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

[mike tesko]

One of these three silencers belonged to the police / special branch...

One silencer belonged to Special Branch...
One silencer belonged to the Bamber family...
One silencer belonged to Anthony Pargeter...

[mike tesko]

One silencer belonged to Special Branch...
One silencer belonged to the Bamber family...
One silencer belonged to Anthony Pargeter...

One silencer belonged to Special Branch...

This silencer was fitted to the guns barrel which fired the non fatal shot (the priginal fragmented bullet PV/20) to the side of Sheila's neck, it had the original exhibit reference of SBJ/1, and a lab' reference number of 22. It was a central exhibit in an internal police investigation held into how Sheila Caffell died at the scene, after police entered the premises (whf)...

[bigdave1975]

Mike what did sheila do with the silencer after she shot herself?

[mike tesko]

One silencer belonged to Special Branch...
One silencer belonged to the Bamber family...
One silencer belonged to Anthony Pargeter...

One silencer belonged to Anthony Pargeter...

This silencer was owned by Anthony Pargeter, he purchased it in 1980, along with his .22 Bruno bolt action rifle. It was normally kept at whf in the downstairs toilet. However, on the penultimate week-end before the shootings occurred, he took it and his .22 rifle home with him, so that it was not at the farmhouse when the police entered the premises. Essex police visited Pargeter at his home and examined his .22 bolt action rifle, and took away his silencer (DB/1). The reason why Essex police visited Anthiony Pargeter to look at his firearm and accessory, was because David Boutflour had brought them to the attention of the police. This was the silencer which was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, under an exhibit reference of DB/1, and a lab' item number of 23. It was inside this silencer that the crucial flake of blood which produced the blood group results, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1, was discovered by the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, on 11th September 1985...

[mike tesko]

Mike what did sheila do with the silencer after she shot herself?

She did not shoot herself, in my opinion...

[mike tesko]

One silencer belonged to Special Branch...
One silencer belonged to the Bamber family...
One silencer belonged to Anthony Pargeter...

One silencer belonged to the Bamber family...

This silencer was found by David Boutflour in the cupboard in the downstairs office at the scene on 10th August 1985. It was handed into the police and brought to the attention of DCI "Taff" Jones, who was suspicious that the relatives were trying to pin the murders on Jeremy so that they would benefit from the wills of the Bamber parents. He threw the relatives out of the police station on one occasion when they arrived there to speak to him, and were trying to tell DCI Jones how to conduct his investigation. The silencer they found was never put into police storage because of the doubt hanging over the relatives and it. DCI Jones decided to keep this silencer on his desk in his office at Witham police station, where it remained until after the nature of the investigation changed into a full scale murder investigation under a crime scene reference of SC/786/85. Along came PC Whiddon who collected the silencer and took it along to the force armoury to see if it could be screwed onto the barrel of the gun. When he found it did, he brought its existence to the attention of DCS "Mick" Ainsley, who arranged for DS Eastwood and DS Davidson to examine it for fingerprints. Then, on 25th September 1985, the operations manager asked that the silencer in question be sent to the lab' to be checked for blood, and fibres. This was the silencer which ended up being produced at Jeremy's trial, as court exhibit number 9, bearing an exhibit reference of DRB/1, lab' item number 23/22...

[bigdave1975]

So if sheila did not shoot herself.then who did.

[mike tesko]

So if sheila did not shoot herself.then who did.

Nobody, shot themselves...

[mike tesko]

Now...

the story being put forward that there was only ever just the one silencer, which had three separate exhibit references, namely, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, was not evidence placed before the jury which tried the case. The jury were not made aware of these very serious administrative errors or contradictions - if they had been, it is almost certain that the silencer, blood and paint evidence derived from it would have been thrown out on the basis that it was too dodgy to allow in...

At this late stage, police are saying they had to alter the original exhibit references given to the silencer because they clashed with other exhibit references given to other exhibits bearing the same exhibit references. What this means is that although the first silencer found had an exhibit mark of SBJ/1, it had to be altered into DB/1, because it clashed with another exhibit bearing the same exhibit mark...

OK, you got that...

Right, so please can somebody tell me what this other piece of eveidence bearing the exhibit reference of SBJ/1, was / is? Where was it found, who found it, and what happened to it?

[Alias]

Mike, your reasoning is very complicated. You know the case better than most, I respect that and realize that fact - this is just too non-Occam´s Razor for me. 

[mike tesko]

Mike, your reasoning is very complicated. You know the case better than most, I respect that and realize that fact - this is just too non-Occam´s Razor for me. 

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .

"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

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

Which part of the case do you think is very complicated?

Here is a simple question that I would like to ask you, and everybody else:-

(1) - do you know what item of evidence had the same exhibit reference of SBJ/1, given to the silencer, which caused the police to have to alter its exhibit reference into DB/1?

[packagebuilder]

Now...

the story being put forward that there was only ever just the one silencer, which had three separate exhibit references, namely, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, was not evidence placed before the jury which tried the case. The jury were not made aware of these very serious administrative errors or contradictions - if they had been, it is almost certain that the silencer, blood and paint evidence derived from it would have been thrown out on the basis that it was too dodgy to allow in...

At this late stage, police are saying they had to alter the original exhibit references given to the silencer because they clashed with other exhibit references given to other exhibits bearing the same exhibit references. What this means is that although the first silencer found had an exhibit mark of SBJ/1, it had to be altered into DB/1, because it clashed with another exhibit bearing the same exhibit mark...

OK, you got that...

Right, so please can somebody tell me what this other piece of eveidence bearing the exhibit reference of SBJ/1, was / is? Where was it found, who found it, and what happened to it?

SBJ/1 is a silencer, taken by DS Stan the man jones, this silencer was used in the "training by police"? this was change from SBJ/1 to DB/1? and again to DRB/ for court...

13th August 1985 - SBJ/1
Silencer sent to lab' on 30th August 1985 = SBJ/1
Silencer sent to lab' on 20th September 1985 = DRB/1
Note sent to MDF by DI Cook on 17th October 1985 =alter reference to DB/1
Silencer produced at trial in October 1986 = DRB/1

[Alias]

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .

"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

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

Which part of the case do you think is very complicated?

Here is a simple question that I would like to ask you, and everybody else:-

(1) - do you know what item of evidence had the same exhibit reference of SBJ/1, given to the silencer, which caused the police to have to alter its exhibit reference into DB/1?

No.
It becomes very complicated that Sheila was first shot with the silencer attached, then she was shot without the silencer.
Your claim Sheila did not shoot herself puts the blame right back to Jeremy. IMO and in short.

[maggie]

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .

"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

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

Which part of the case do you think is very complicated?

Here is a simple question that I would like to ask you, and everybody else:-

(1) - do you know what item of evidence had the same exhibit reference of SBJ/1, given to the silencer, which caused the police to have to alter its exhibit reference into DB/1?

Mike, I do know there was a mention of a shooting incident in the kitchen when the raid team entered....no more information.  The simplest answer to that is someone was shot at that time imo

[Alias]

Mike, I do know there was a mentiono f a shooting incident in the kitchen when the raid team entered....no more information.  The simplest answer to that is that someone was shot at that time imo

A simple answer could also be that a shooting incident that HAD happened was being reported.