The Big Lie - about use of sound moderator on barrel of family rifle...

[Martin]

Pargeter's statement says "He told me the silencer had been returned to the family," not that David told him the silencer had been returned to the house.

I take your point. You could say that it was Anthony who used the expression “presumably by the police” because he just hadn’t asked how the silencer was returned. It could, it seems, have been returned directly without Boutflour having told Pargeter exactly how and to whom.

But David himself says he found a silencer conforming to that highly specific description  with a scratch and blood and paint being mentioned. I am assuming that “returned to the family” means put where they could find it and that Boutflour’s account of how he found the silencer tallies with his phone call to Pargeter. What alternative explanation is there for how it was returned to the relatives. Are you saying that the silencer Boutflour speaks of to Pargeter is not the same one which he said he found in the house?

Whatever the case the description Boutflours gives of it makes it clear that it was the silencer which was used to convict Bamber. How can the conviction be held to be safe if it is admitted that the same description is, absurdly enough, said to apply to two different silencers.

And why would such an important piece of evidence be treated in such a careless and offhand kind of way? The police might just return something not material to the case, but the very item of evidence used to support a murder charge and with no apparent concern with contamination!

Jeremy thinks that the police returned the silencer to the relatives so that it could be used as evidence against him and that the whole business about finding of the silencer was a sham. It’s hard to come to any different conclusion. If there is one then let’s hear it.

[mike tesko]

When Anthony Pargeter originally claimed police had handed the sound moderator back to the family he was trying to conceal for the fact that his sound moderator was not at the scene at the time of the shootings, when it wasn't...

it would appear that Pargeter introduced David Boutflour into the scenario, by making the false claim that David Boutflour allegedly told him that police had given or handed the silencer back to the family - when all along David Boutflour had done no such thing, and the police had not given or handed back any silencer to the family. Just so there is no misunderstanding on anyones part, the Bamber family owned silencer which was normally kept in a cupboard in the downstairs office, had been there in the cupboard throughout the incident, and it had remained there until David Boutflour found it there on 10th August 1985...

[mike tesko]

The silencer found in the cupboard by David Boutflour, waa retained by the family until evening of 12th August 1985, at which stage, Peter Eaton handed it over to DS Jones. This was never given back or returned to the family...

[Martin]

That would certainly explain the significance of  the statement of Anthony Pargeter where he relates that David Boutflour phoned him to tell him that the police had returned the silencer to the relatives.

What becomes clear from this statement is that David Boutflour fully realised that the silencer he famously found and which was used as evidence to convict Bamber had already been in police possession before being returned to the house.

The expression “presumably by the police” is very telling. It shows clearly that the silencer in question wasn’t given back to Boutflour personally by some lab technician or by some police officer. It is consistent with his having found it and made an elementary deduction. He must have thought something like “Oh, the police have put the silence back in the cupboard. This is very strange!” So he decides to tell Pargeter.

In defence of the relatives, Pargeter’s statement shows that they were not, at that stage, a part of the police conspiracy to manufacture evidence against Jeremy. Pargeter’s statement suggests that Boutflour was somewhat mystified by the find and a little worried. Pargeter advises Boutflour to return it to the police as soon as he can.

On the other hand, it does prove that David Boutflour, to this day, knows  that the silencer evidence used to convict Bamber was faked.

Irregularities in the documentation support the view that Bamber was framed by Essex Police.

Bamber’s relatives know that the police returned the silencer to the house for the relatives to “find” it. 

They also know that Julie Mugford’s account of Bamber’s alleged confession was a pack of lies. It contains details which Mugford could only have gotten from Ann Eaton.

What must Anne Eaton have thought when it first came to her attention that the description of the murder scene given to her by DC Clarke, where Sheila’s body is said to have been on the bed with a bible on her chest, remarkably turns up in Julie’s story of Bamber’s confession, even though that description conflicts with the official police version of events where Sheila is said to have been found on the floor? So Mick Clarke and Jeremy both told the same false story, which Julie merely passed on from Jeremy in good faith! How absurd!

Bamber’s relatives are fully cognizant of these two facts.

That the silencer evidence was faked

That Julie Mugford’s account of Bamber’s confession was a fabrication.

In case this post should mislead anyone, Mike Tesko has since explained to me that Anthony Pargeter’s account of the phone call from David Boutflour in which David allegedly told him that the silencer with blood and paint on it had been returned to the relatives is a fabrication. Apparently, the truth is that Pargeter made it up.

When Anthony Pargeter originally claimed police had handed the sound moderator back to the family he was trying to conceal for the fact that his sound moderator was not at the scene at the time of the shootings, when it wasn't...

it would appear that Pargeter introduced David Boutflour into the scenario, by making the false claim that David Boutflour allegedly told him that police had given or handed the silencer back to the family - when all along David Boutflour had done no such thing, and the police had not given or handed back any silencer to the family. Just so there is no misunderstanding on anyones part, the Bamber family owned silencer which was normally kept in a cupboard in the downstairs office, had been there in the cupboard throughout the incident, and it had remained there until David Boutflour found it there on 10th August 1985...

[Reader]

If Anthony Pargeter made up David's remark, other questions arise, such as whether this can be proved, whether it was planned in conjunction with others, why his account was rather vague, etc.

[mike tesko]

If Anthony Pargeter made up David's remark, other questions arise, such as whether this can be proved, whether it was planned in conjunction with others, why his account was rather vague, etc.

The truth of the matter is, from what I have been able to discover, was that Anthony Pargeters Bruno bolt action rifle, and sound moderator, were not at whf when the shootings took place, although they should have been. At some stage, Essex polioce went to see Anthiony Pargeter to enquire as to the whereabouts of his gun, and sound moderator (this is bourne out by reference in Anthony Pargeters COLP interviews in 1992, and his witness statement which he made to them on that occasion, where he confirms that Essex police came to see him and asked him about his .22 rifle. He told COLP that the police at that time appeared to be examining his gun to see if there was any dasmage caused to it, or to see if there was any evidence that it had been used in the shootings). It must follow that Essex police were suspicious of the disappearance of the Pargeter gun and silencer from the scene just before the shootings occurred. Pargeter told COLP that his gun was not present at whf on the day of the killings because he had taken it home on the penultimate week-end prior to the shootings happening - I am convinced that he showed the police on that occasion his sound moderator, and that police took an interest in this because of the Bamber family owned silencer that another relative had recently handed into the police after its find in the so called gun cupboard at the scene. I have been loooking into the most likeliest occasion when Essex police went along to see Anthony Pargeter about his missing gun and sound moderator (missing from the scene), and I come to the conclusion that this visit and this interest in his gun and silencer, must have taken place after the other relative found the Bamber faminly owned silencer in the cupboard at the scene, and it had been handed it over to the police, on evening of 12th August 1985; and the day of a submission of a sound moderator (under the exhibit mark of DB/1) to the lab' on 30th August 1985...

I think there are strong grounds for believing that the silencer (DB/1) sent to the lab' by Essex police for examination, on 30th August 1985, relates to the Anthony Pargeter sound moderator, not the Bamber family owned one. I do not believe that the Bamber family owned Parker Hale sound moderator went to the lab' to be examined, by Glynis Howard, on 13th August 1985. I believe that this particular sound moderator did not get sent to the lab' until around or upon 25th September 1985, under an exhibit reference of DRB/1 - it was sent there to be checked for blood and fibres from a tampon, according to the lab' records...

This brings me on, to the identity of the sound moderator (SBJ/1) sent to the lab', on 13th August 1985 - it was neither the Bamber family owned silencer, nor the Anthony Pargeter one. It belonged to the police and was fitted to the barrel of the gun which fired the non fatal shot to the side of Sheila's neck during a struggle between PS Woodcock and Sheila Caffell, as he was squeezing through a small gap in the door which led into the kitchen, to which the officers report (1612), and the missing pages from PS Woodcocks 15 page witness statement, refer...

Here is a brief breakdown of the three sound moderators, involved in this investigation:-

(1) - SBJ/1 (Lab' item number 22)  - police owned  this sound moderator, it got sent to the lab' on 13th Augist 1985 (fact)

(2) - DB/1 (Lab' item number 23)  - Anthony Pargeter sound moderator, it got sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985 (fact)

(3) - DRB/1 (Lab' item number 23 / 22)  - BAMBER FAMILY OWNED SOUND MODERATOR, it got sent to the lab' on 25th September 1985 (fact)

Finally for now, I would just like to say that although Anthony Pargeter tlold COLP that his gun and sound moderator were not present at the scene at the time of the shootings, this contradicts what he said in his witness statement that he made to Essex police as part of their investigation back in 1985, since on that occasion he told the police that although he kept his rifle, silencer, and ammunition at whf (downstiars toilet), he told them that he always removed the bolt from his rifle and took that home with him so that no-one else could fire it in his absence - this contradicts what Pargeter told COLP in his 1992 interviews and witness statement, where he tells them that he took his rifle and silencer home on the penultimate week-end p[rior to the shootings...

I think that these were / are the underlying circumstances behind why Anthony Pargeter may have made up the story about being told by David Boutflour that police had given the silencer back to the family...

Something else whuch may fit in with this, is that when David Boutflour was interviewed by COLP in 1992, he was asked about the comments (aforementioned, by Anthony Pargeter), and David Boutflour gave a different sort of explanation for what could have been meant by what Pargeter was talking about - for example, David Boutflour spoke of the fact that when he found the Bamber family owned sound moderator in the gun cupboard at the scene on 10th August 1985, the family at first thought the police had missed finding it, or that if they had found it that they had left it there in the cupboard where it remained until he took possession of it later on. So, in this sense, the family thought that police had wrongly given it back to the family, wrong because they observed some red srticky stuff on the ned of it, whuch they thought might have been, or could be blood...

[mike tesko]

I have finally been able to reconstruct what took place involving all three of these separate sound moderators or silencers, belionging to the police, Anthony Pargeter, and the Bamber family. All three were eventually merged together as being one and the same silencer, by adopting administrative measures, where exhibit references for one or more of these different sound moderators, were altered into one of the other exhibit references, in a sequence of events whuich basically altered the orignal silencer (police) exhibit reference of SBJ/1, into the second silencer (Anthony Pargeters) exhibit reference DB/1, and lastly changed into silencer (Bamber family) exbhibit DRB/1vidence is all there in dopcumentary paper trail, which allows anyone who is remotely interested in finding out the truth in these matters, can go along and reconstruct what the police and the relatives did, in effectively framing Jeremy Bamber for these murders...

Basically put, it is now possible to prove that the silencer / sound moderator evidence is exposed as nothing more than a sham, involving the police, relatives and experts. I can now finally put the finger of guilt upon all those who have done what they did, regarding the introduction of this silencer / sound moderator evidence. It really is a terrible, awful scandal, which somebody is going to have to pay dearly for, involving loss of liberty...

All those involved in fabricating this evidence should all be ashamed of themselves...

[mike tesko]

I am going to let you all in on a little secret, the crucial flake of blood (which produced results, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) was not and could not have been found inside the Bamber family owned (DRB/1) sound moderator / silencer, because that particualr silencer was not sent to the lab' for the first time until 25th September 1985, and therefore, the ballistic expert at the lab' could not have found it trapped between the baffle plates of the Bamber family owned silencer, any time sooner than that...

The flake was supoposedly found inside one of the silencers at the lab' on and by 12th September 1985, well of course this excludes the silencer in question being the Bamber family ownd one, found in the cuopboard at the scene by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985, and must surely point an accusing finger in the direction of the only sound moderator at the lab' at that time, being the Anthiny Pargeter sound moderator (DB/1), or the crucial flake could have been retrieved earlier from the police silencer (SBJ/1) - but because the Bamber family owned silencer did not get sent to the lab; until 25th September 1985, the crucial blood group activity which linked it to the death of Sheila Caffell, for all the reasons relied upon at trial, at the subsequent appeals, and until now, it means that then Bamber family owned silencer / sound moderator was not involved or used in the shootings at all, and therefiore the courts have been deliberately decieved into convicting Jeremy Bamber for these murders...

I now know what needs to be done to bring this matter to a successfull conclusion, I am buzzing, I'm on a roll, I would like to thank my informants for all the information they have been providing me with for all these years, without your help the truth about what took place, could never have been discovered, I thank you for finding the courage to speak to someone like me, about it...


It's now time to take action, and get the show on the road, so to speak, at long last there is light at the end of the tunnel, it is starting to grow and become a brilliant flame, that I feel is about to destroy the case that was wrongly brought against Jeremy Bamber...

"cometh the hour, cometh the man", that time is now...

[mike tesko]

<a href="http://[u][/u]" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://[u][/u]</a>Things you need to know.

(1) - crucial blood flake was not found inside Bamber family owned silencer, because it was not sent to the lab', for the the first time, until 25th September 1985. This is significant since the flake which produced the crucial blood group evidence, A, EAP, AK/1 and HP2-1, was found in one of the other  silencers, by 12th September 1985, and examined by the blood expert and his assistants, between 12th and 20th September 1985 - which was between one and two weeks beforehand...

What this proves is that Sheila"s blood was not found inside the sound moderator found in the gun cupboard by David Boutflour...

[mike tesko]

<a href="http://[u][/u]" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://[u][/u]</a>Things you need to know.

(1) - crucial blood flake was not found inside Bamber family owned silencer, because it was not sent to the lab', for the the first time, until 25th September 1985. This is significant since the flake which produced the crucial blood group evidence, A, EAP, AK/1 and HP2-1, was found in one of the other  silencers, by 12th September 1985, and examined by the blood expert and his assistants, between 12th and 20th September 1985 - which was between one and two weeks beforehand...

What this proves is that Sheila"s blood was not found inside the sound moderator found in the gun cupboard by David Boutflour...

(2) - neither David Boutflour, or any other relative, refers to the sound moderator found in the cupboard by its exhibit reference...

If the sound moderator found by the relatives had been the same one sent to the lab on 13th August 1985, it would have been referred to by them, as exhibit SBJ/1, but non of the relatives refer to any exhibit reference at all, when making thier witness statements, whilst testifying during the trial, or during thier respective COLP interviews, which is odd considering that thier signatures appear on an exhibit label bearing the exhibit reference of (to be updated later)...

[mike tesko]

Three different sound moderators were sent to be examined at Huntingdon Lab', on three separate occasions, yet the identity of the third sound moderator sent to the lab', on the last occasion (25th September 1985) was conspicously disguised, since no exhibit reference accompanied this particular sound moderator to the Lab' on that occasion...

Three dates a different sound moderator were sent to the Lab':-

(1) - Exhibit mark, SBJ/1 (lab' item number 22) - sent to the lab' at Huntingdon on 13th August 1985...

(2) - Exhibit mark, DB/1 (lab' item number 23) - sent tom the lab' at Huntingdon on 30th August 1985...

(3) - Exhibit mark, (unidentified) - sent to the lab' at Huntingdon on 25th September 1985...

[mike tesko]

Three different sound moderators were sent to be examined at Huntingdon Lab', on three separate occasions, yet the identity of the third sound moderator sent to the lab', on the last occasion (25th September 1985) was conspicously disguised, since no exhibit reference accompanied this particular sound moderator to the Lab' on that occasion...

Three dates a different sound moderator were sent to the Lab':-

(1) - Exhibit mark, SBJ/1 (lab' item number 22) - sent to the lab' at Huntingdon on 13th August 1985...

(2) - Exhibit mark, DB/1 (lab' item number 23) - sent tom the lab' at Huntingdon on 30th August 1985...

(3) - Exhibit mark, (unidentified) - sent to the lab' at Huntingdon on 25th September 1985...

We have a copy of the lab' record pertaining to the submission of the third sound moderator which police sent to the lab', on 25th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, but no-one wants to identify which sound moderator this one was? We also know that this particular sound moderator could not have been the one marked, DB/1 because that sound moderator had been sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and therefore that sound moderator was not in police possession as of 25th September 1985, to enable the police to send it to the lab', because that one was already at the lab'...

So...

What those representing Jeremy Bambers interests must now do, is pull out all the stops to try and find out everything they possibly can about the silencer police sent to the lab' on 25th September 1985 - where it came from, who found it, what exhibit mark it was given, who transported it to the lab, what lab' item number it was given upon arrival at the lab', who examined it, what were the findings of that / those examinations, and what happened to that sound moderator afterwards?

Official records show that on 13th Septembner 1985, this particular sound moderator was examined for fingerprimnts, by DS Eastwood, and DS Davidson...

[mike tesko]

We have a copy of the lab' record pertaining to the submission of the third sound moderator which police sent to the lab', on 25th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, but no-one wants to identify which sound moderator this one was? We also know that this particular sound moderator could not have been the one marked, DB/1 because that sound moderator had been sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and therefore that sound moderator was not in police possession as of 25th September 1985, to enable the police to send it to the lab', because that one was already at the lab'...

So...

What those representing Jeremy Bambers interests must now do, is pull out all the stops to try and find out everything they possibly can about the silencer police sent to the lab' on 25th September 1985 - where it came from, who found it, what exhibit mark it was given, who transported it to the lab, what lab' item number it was given upon arrival at the lab', who examined it, what were the findings of that / those examinations, and what happened to that sound moderator afterwards?

Official records show that on 13th Septembner 1985, this particular sound moderator was examined for fingerprimnts, by DS Eastwood, and DS Davidson...

DS Eastwood and DS Davidson, knew that the silencer they examined for fingerprints on 13th September 1985, was the one which PC WHIDDON had taken from DCI "Taff" Jones desk at Witham police station earlier, reference to which an informant contacted Ewen Smith about. Ewen went to meet the informant (David) in London and was told all about the significance of this on that occasion...

From what I was told or led to believe, this was the sound moderator (DRB/1) which ended up becomeing the key exhibit in the prosecutions case against Jeremy at his tril, and since - what is very interesting, however, is that if the sound moderator DRB/1, was the silencer kept on DCI Jones desk at Witham police station, it could not have been the same sound moderator sent to the lab' on 13th or 30th August 1985, and it is from this starting point that the case should now be approached from...

Let us not forget that Ewen Smith is now a CCRC Commissioner, and he knows all about this particualr silencer and that DS Eastwood and DS Davidson handled it on 13th September 1985, before it was sent to the lab' at Huntingdon on 25th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres...

If that / this sound moderator is DRB/1, then it opens up a can of worms, and the case against Bamber collapses...

[mike tesko]

Officially identifying that / this sound moderator and finding out everything about it, should be a key priority for Bambers legal team and anyone who supports his campaign...

If we crack this, Bamber has to be freed, no doubt about it...

[Reader]

Regarding Pargeter's information about what David told him, are you saying he simply misunderstood David? If the police hadn't given a silencer back to the family in the way Pargeter was suggesting, they would have known Pargeter had got it wrong, wouldn't they? In that case, why would they have let him leave his statement like that? It could have been questioned in court.

Regarding, your latest silencer theory, based on information from informers, one should use the physical evidence to reach the conclusion, preferably in combination with a statement from at least one informer. Without such means, it would be hard to revisit the silencer issue, as the 2002 appeal has already dealt with it. The CCRC insist on new evidence or new legal argument, not just a new theory.