blood that originated from Sheila was found inside it, and paint from the aga in the kitchen was found upon it, and that when police found the body of Sheila in the bedroom there was no silencer fitted to its barrel, and that this must mean that Sheila did not kill herself, she could not have done so because with the silencer fitted to the end of the guns barrel it would have been too long to enable or allow her to shoot herself by use of it so configured, even if she had wanted to, and in any event because blood got into the silencer at the time she was shot and killed, she could not very well have removed the silencer after she was already dead and taken it to conceal it downstairs in the gun cupboard and then walk back upstairs and lay down dead again with the rifle minus the silencer atop herself?
As far as anybody and everybody was concerned the silencer in question that proved all these points had an exhibit reference of DRB/1, lab' item number 22, court exhibit number 9...

With this in mind...

when I became involved in trying to help Jeremy get his convictions referred back to the court of appeal in 1989/1990, and later, the fact that this witness statement existed made by DS Jones stating that at about 11am on 7th August 1985 he had returned to the scene from Jeremy's cottage and had taken possession of three exhibits bearing the identifying marks of SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, it got me thinking what the hell was exhibit SBJ/1?

In the few documents Jeremy had in his possession at that time, we did not know that the silencer had originally been given that exhibit reference (SBJ/1). So, as you can imagine as time went on and Jeremy got access to more and more information and it soon came to our attention that the silencer had not always had the exhibit mark of DRB/1, but had originally been marked SBJ/1, it was then that we came to suspect that the police had found the silencer, not David Boutflour...

[mike tesko]

As more and more information came into our possession, we established that in fact there were three different exhibit references to the silencer, these being SBJ/1, and DB/1 and DRB/1...

These were accompanied by lab' item numbers, SBJ/1 (22), DB/1 (23), and finally DRB/1 (23/22)...

[mike tesko]

As more and more information came into our possession, we established that in fact there were three different exhibit references to the silencer, these being SBJ/1, and DB/1 and DRB/1...

These were accompanied by lab' item numbers, SBJ/1 (22), DB/1 (23), and finally DRB/1 (23/22)...

We carried out a full analysis of all the exhibits submitted to the lab' checking all the exhibit references numbers of exhibits against the lab' item numbers as and when they were submitted and examined at the lab' and we noticed irregularities against key exhibits used and relied upon to prosecute and convict Jeremy. Of these irregularities, we noticed that the silencer at one time or another had two different lab' item reference numbers, of 22 and 23, against three different exhibit references, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1...

[mike tesko]

We carried out a full analysis of all the exhibits submitted to the lab' checking all the exhibit references numbers of exhibits against the lab' item numbers as and when they were submitted and examined at the lab' and we noticed irregularities against key exhibits used and relied upon to prosecute and convict Jeremy. Of these irregularities, we noticed that the silencer at one time or another had two different lab' item reference numbers, of 22 and 23, against three different exhibit references, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1...

When we looked and delved deeper we found out that because of the alterations and changing of exhibit references and lab' item numbers relating to the silencer, that nothing was logged against lab' item number 23, even though at one point a silencer had that lab' item number (23) reference...

[mike tesko]

This was why the statement made by DS 'Stan' Jones where he mentions returning to whf from Jeremy's cottage at about 11am on 7th August 1985, became of interest to us - since if DS Jones took possession of items SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 at the scene on 7th August 1985, he must also have taken possession of exhibit SBJ/1 at the scene at the same time, or sooner?

[mike tesko]

This was why the statement made by DS 'Stan' Jones where he mentions returning to whf from Jeremy's cottage at about 11am on 7th August 1985, became of interest to us - since if DS Jones took possession of items SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 at the scene on 7th August 1985, he must also have taken possession of exhibit SBJ/1 at the scene at the same time, or sooner?

It stands to reason therefore that DS Jones must have and did take possession of a silencer at the scene on 7th August 1985, otherwise he would not have been referring to those other three exhibits as SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, which he took possession of at the scene after leaving Jeremy's cottage and returning to whf at about 11am that morning...