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

[Caroline R]

Has anybody got any idea what this item in this photograph is / was?

It looks like some kind of giant safety pin but it's difficult to make out. Just tried to zoom in on it, it looks as though it's made of metal. Just a crazy idea but could it have been used to make those marks on Neville's back?

[lookout]

It looks like some kind of giant safety pin but it's difficult to make out. Just tried to zoom in on it, it looks as though it's made of metal. Just a crazy idea but could it have been used to make those marks on Neville's back?

Hi Caroline,,,I too was thinking it was a safety pin until I got my jewellers magnifying glass which I then made it out to be a hat-pin with what looks like a " burnt " ornamental end. You know when something has been seared/discoloured through heating.?
Do we know if June wore hats which needed a hat-pin.?

[mike tesko]

One important piece of infomation / evidence that everyone should be made aware of, concerns the occasion when DI Cook, took the first sound moderator to the lab', on 13th  August 1985 - he tpld the COLP investigators in 1992, that the silencer which DS Jones had given him did not have an exhibit label attached to it when he got to the lab' that day, so when he got there he attached a blank / brown coloured label to it, and wrote the exhibit reference, SJ/1 upon it, and both he and expert Glynis Howard both signed the label at positoons 2 and 3, leaving a space at gap 1 for the finder of the silencer to sign later. He told COLP that he was under the impression that DS Jones had found that silencer, also adding that he did not know DS Jones had a middle name, hence why he had handwritten the exhibit mark on the label as SJ/1...

This is interesting for a number of different reasons, since, no signed exhibit label exists signed by Cook and Howard, bearing the mark of SJ/1. The only signed exhibit labels in existence have the exhibit references of DB/1 and DRB/1. Furthermore, on the same exhibit label signed by Cook and Howard, at positions 2 and 3, the signature of the gun dealor appears at position 1,  supposedly earmarked for the finder of the silencer. This does not sit well with what Cook told the COLP investigators in 1992, about him thinking DS Jones found this silencer (SJ/1), and later finding out David Boutflour supposedly found it, nor with the signature of the gun dealor, Radcliffe appearing in position 1, on the same exhibit label that is signed by Cook and Howard at positions 2 and 3, on a label bearing a completely different exhibit reference than SJ/1...

Another oddity arisies on the General Examination from the lab' dated 13 August 1985, since it does not bear the exhibit mark of SJ/1...

Yet, on 29th August 1985, when Cook dismantles the silencer, and photographs the procedure, it still has an exhibit mark of SJ/1 upon it..

How is it possible therefore, for anyone to refer to this silencer by any other exhibit reference than SJ/1? How can anyone refer yo it as exhibit SBJ/1, or DB/1, or DRB/1?

[mike tesko]

If what Cook told COLP was / is true, about attaching a label to the silencer he took to the lab', on 13th August 1985, and that he had handwritten the exhibit reference of SJ/1 upon it, why does the General Examination Record relating to the same item, on that date, have DB/1 as its exhibit reference?

[mike tesko]

If what Cook told COLP was / is true, about attaching a label to the silencer he took to the lab', on 13th August 1985, and that he had handwritten the exhibit reference of SJ/1 upon it, why does the General Examination Record relating to the same item, on that date, have DB/1 as its exhibit reference?

Expert, Glynis Howard, refers to the silencer she examined on 13th August 1985, by the exhibit reference of SBJ/1, which does not match the details on lab' records, which have it as DB/1. By the time the matter came to court, she was referring to the same silencer she had examined on 13th August 1985, by exhibit reference DRB/1. When she was spoken to by COLP in 1992 about these descrepancies, she told them that somebody had altered the exhibit rwference from SBJ*1 to DRB/1, without her knowlege...

Worse still...

Non of the General Examination records from the lab', refer to the silencer by the exhibit mark DRB/1...

[mike tesko]

In addition, none of the signed exhibit labels bear the identfying mark of either SJ/1, or SBJ/1, so it is not pissible to say that there was / is only one silencer, at the very least therw were two different ones, worse case scenario there were three separate silencers all of which appear to have been merged into the same one, where SBJ/1 has been turned into DB/1, which in turn has become DRB/1...

The problem with someone merging all these different silencers into one, is exposed as a lie, because events involving use of, examination of, and submission to lab', of the same do not sit well together, qhere one or other of these silencers, appears to be at the lab', and not be at the lab', at one or the same time...

[Patti]

Has anybody got any idea what this item in this photograph is / was?

Yes it is an imprint on the carpet...Something had been there and recently been moved prior to the picture having been taken..

[mike tesko]

In addition, none of the signed exhibit labels bear the identfying mark of either SJ/1, or SBJ/1, so it is not pissible to say that there was / is only one silencer, at the very least therw were two different ones, worse case scenario there were three separate silencers all of which appear to have been merged into the same one, where SBJ/1 has been turned into DB/1, which in turn has become DRB/1...

The problem with someone merging all these different silencers into one, is exposed as a lie, because events involving use of, examination of, and submission to lab', of the same do not sit well together, qhere one or other of these silencers, appears to be at the lab', and not be at the lab', at one or the same time...

All the experts signed an exhibit label marked DB/1 (Crossed out), DRB/1, serial number 22, when DB/1 was serial number 23. It is interesting to note that no experts signature appears on a label marked SBJ/1, or SJ/1...

All the relatives signed an exhibit label bearing the mark DRB/1, when there does not exist any General Examination Record relating to a silencer bearing the identifying mark of DRB/1, so where does that leave the silencer, blood and paint evidence that was relied upon to successfully prosecute Jeremy Bamber for these murders...

[mike tesko]

Expert, Glynis Howard, refers to the silencer she examined on 13th August 1985, by the exhibit reference of SBJ/1, which does not match the details on lab' records, which have it as DB/1. By the time the matter came to court, she was referring to the same silencer she had examined on 13th August 1985, by exhibit reference DRB/1. When she was spoken to by COLP in 1992 about these descrepancies, she told them that somebody had altered the exhibit rwference from SBJ*1 to DRB/1, without her knowlege...

Worse still...

Non of the General Examination records from the lab', refer to the silencer by the exhibit mark DRB/1...

This  lab' form is a forgery - it is dated 13th August 1985, and bears information about evidence found on and inside it, which did not materialize until many weeks later, furthermore, how could this silencer (13th August 1985) have the exhibit reference of DB/1, which did not come into play until on or after 30th August 1985?

[mike tesko]

Lets look at the exhibit muddle relating to the so called solitary silencer evidence:-

A silencer starts off being referred to by the exhibit reference of SJ/1 (13th August 1985),, OK, lets assume they altered this slightly and made it into SBJ/1, from 7th August 1985, onward. You then get a resubmission of a silencer to the lab', on 30th August 1985, the silencer at this stage is now being referred to as DB/1. So, on the face of it, the only silencer present at the lab' on and after 30th August 1985, was one bearing the exhibit mark of DB/1...

So, why is it that on 25th September 1985, that when a silencer is sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres, it is docurmnrtd by use of the original exhibit mark of SBJ/1? Shouldn't it have been changed to DB/1 by that / this stage? Furthermore, how can you send a silencer (SBJ/1) to the lab' if that same silencer (DB/1) has already been sent to the same lab' on 30th August 1985?

[Patti]

Has anybody got any idea what this item in this photograph is / was?

I can't see how the blood flowed under Sheila's arm pit....It doesn't look right to me.  Even if she was sat up or lent on her right side the blood trail does not match the wounds....There is a slight trial going vertically, but not prolific enough to trail the distance to her arm pit...its quite odd. 

[lookout]

Sheila would have been half-sitting when that blood collected to the right of her,in line with the wound,,,,and obviously as she lay flat it would flow down her neck. That last wound would have caused the blood to pool because before she died,,it would have pumped out.

[Reader]

Has anybody got any idea what this item in this photograph is / was?

It seems too large for a hat pin (but I'm no expert on hat pins). Could it be a W-shaped clothes hanger?

[lookout]

It seems too large for a hat pin (but I'm no expert on hat pins). Could it be a W-shaped clothes hanger?

I've changed my mind on the hatpin,,,though there were some weird and wonderful ones in Victorian and Edwardian days.
It could be something to do with the Aga,,,a lid lifter thingy. As you can see,I'm not familiar with the tools connected to such burners.