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

[Hartley]

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...

The trouble with that is that I don't believe you and you can't prove it to me, although I fully acknowledge that you don't need to prove anything to me.

I think you may have got yourself confused with the finding of exhibits SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, they are two photographs and a page from a statement, none of those were found or discovered.

[ngb1066]

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?

The questions surrounding the silencer evidence are referred to in the submissions.  It is complicated and the explanations provided by Essex Police and the FSS do not fully answer these questions.  If the case is referred to the Court of Appeal this is likely to form one of the grounds of appeal.

 

[mike tesko]

Two identical looking Parker hale silencers should have been present at the scene at the material time of these shootings, one belonging to Anthony Pargeter, the other to the Bamber rifle. What becomes evident in the way the case was/has been built up against Jeremy is that everyone of the prosecution witnesses who show any interest at all in the silencer, treat the silencer in question as being the one with the blood in it and the paint on it as being the Bamber silencer - but this is problematic because blood was attributed to one (the silencer sent to the lab` on 30th August 1985) whilst paint materialised on the other, which did not get sent to the lab` until 20th september 1985. Now I do not know how the hell it was possible for police to send the same silencer to the lab' on 20th September, if they had already sent it there on 30th August 1985? Let's delve a little bit deeper, experts at the lab' found blood in the silencer sent to the lab` which was duly identified as supposedly being unique and exclusive to Sheila, blood which was being analysed at the lab` between  12th and 19th September...

How did the silencer sent to the lab` by Essex police on 30th August, inside which was found all this compelling blood evidence, find its way back into police possession in time for the police to send the silencer back to the lab` on 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood, if it was the same silencer and it had already been checked for blood?

According to lab' records one silencer was sent to lab` on 30th August 1985, it remained in storage their until 1986, so how could Essex police have possession of the same silencer which had been sent to the lab` on 30th August 1985, by and until 20th September 1985, if the one sent previously on 30th August was never handed back to police to enable them to hand it back to them?

[mike tesko]

You can't hand something over to the lab' which you have already handed over to them three weeks earlier, unless it is a completely different silencer?

[mike tesko]

Lets look and delve deeper...

Although police documents show that a silencer was sent to the lab' on 20th September 1985 to be checked for blood and fibres, there is no disclosed lab' records to confirm that it arrived there or that such a silencer which did arrive there was examined and checked for blood and fibres on or after that date. There is no information about which expert carried out such an examination, or any findings of such an examination - its as though those involved do not want to have to admit to the existence of the second silencer because they know and realize the trouble its existence would cause to the prosecutions case?

[mike tesko]

Police and relatives try to make out the crucial blood and paint evidence was found in and on the BAMBER silencer, but it is not proven by any direct evidence, its just them making out its the BAMBER silencer...

Truth of the matter is, blood was found to be present inside a silencer (SBJ/1) that did not belong to the Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1)...

[mike tesko]

Why isn't and hasn't the police or the relatives made any enquiries as to the whereabouts of Anthony Pargeters silencer at the material time of the shootings?

[JackiePreece]

A very interesting statement on the Lamberton Forum looks like a relative might be trying to distance them from the forum now. I wonder who that could be?



We would like to take the opportunity to make it quite clear that this forum is wholly independent whose sole objective is to promote genuine miscarriage of justice and wrongly accused cases and to expose the false ones.   

As a matter of policy we are not endorsed by anyone nor do we seek such endorsement.   We represent public opinion at its best and provide a platform for that opinion to be aired.  Happy posting!

Thank you,

Admins 


This was in the section relating to the family and relatives

[ngb1066]

A very interesting statement on the Lamberton Forum looks like a relative might be trying to distance them from the forum now. I wonder who that could be?



We would like to take the opportunity to make it quite clear that this forum is wholly independent whose sole objective is to promote genuine miscarriage of justice and wrongly accused cases and to expose the false ones.   

As a matter of policy we are not endorsed by anyone nor do we seek such endorsement.   We represent public opinion at its best and provide a platform for that opinion to be aired.  Happy posting!

Thank you,

Admins 


This was in the section relating to the family and relatives

Two posts were deleted very quickly.  Someone connected with the family said that they did not want anything to do with that foul forum.

[JackiePreece]

I believe they are involved but they don't want it
Publiclly known they are involved

[ngb1066]

I believe they are involved but they don't want it
Publiclly known they are involved

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.

 

[JackiePreece]

How would you know?

[ngb1066]

How would you know?

I believe what I have been told and what I have seen.  How do you know?

[JackiePreece]

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

[grahameb]

A very interesting statement on the Lamberton Forum looks like a relative might be trying to distance them from the forum now. I wonder who that could be?



We would like to take the opportunity to make it quite clear that this forum is wholly independent whose sole objective is to promote genuine miscarriage of justice and wrongly accused cases and to expose the false ones.   

As a matter of policy we are not endorsed by anyone nor do we seek such endorsement.   We represent public opinion at its best and provide a platform for that opinion to be aired.  Happy posting!

Thank you,

Admins 


This was in the section relating to the family and relatives

Well they certainly do that.