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

[mike tesko]

The Big Lie

Prosecutions case was that a sound moderator (silencer) was fitted to the barrel of the anshulz rifle at the time Sheila Caffell was shot under the chin and killed, and that the killer removed it after he had killed her and took it all the way downstairs, to hide / conceal it in the gun cupboard in the downstairs office, before returning back upstairs to stage manage her body to make it appear as though she had taken her own life, after she had killed the others. Prosecution called witnesses to suggest that with the sound moderator fitted to the guns barrel the overall length of the gun would have been too long to allow Sheila to shoot herself even if she had wanted to, and that this in itself proves that she was murdered...

-----------------------

I say:-


Claim that the gun would have been too long with a sound moderator fitted to its barrel to prevent Sheila shooting herself is total and absolute bunkem - tests carried out at Birdwell armoury under scrutiny or working knowlege of Ewen Smith (Now a CCRC Commisioner) prove that length of weapon would not serve to prevent it being used by Sheila to shoot herself under the chin...

The problem connected to this statement of mine, is that according to the police and prosecutions case, no sound moderator was found at the scene by the police, and if this were / ios true, desoite it being possible for Sheila to have technically shot herself under the chin by the gun with a sound moderator fitted, somebody would have needed to unscrew it from the barrel of the gun and conceal it elsewhere in the farmhouse. I do not accept that proposition to be true, since police did seize a sound moderator from the scene that morning under an exhibit reference of SBJ/1. This sound moderator was one of four exhibits seized by DS "Stan" Jones at the scene on the morning of 7th August 1985, the circumstances of which have been covered up, and presented as though its find and seizure on that occasion never took place or occurred, but I can assure everybody that it did...

DS "Stan" Jones, took possession of four exhibits from the scene that particular morning:-

SBJ/1 - sound moderator
SBJ/2
SBJ/3
SBJ/4

[mike tesko]

Sheila could have adopted a leaning forward position whilst standing on her feet, so that the muzzle of the sound moderator was benetah her chin, and her finger could operate the trigger mechanism...

[mike tesko]

However, she did not adopt any of these positions at the time the fatal shot was discharged under her chin, and there was no sound moderator fitted to the barrel of the anshulz rifle at the time she was killed. But a sound moderator was fitted to the barrel of another gun, at the time she was shot in the side of the neck...

[mike tesko]

However, she did not adopt any of these positions at the time the fatal shot was discharged under her chin, and there was no sound moderator fitted to the barrel of the anshulz rifle at the time she was killed. But a sound moderator was fitted to the barrel of another gun, at the time she was shot in the side of the neck...

This was how Sheila Caffells blood could have / did get into the sound moderator - it did not get there at the time she received the shot under the chin, because there wasn't a sound moderator fitted to the  barrel of the gun which fired the fatal shot under the chin...

[Reader]

That may well be true, but it would seem that it has to be established indirectly by first getting hold of evidence from the forensics lab that proves the police have relied on forensic evidence they knew was false. It might then be possible to get an investigation or court order that would obtain further evidence. Alternatively, some individual involved in the case could become a whistle-blower, but this is a less reliable means.

Edit: I refer above to the lab in the UK used by the original prosecution. The work carried out abroad hasn't helped much.

[mike tesko]

That may well be true, but it would seem that it has to be established indirectly by first getting hold of evidence from the forensics lab that proves the police have relied on forensic evidence they knew was false. It might then be possible to get an investigation or court order that would obtain further evidence. Alternatively, some individual involved in the case could become a whistle-blower, but this is a less reliable means.

Edit: I refer above to the lab in the UK used by the original prosecution. The work carried out abroad hasn't helped much.

What is of concern, is that the original sound moderator which was sent to the lab', on 13th August 1985, appears to not have had a proper signed exhibit label attached to it, before it went to the lab', whilst it was present at the lab', or later when they claimed it had been to the lab', been examined at the lab', before being returned to the family, or the police, to enable relatives to argue that one of them found it, handed it back to police, before police resubmitted it to the lab, yet no exhibit label bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1 has yet to be handed over...

[mike tesko]

We have the signatures of various relatives, the signatures of various police officers, signatures of experts, shared between two exhibit labels, namely, DB/1 and DRB/1, which does not equate or match with the find, retention, and examination at the lab' on 13th August 1985, namely a sound moderator bearing the exhibit mark of SBJ/1. If DS Jones took possession og a sound moderator bring the mark SBJ/1, on 7th August 1985, then of course it could not be the self same sound moderator found later (10th August), by the relatives...

This is because DS Jones had already found and taken possession of that one from as long ago as morning of 7th August 1985...

Linked to this, is the fact that DS Jones seized four exhibits on 7th August 1985, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...

[mertol22]

These pictures mike are in sequence, what is needed is a female of same height and build of Sheila with a safe same rifle, to assimulate the action and in video, the end resting place of the rifle would provide alternative debate.

[Alias]

I never understood the purpose of those posings with the rifle. Yes, they prove that Sheila could have shot herself with the sound moderator on; but hey, she couldn´t have shot herself, died, then gotten up, wrapped the silencer up and put it in the cupboard, then stumbled back to where she shot herself.
Bet you´ve heard that before. 

[Martin]

What is of concern, is that the original sound moderator which was sent to the lab', on 13th August 1985, appears to not have had a proper signed exhibit label attached to it, before it went to the lab', whilst it was present at the lab', or later when they claimed it had been to the lab', been examined at the lab', before being returned to the family, or the police, to enable relatives to argue that one of them found it, handed it back to police, before police resubmitted it to the lab, yet no exhibit label bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1 has yet to be handed over...

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.

From a statement by Anthony Pargeter.

“Sometime after the 10 August 1985, I received a telephone call from David Boutflour who is a cousin of mine. He told me the silencer had been returned to the family, presumably by the police. He said there was a large scratch on it, some red paint on the knurled end and what appeared to be blood. I advised David to return it to the police straight away.

A day or two after the funeral I went to the kitchen of the farm because there is red paint around the aga. I noticed scoring on the paint work and it appeared to me that this could be where the paint on the silencer came from. The scoring is on the underside of the mantelpiece at the right hand side.”

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.

We have the signatures of various relatives, the signatures of various police officers, signatures of experts, shared between two exhibit labels, namely, DB/1 and DRB/1, which does not equate or match with the find, retention, and examination at the lab' on 13th August 1985, namely a sound moderator bearing the exhibit mark of SBJ/1. If DS Jones took possession of a sound moderator bring the mark SBJ/1, on 7th August 1985, then of course it could not be the self same sound moderator found later (10th August), by the relatives...

This is because DS Jones had already found and taken possession of that one from as long ago as morning of 7th August 1985...

Linked to this, is the fact that DS Jones seized four exhibits on 7th August 1985, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...

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.

[mike tesko]

I never understood the purpose of those posings with the rifle. Yes, they prove that Sheila could have shot herself with the sound moderator on; but hey, she couldn´t have shot herself, died, then gotten up, wrapped the silencer up and put it in the cupboard, then stumbled back to where she shot herself.
Bet you´ve heard that before. 

She didn't, the silencer was not fitted to the guns barrel that fired the fatal shot under the chin - therefore, there was no need for her, or any would be killer to remove the silencer from the guns barrel after they killed her, and for them to take it downstairs to hide it in the gun cupboard, in the downstairs office. It is completely absurd to suggest that Sheila could have done this if as you say she was already dead, and it would be even more absurd for any would be killer to shoot Sheila under the chin with a silencer fitted to the guns barrel, and then to remove it after he had shot her, and conceal it as desccribed - there would be  no need to use a silencer when any would be killer was shooting Sheila under the chin, and then remove it after he shot her, he would simply have shot her by use of the gun minus a silencer, surely?

In any event, the killer, or Sheila, made such a good job of using the silencer to help them end Sheila's life, that DS "Stan" Jones, came along that very same day and took possession of a silencer (SBJ/1), so if the silencer was used by either Sheila, or Jeremy, or as the case may be, by any as yet unidentified killer, and DS Jones seized it, and retained it, along with three other exhibits that he took possession of at the scene on the first day of the police invesdtigation...


They didn't do a very good job of hiding or concealing it, because DS Jones found it along with three other exhibits on that first day of the police investigation. Lets get the facts right, DS Jones took possession of that silencer, as part of a batch of four exhibits that day, bearing the identifying marks of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4.  Lets go a bit further, for arguments sake, and say that one of these four exhibits was a photoghraph which DS Jones took of the downstairs toilet, and another was a photograph taken by him that morning (7th August 1985) in the kitchen. Now forgive me for being persistant, but I thought PC Bird was the only police officer who took crime scene photographs inside the farmhouse, on that first day? This is getting very interesting, since it appears that PC Bird and DS Jones were now taking pictures at the scene, on the mroning of 7th August 1985...

Now if PC Bird was taking photographs as part of the CID investigation into the incident, who the hell was DS Jones taking photographs for, since officially there is no records that DS Jones took any photographs at the scene that morning at all, other than references to entries in a police property register - so, did DS Jones take photographs and seize a silencer (SBJ/1) from the scene, as part of the Special Branch investigation, into the matter?

How can four exhibits (One of them a silencer) bearing the identifying marks of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, disappear of the evidence radar...

[Reader]

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.

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.

[mike tesko]

What appears to have happened, is that two completely separate sound moderators have been merged into one...

[mike tesko]

What appears to have happened, is that two completely separate sound moderators have been merged into one...

On the morning of the shootings, two identical looking Parker Hale sound moderators should have been present at the scene. These were owned by the family and kept in storage at the farm, the one owned by Anthony Pargeter was normally kept by him in the downatairs toilet. The other Bamber family owned silencer, was normally kept in a cupbard in the downstairs office...

We now know that one of these two silencers was missing from the scene at the time of the shootings - Anthony Pargeter had taken his silencer home on the penultimate week-end before the shootings so that only the Bamber family owned silencer was present at the scene. This was kept in its usual place, and at no stage was it fitted to a guns barrel...

[mike tesko]

On the morning of the shootings, two identical looking Parker Hale sound moderators should have been present at the scene. These were owned by the family and kept in storage at the farm, the one owned by Anthony Pargeter was normally kept by him in the downatairs toilet. The other Bamber family owned silencer, was normally kept in a cupbard in the downstairs office...

We now know that one of these two silencers was missing from the scene at the time of the shootings - Anthony Pargeter had taken his silencer home on the penultimate week-end before the shootings so that only the Bamber family owned silencer was present at the scene. This was kept in its usual place, and at no stage was it fitted to a guns barrel...

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...