Of course, you would say these things, and that...
You forget to consider and mention that one DS "Stan" the man, Jones, seized or took four exhibits from the scene on the morning of the shootings (SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1). Just to remind you and everybody else, he seized these exhibits on the morning of 7th August 1985, and one of them was a photograph of the downstairs toilet where Anthony Pargeter always kept his .22 bolt action rifle with its Parker hale silencer attached to its barrel. He also took possession and control of a silencer 9SBJ/1) which himself and DCI "Taff" Jones spoke to and questioned Jeremy about at his cottage ion the afternoon of 9th August 1985, before the police handed the keys to whf over to Ann Eaton (later that evening). So, first of all, get your facts right about when police seized or took possession of the silencer, if there was only ever one silencer in police possession and under their control from the scene at any stage. Let me remind you of something that you and everybody else from the camp on the opposite of the fence, appear to keep overlooking, how could DS "Stan" Jones, find and take possession of the silencer (SBJ/1) from the scene on 7th August 1985, and how could he and DCI Jones speak to Jeremy about its possible use on the rifle, when they asked him about this on 9th August 1985, if the silencer (SBJ/1, DB/1 or DRB/1, or whatever you want to call it), was not found by David Boutflour until 10th August 1985, and it did not get handed over to DS Jones by Peter Eaton, until the evening of 12th August 1985? You see, it just doesn't add up or make any sort of sense that there was only just the one silencer, you do not have to be a supersleuth to work that out, it should be obvious to anybody and everybody, that there has been and is something very dodgy going on here, relating to the silencer, or these silencers? You cannot wrongly label a silencer by the identifying mark of SBJ/1 on 7th August 1985, and later claim it was the same silencer which david Boutflour found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, which did not get handed to DS Jones until the evening of 12th August 1985, and make out there was just some simple problem with the way the silencer was originally labelled for identification purposes, and this was why the silencer ended up having three different exhibit references, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, at one stag e or another? Police and relatives have set out to deliberately make this into a one silencer, one rifle, bullets from one batch of ammunition crime - but it is all disturbingly untrue...
Another thing...
One of the four exhibits (SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1) taken by DS "Stan" Jones that morning (7th August 1985) was a photograph of the downstairs toilet at the scene (whf) - yet we have been told that only PC Bird (SOCO) took photographs inside the premises that morning? Funny how the truth eventually comes out to expose the lies told by the police regarding who took pictures at the scene, and what of?
The silencer evidence is dodgy, it should never have been allowed in as evidence, and now that it has been and is, there should be an appeal to remove its influence from the case, which I am afraid leaves the prosecutions case with nothing at all to sustain these convictions any further by. You and anybody else can continue to rely upon such dodgy evidence to say this proves this and that, but it will always be dodgy evidence, and it should not have been allowed in as evidence as part of the prosecutions case for all the reasons given previously...
are you saying that stan jones took the picture,as in pressing a camera shutter button,or took the picture,as in he took possesion of a developed picture of the downstairs toilet.
this it seems a case of making the words of a statement fit requirements.
