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

[mike tesko]

The excuses given by police for why the exhibit references for the silencer had to change from SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1, are not valid or legitimate...

Let's get the facts right, so it cannot be said that Hartley and his gang members can't say they did not know, police are now saying that exhibit reference for/to silencer had to be changed from SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1, because there was a clash between the exhibit initials of various witnesses?

I'm sorry but how did anything clash with SBJ/1?

[mike tesko]

Let's get the facts right, so it cannot be said that Hartley and his gang members can't say they did not know, police are now saying that exhibit reference for/to silencer had to be changed from SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1, because there was a clash between the exhibit initials of various witnesses?

I'm sorry but how did anything clash with SBJ/1?

When you have got DS `Stan` jones seizing four exhibits from the scene on 7th August 1985 (SbJ/1, 2, 3 and 4, and you. Have a silencer bearing an original exhibit reference of SBJ/1, its going to take some explaining as to how it could possibly be the self same silencer (DRB/1) found in the gun cupboard by Boutflour on 10th August? You see, this is not merely a question of changing around the exhibit reference of the silencer, there are three other exhibits (SBJ/4, 3, and 2) to take into consideration? Was the silencer found at the scene by police on 7 th August, or found in the gun cupboard by David boutfllour on 10th August 1985?

Is it really too difficult a job/task to work out that there was not/is not only one silencer in this investigation?

[Hartley]

Let's get the facts right, so it cannot be said that Hartley and his gang members can't say they did not know, police are now saying that exhibit reference for/to silencer had to be changed from SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1, because there was a clash between the exhibit initials of various witnesses?

I'm sorry but how did anything clash with SBJ/1?

I don't get it. 

One minute you are telling me to '**** off' and that people can choose to believe what they want to, so with that in mind, it seems slightly strange that ,when I do stop replying your posts which I consider to contain more fiction than fact, you then start directing posts at me, or at least referring to me.

So that to me appears either goading, or that you don't want to be ignored by me. Make your mind up.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Anyway, again as you know very well, exhibit references include the initials of the person who discovered the exhibit. It was mistakenly identified as SBJ/1 in reference to 'Stanley Brian Jones'. This error was then corrected as Jones did not discover the exhibit, David Boutflour did, so the reference DB/1 was applied. It was later discovered that there would be a clash of references as the police officer David Bird had already used 'DB' to signify exhibits discovered or produced by him. So it was eventually decided that they would use 'DRB' for David Boutflours exhibits with the 'R' representing his middle name Robert.

That is the reasoning behind the changes in exhibit reference given by the police, it is documented very well in witness statements taken around 1991 as part of the COLP investigation.

That is not my opinion, it is simply the official chain of events given by the police and is well documented.

If you want to challenge that official chain of events then please go ahead, but I'm sure you do not require my input to do so.

Thank you for the attention though.

[Roch]

It was mistakenly identified as SBJ/1 in reference to Jones. This error was then corrected as Jones did not discover the exhibit, David Boutflour did, so the reference DB/1 was applied.

(1)
Doesn't Cook state (when referring to the exhibit label in his COLP interviews) I can't understand why it doesn't say SBJ1?   (I have paraphrased him).  You would think of all police officers, Cook would know exactly why an exhibit label changed re the silencer?  It was after all, his baby.

(2)
How does this fit in with the anomally re ACC Peter Simpson's (later retracted) statements to the press, regarding the finding of a silence on the day of the killings? 

It seems a bit convenient to take the name change scenario.  Forgive me for saying so Hartley but you have never let 'convenience' get in the way of solidly espousing the official line.

[Hartley]

It seems a bit convenient to take the name change scenario.  Forgive me for saying so Hartley but you have never let 'convenience' get in the way of solidly espousing the official line.

And we've been here before, on the contrary, I find the exhibit reference changes quite inconvenient, if they had got it right the first time around, it wouldn't have spawned this particular conspiracy theory.

In any event and just to make it clear, this is not my explanation, I have nothing to do with it.

[campion]

   Why does one exhibit have three identities, because the Police are at it. They must have had a Huntingdon shuttle service going there so often. Re submitting fabricated evidence until they got the desired result, its a wonder they never ran out of petrol. The sound moderators have travelled more than Alan Whicker. I bet Brian at Huntingdon had a parking space for their Panda Car on permanent standby and when it comes to a challenge in Court, it's to expensive to send the person responsible, it's laughable ! 

[tyler]

I don't think you have a leg to stand on, you can't chastise me one minute for involving myself in other peoples discussions, and then ignore your own advice the next. Well you can, but you would quite rightly be labelled a hypocrite.

In any event the information I provided was not innaccurate, again if you want to avoid being labelled then perhaps you should apply the same concerns about accurate information when viewing posts from Mike, the one above this for example.

The truth is, you don't have the information to harbour such concerns, you have just taken the cue from two other members of the forum to try and start an argument and be disruptive at my expense. You clearly have no concerns about the politeness of my posts, otherwise you would not proceed to be quite rude with your own.

All you achieve is the disruption of any sensible discussions that do occur, again the very thing you accuse me of.

As I have previously stated, please either ignore my posts or report them to a moderator if you feel it necessary, your digs and snide remarks are wasted on me, if you really believe that my aim is to be disruptive then it is somewhat ironic that are carrying out that aim for me, if that is your belief, then why assist me in that regard?

In short, leave me alone, the moderators do a pretty good job without your assistance, I'm sure if I over step the mark the moderators will act accordingly.

I have been neither rude or making snide remarks.Neither was I trying to provoke an argument.I do generally ignore your posts,but you had posted information which had (for once)interested me.The information turned out to be wrong although you had stated it as a "fact".Giving out wrong information stated as "facts" is just not helpful to anyone.That is all the point I was trying to make.

[Hartley]

I have been neither rude or making snide remarks.Neither was I trying to provoke an argument.I do generally ignore your posts,but you had posted information which had (for once)interested me.The information turned out to be wrong although you had stated it as a "fact".Giving out wrong information stated as "facts" is just not helpful to anyone.That is all the point I was trying to make.

You have again clearly not ignored my post, or refrained from making snide remarks. The information provided is accurate, unless you want to prove otherwise.

These are all points that I'm not interested in, with that in mind, please refer to my previous post, the only person you are goading is yourself.

Thank you.

[mike tesko]

Anyway, again as you know very well, exhibit references include the initials of the person who discovered the exhibit. It was mistakenly identified as SBJ/1 in reference to Jones. This error was then corrected as Jones did not discover the exhibit, David Boutflour did, so the reference DB/1 was applied. It was later discovered that there would be a clash of references as the police officer David Bird had already used 'DB' to signify exhibits discovered or produced by him. So it was eventually decided that they would use 'DRB' for David Boutflours exhibits with the 'R' representing his middle name Robert.

That is the reasoning behind the changes in exhibit reference given by the police, it is documented very well in witness statements taken around 1991 as part of the COLP investigation.

That is not my opinion, it is simply the official chain of events given by the police and is well documented.

If you want to challenge that official chain of events then please go ahead, but I'm sure you do not require my input to do so.

Thank you for the attention though.

There is a huge problem with the story you are telling on behalf of the police, exhibit SBJ/1 was taken from the scene on 7th August 1985, along with the other three exhibits, marked SBJ/2, 3 and 4...

How could David Boutflour have found the silencer in the gun cupboard on 7th august?

Ds 'stan' Jones had to seize or find an exhibit marked sbJ/1 at the scene before he found or took possession of exhibits SBJ/2, 3, and 4 - so what was it that Ds Jones found at the scene on 7th August which had the identifying mark of SBJ/1?

Just happens to have been a silencer...

[tyler]

You have again clearly not ignored my post, or refrained from making snide remarks. The information provided is accurate, unless you want to prove otherwise.

These are all points that I'm not interested in, with that in mind, please refer to my previous post, the only person you are goading is yourself.

Thank you.

You are sooo full of shit!

[mike tesko]

There is a huge problem with the story you are telling on behalf of the police, exhibit SBJ/1 was taken from the scene on 7th August 1985, along with the other three exhibits, marked SBJ/2, 3 and 4...

How could David Boutflour have found the silencer in the gun cupboard on 7th august?

Ds 'stan' Jones had to seize or find an exhibit marked sbJ/1 at the scene before he found or took possession of exhibits SBJ/2, 3, and 4 - so what was it that Ds Jones found at the scene on 7th August which had the identifying mark of SBJ/1?

Just happens to have been a silencer...

Let's go to the next stage and expose what took place regarding these silencers:-

(1) - for the whole of period 7th August 1985 to 30th August 1985, the silencer evidence was obtained and gathered under the identifying mark of SBJ/1. Let's hit the nail on the head and point out that this particular silencer (SBJ/1) was sent to the lab' to be examined on 13th August 1985, it (Sbj/1) was finger printed by oblique light test on 15th august, it (SBJ/1) was finger printed by super glue on 23rd August 1985, and it (SBJ/1) was sent back to the lab' on 30th August 1985 (exhibit reference subsequently altered to DB/1), yet neither exhibit label bearing signatures of prosecution experts, the police, or any relative, appears on any label bearing an identifying mark of SBJ/1...

Since its story time, could you please give me your explanation for why there is no exhibit label bearing signatures and no label with SBJ1 written on it?

How did the silencer get sent to the lab' and accepted at the lab` and be examined at the lab` under an identifying mark SBJ/1, yet no such exhibit label exist?

I look forward to hearing all about such a fairy story...

[Hartley]

There is a huge problem with the story you are telling on behalf of the police, exhibit SBJ/1 was taken from the scene on 7th August 1985, along with the other three exhibits, marked SBJ/2, 3 and 4...

How could David Boutflour have found the silencer in the gun cupboard on 7th august?

Ds 'stan' Jones had to seize or find an exhibit marked sbJ/1 at the scene before he found or took possession of exhibits SBJ/2, 3, and 4 - sop what was it that Ds jones found at tyhe scene on 7th august which had the identifying mark of SBJ/1?

Just happens to have been a silencer...

It's only a problem if you want to twist it into one.

However if you want this to be a legitimate discussion in search of facts, then let's see where it takes us.

References to SBJ/2: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=738.0;attach=3233;image
References to SBJ/3 & SBJ/4: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=738.0;attach=3231;image

Okay, you are suggesting that if exhibits SBJ/2, SBJ/3 & SBJ/4 were found at the scene on 07/08/85, that logic would dictate that an SBJ/1 would have preceded them.

That's fine, I can accept that, it seems very logical to me.

However, references to SBJ/2, SBJ/3 & SBJ/4 seem very few and far between and the references linked to above do not contain any dates.

So could you please answer the following two questions directly and concisely without any spin or subject change:

1. Do you have any other reference to SBJ/2, SBJ/3 or SBJ/4 and if so, would you consider providing them on the forum for the purpose of this discussion?
2.  Please could you enlighten me how you have come to the conclusion that SBJ/2, SBJ/3 & SBJ/4 came into existence on 07/08/85, could they not have been taken at a later date after the sound moderator had been discovered on the 10/08/85?

Following on from that, I have one more question:

3. Do you have any references to exhibits relating to David Bird, specifically DB/1, DB/2 & DB/3 and again would you consider posting them for the purposes of this discussion?

[Hartley]

You are sooo full of shit!

If that is your opinion, then why on Earth are you wasting your time communicating with me, I'm not forcing you to, quite the opposite, I'm actually requesting that you don't.

[mike tesko]

The finder of silencer SBJ/1 (DS `Stan' Jones, tampered with his pocketbook to enable him to rewrite history omitting details of the find of four exhibits, SBJ/1, 2, 3 and 4, at the scene on 7th August 1985, and change the circumstances about a silencer which was handed over to him by Peter Eaton on evening of 12th August, as though this was the very first occasion a silencer had come into his possession...

No mention in his rewritten notebook about how the silencer handed by Peter Eaton to him on 12th August, ended up on DCi jones desk at Witham police station, but instead the rewritten notes were designed to suggest that this was and had been the only silencer in existence, the only silencer sent to the lab`, and the fact that one of these silencers was kept on 'Taff` Jones desk for over a month was swept under the carpet as though it did not exist or indeed that it ever existed at all...

PI 'Bob` Miller signed the rewritten notes made by 'Stan` Jones, to allow police and relatives to carry off this deception involving these two silencers - Miller would have seen the very serious and glaring errors relating to three different start dates on the front cover of the pocketbook, but for some inexplicable reason he signed the falsified notes in `stans' book...

When `stan` rewrote his notes to exclude details of his find of the silencer at the scene on 7th august 1985, he also took the opportunity to omit details relating to the find of the other three exhibits (SBJ/2, 3, and 4) to try and eradicate any possible chance of anyone spotting what had taken place...

Entries in the MPR were rewritten to exclude the find of exhibits SBJ/1, 2, 3 and 4, as part of the conspiracy to merge evidence from both of these two different identical looking silencers into the same one...

[Newbury1]

ngb, The silencer referencing / labelling issue is a complicated one, as evidenced by the numerous threads and posts!

Could you please let me know if this referencing / labelling issue in respect of the silencer(s) is included in the latest SMck proposal to the CCRC?