Did the police search the gun cupboard, yet not find the silencer?

[BarefootDanC]

A Campaign Team member has posted this picture in a Facebook group, claiming that this shows that the police searched the gun cupboard yet did not spot the box containing the sound moderator.

Is this correct?

Why was it that the sound moderator was not found by the police, but only by the relatives when the police handed the keys over?

Thanks in advance.

[Cambridgecutie]

A Campaign Team member has posted this picture in a Facebook group, claiming that this shows that the police searched the gun cupboard yet did not spot the box containing the sound moderator.

Is this correct?

Why was it that the sound moderator was not found by the police, but only by the relatives when the police handed the keys over?

Thanks in advance.

Kind of correct.

The police were told to search for guns and bullets only.  So that's what they did.

At trial the police officers in question were asked if they searched the gun cupboard, they said they did.

When asked if they saw the silencer, they said they didn't.

But they said they were only looking for guns and bullets, they were not interested in any gun paraphernalia or accessories.  Therefore they would only have been alert to guns and bullets.

They said that if they had seen the silencer they would have ignored it, because they were told by their bosses to look for bullets and guns only.

I think the silencer had been placed back in its box as well.  But they weren't interested in any of that stuff at that time.

You have to remember that there was no investigation as such.  At least not what would be described today as an investigation.  Even at that early stage Taff Jones had made a unilateral decision that Jeremy Bamber was innocent and Sheila Caffell was guilty.  No one was allowed to question that.

That's why there was no effective search of the house as you would get today.

There are a load of news clips from reporters reporting outside the court, from the 1986 trial.  Some of these clips are hosted on GettyImages website.  If you go and find them on there, they are quite interesting.

But what you can see is how Jeremy Bamber and his supporters take the whole story, and then remove any part of that story that creates context, and then they take what's left, they create a piece of fiction around what's left, that falsely relates to the police being corrupt, or Jeremy Bamber being innocent. 

And then they get all angry when someone comes along and explains the actual truth.

[Adam]

Bamber used the silencer. It was a silent massacre attempt.

He put it away after shooting Sheila last and before burning Nevill's back downstairs.

The police would have seen the box and may have opened it.

[Roch]

Bamber used the silencer. It was a silent massacre attempt.

He put it away after shooting Sheila last and before burning Nevill's back downstairs.

The police would have seen the box and may have opened it.

Apparently he didn't use it for the marks on Nevill's forearm though. So bit of a strange sequence of events here.

[Adam]

Apparently he didn't use it for the marks on Nevill's forearm though. So bit of a strange sequence of events here.

The 40+ lacerations/bruises on Nevill's head/body,  smashed watch & broken rifle were due to Bamber striking him.

[Jane]

I think "gun cupboard" needs some clarification. I was not what most of us know as being such ie, a double fronted, upright which stored guns in a vertical position. Rather it was a wedged shape, understair space which had been utilized to contain guns placed horizontally. The silencer was, I believe, discovered at the very back of this space -at the thin edge of the wedge. It certainly made no sense whatsoever for Sheila to have placed it there.

[Adam]

The rifle had a silencer. It is a standard & essential accessory for a rifle for shooting rabbits.

The logical place it would be is in it's box or on the rifle.  In the gun cupboard.

As the rifle was put on Sheila, the silencer was in it's box in the gun cupboard. Which is where the relatives found it.

[Rob_]

Kind of correct.

The police were told to search for guns and bullets only.  So that's what they did.

At trial the police officers in question were asked if they searched the gun cupboard, they said they did.

When asked if they saw the silencer, they said they didn't.

But they said they were only looking for guns and bullets, they were not interested in any gun paraphernalia or accessories.  Therefore they would only have been alert to guns and bullets.

They said that if they had seen the silencer they would have ignored it, because they were told by their bosses to look for bullets and guns only.

I think the silencer had been placed back in its box as well.  But they weren't interested in any of that stuff at that time.

You have to remember that there was no investigation as such.  At least not what would be described today as an investigation.  Even at that early stage Taff Jones had made a unilateral decision that Jeremy Bamber was innocent and Sheila Caffell was guilty.  No one was allowed to question that.

That's why there was no effective search of the house as you would get today.

There are a load of news clips from reporters reporting outside the court, from the 1986 trial.  Some of these clips are hosted on GettyImages website.  If you go and find them on there, they are quite interesting.

But what you can see is how Jeremy Bamber and his supporters take the whole story, and then remove any part of that story that creates context, and then they take what's left, they create a piece of fiction around what's left, that falsely relates to the police being corrupt, or Jeremy Bamber being innocent. 

And then they get all angry when someone comes along and explains the actual truth.

That's not what Cook says in his statement:

[Rob_]

Cook also says :

[Rob_]

Cook also says:

[Cambridgecutie]

That's not what Cook says in his statement:

I'm going from the actual examinations and cross examinations at the actual trial.  And that would be as they were reported on by journalists covering the trial in 1986.  That is also the most honest account, as broadcast journalists will always attempt to get the context right.

Those clips can be viewed on Getty Images website.

I don't know who was quoted as saying the above though. Probably not cook.  It's just a shame that Cook walks around with his eyes shut obviously.  He's kind of admitting to being incompetent.

He's not saying that the silencer wasn't there, or that he thinks there wasn't a silencer there. He also seems to be in agreement with Taff Jones. 

Even by the standards of the day it was an initially botched investigation, and Cook is saying that during that period of the investigation that was botched, even by the lower standards of the day, that he saw nothing wrong or anything to contradict what Taff Jones thought.  Not a good look for Cook, I am surprised he said that.

I wonder when that statement was made, before or after 1986?

[Rob_]

I'm going from the actual examinations and cross examinations at the actual trial.  And that would be as they were reported on by journalists covering the trial in 1986.  That is also the most honest account, as broadcast journalists will always attempt to get the context right.

Those clips can be viewed on Getty Images website.

I don't know who was quoted as saying the above though. Probably not cook.  It's just a shame that Cook walks around with his eyes shut obviously.  He's kind of admitting to being incompetent.

He's not saying that the silencer wasn't there, or that he thinks there wasn't a silencer there. He also seems to be in agreement with Taff Jones. 

Even by the standards of the day it was an initially botched investigation, and Cook is saying that during that period of the investigation that was botched, even by the lower standards of the day, that he saw nothing wrong or anything to contradict what Taff Jones thought.  Not a good look for Cook, I am surprised he said that.

I wonder when that statement was made, before or after 1986?

The extracts I posted are from Cook's COLP statement when he was interviewed by DI Hammett.

[Rob_]

I'm going from the actual examinations and cross examinations at the actual trial.  And that would be as they were reported on by journalists covering the trial in 1986.  That is also the most honest account, as broadcast journalists will always attempt to get the context right.

Those clips can be viewed on Getty Images website.

I don't know who was quoted as saying the above though. Probably not cook.  It's just a shame that Cook walks around with his eyes shut obviously.  He's kind of admitting to being incompetent.

He's not saying that the silencer wasn't there, or that he thinks there wasn't a silencer there. He also seems to be in agreement with Taff Jones. 

Even by the standards of the day it was an initially botched investigation, and Cook is saying that during that period of the investigation that was botched, even by the lower standards of the day, that he saw nothing wrong or anything to contradict what Taff Jones thought.  Not a good look for Cook, I am surprised he said that.

I wonder when that statement was made, before or after 1986?

Well if you are going by the trial why does DB give a different version of events as to where the silencer was found than in his first statement where he says he saw the blood and paint on the silencer while at WHF?

[Steve_uk]

"For someone like Sheila, whom I would describe as "scatty", is almost unbelievable." https://open.spotify.com/episode/2WyhrCyzEAad0qRDmTFYZt?si=XGDcadlyQjmExg0W13Wpk&nd=1&dlsi=c5fe4d72f5994814