My head is spinning with all these SJBs, DRBs, and DRH's, not to mention the AEs ........... 
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you can jest all you want about this, but it ws under these conditions and circumstances, that Essex police and the relatives pulled off a naughty one, regarding the three different identical looking Parker hale silencers by tampering with the evidence to make them all into one and the same silencer, where SBJ/1, and DB/1, and DRB/1, all became one and the same silencer...
In the meantime...
None of the relatives made a witness statement or signed an exhibit label for the silencer, until on and after 12th September 1985...
This is where I go off-message, and the general public would as well.
Of course I believe there are rogue coppers. Of course I believe most families had a bad 'un in the mix.
But I cannot believe that every police officer and soc agent within a murder squad conspired with all the members of a family to frame 1 family member for 5 murders so that the rest of the family could get the loot.
Secrets are dangerous. The more people who are told/in on it, the more likely it is to come out. Only a few got rich. What was the motivation of the others? This would mean that they were planning this on Sept 9th when questioning JB about silencers, just days after the murders.
-----------------------------
Ok, then go along with the one silencer scenario, and ask yourself, how the same silencer could be found in the same gun cupboard on two different dates, and be handed over to the police by two different people, and be at the lab' on and from 30th August 1985, yet still be in the possession of the police, until 26th September 1985?
By the way, police were talking to Jeremy about the silencer on 9th August 1985, not 9th September 1985 - how did the police know about the silencer, on 9th August 1985, before the relatives allegedly found it, on 10th August 1985, which they allegedly did not hand over to the police, until 12th August 1985?
I meant to put 9th Aug because it highlights my problem - just days after the murder the conspiracy began but why?
I really am assessing everything about the silencers and remaining open minded about that. Cataloguing is an important part of my professional life, and when it goes wrong it can be difficult to track - nowhere near as serious as someone losing 25 years of freedom.
But it would mean lots of things had gone wrong.
2 silencers assigned to a case that no longer existed (the suicide/murders) have been where for 25 years? A police evidence box? These are systemically culled, as we know. A SOC lab? Ditto. If returned to the owners/estate due to having no bearing on the eventual case they would have been receipted to prevent any accusation of loss or theft.
This isn't everyone who has anything to do with the case lying through the teeth to cover up for someone else - that's what I'm dismissing not all the information you have laid out so painstakingly. That I appreciate greatly, and I see the concerns.
It may be a bad admin error with terrible consequences. No jest at all.
Putting on my cataloguing head to see if I can come up with something constructive.
----------------------------------------------
The blood evidence, and the paint evidence, were wrongly attributed to th Bamber silencer (DRB/1) which was not found until 11th September 1985, and not forwarded to the lab' to be checked for fibers until 26th September 1985 - all the lab' records have been altered and the exhibit references for the silencer on different Lab' documents have been changed, from SBJ/1 into DB/1 into DRB/1...
There is another problem with the silencer evidence...
If there was only one silencer, and SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 are all one and the same silencer, it was coated from head to foot in super-glue residue, which would have effected any blood grouping activity that might be obtained from the silencer...
A police report exists that was written up by DI Cook (SOC) to DCS Ainsley, once the new investigation got under way, in which Cook draws Ainsleys attention to the fact that the silencer was exposed to super-glue treatment on 23rd August 12985, and that it was known that cynoacrylate fumes were harmful to scientific tests, including blood grouping - but Cook told Ainsley in that report that the blood had been found and analysed before the silencer had been exposed to super glue treatment (on 23rd August 1985), yet this was a lie, if there was only one silencer, because it was not until 30th August 1985, when cook sent the silencer (DB/1) to the lab' that the ballistic expert dismantled it, and allegedly found the flake of blood that turned out to be type A, EAP Ba, AK1 and HP 2-1...
Now, if the silencer that was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, was the same silencer that got exposed to super-glue treatment on 23rd August 12985, it was known by Cook (SOC) that the cynoacrylate fumes which the silencer had been exposed to, was harmful to scientific tests such as blood grouping but he chose not to mention this to the scientists who examined the blood and who obtained the results spoken about...
My point is this...
Was the silencer (DB/1) that was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, coated in super-glue residue?
If it was, would the scientists at the lab' know it was?
How would it be possible, for the harmful cynoacrylate fumes not to be harmful to the blood grouping activity which was obtained for use to support the prosecution case, in this matter? If Cook (SOC) knew about the harmful effects that exposure of the silencer to cynoacrylate fumes would have upon blood grouping tests carried out upon the silencer, should he have informed the court when he testified that he knew about the harmful effects which exposure of the cynoacryaltae fumes to the silencer might have upon any blood grouping that was found or obtained from the super-glue coated silencer?
Did he even tell the court, or was it disclosed prior to the time of the trial in October 1986, that the silencer had been exposed to super-glue treatment at all?
No...
What about the senior officer Mick Ainsley, who he wrote to memo to, why didn't he take steps to inform the defense that the silencer had been exposed to superglue treatment on 23rd August 1985, and that the blood found in the silencer was not found there before the superglue treatment had been performed, but afterwards, seven days afterwards to be precise...
Did Cook (SOC) or Ainsley tell the scientists at the Lab' that the silencer had been exposed to superglue treatment, and that cynoacrylate fumes were harmful to scientific tests, such as blood grouping, and if they had what would have happened?
Why did Cook mislead Ainsley by telling him in his memo that blood had been found in the silencer before it had been exposed to the harmful cynoacrylate fumes? When clearly the blood was not found until afterwards?
What are the harmful effects which cyoacrylate fumes has upon scientific tests such a s blood grouping?
Would such effects be sufficient to negate any value that was gleaned in favor of the prosecutions case during and since the time of the trial?
-----------------------------------------------
Then let us move on to the silencer which was examined for dna as part of the CCRC's 2002 appeal - was this silencer coated in super-glue residue? If it was, how could they obtain dna profiles from the silencer? Would the harmful cynoarcylate fumes which Cook talks about in his memo to Ainsley, have prevented any dna being found inside or upon the silencer, in question?
-------------------------------------------------------
Big point....
A silencer was exposed to superglue treatment on 23rd August 1985, any blood group activity obtained from that silencer, after this date, should have had a warning attached to it, that it was known that cynoacryklate fumes were known to be harmful to scientific tests, including blood grouping...
This warning was not given to the jury at the time of Jeremy's trial...
