Reason for changing original exhibit label for silencer (SBJ/1), doesn't add up.

[mike tesko]

Could somebody please tell me what item or article had the original exhibit reference SBJ/1, which clashed with the silencer...

[mike tesko]

If there was another exhibit that was not a silencer, it might be a good enough reason to want to have to change the corresponding SBJ/1 for the silencer, but since there is none, there was simply no need to change it - SBJ/1 was a silencer, nothing else...

And...

DS Jones took possession of it at the scene...

[lookout]

Mike,,,was Glynnis Howard ever charged for perverting the course of justice.?

I ask because she had signed a new exhibit label  DRB/1,,without having seen what she was signing for,nor examining same,for case SC/786/85,,,so in effect creating a false label to mislead the jury.
It was John Hayward, who then after examining SBJ/1,,had put his signature on DRB/1,,,but there was never any explanation as to why John Hayward had examined SBJ/1,,,yet signed the other one.?

All very suspect anyway Mike.

[big-goolies]

Could somebody please tell me what item or article had the original exhibit reference SBJ/1, which clashed with the silencer...

 
i thought you had all the answers mike

[mike tesko]

Mike,,,was Glynnis Howard ever charged for perverting the course of justice.?

I ask because she had signed a new exhibit label  DRB/1,,without having seen what she was signing for,nor examining same,for case SC/786/85,,,so in effect creating a false label to mislead the jury.
It was John Hayward, who then after examining SBJ/1,,had put his signature on DRB/1,,,but there was never any explanation as to why John Hayward had examined SBJ/1,,,yet signed the other one.?

All very suspect anyway Mike.

These are very valid points - they may have got away with it up to this point by relying on the explanation that all the different exhibit references given to a silencer at one time or another had to be merged into the same one, but that story doesn't hold water anymore, that explanation is a lie, proveable because there was / is no other exhibit other than a silencer bearing an exhibit reference SBJ/1, other than another silencer (Police issue one and Anthony Pargeter silencers)...

[mike tesko]

Mike,,,was Glynnis Howard ever charged for perverting the course of justice.?

I ask because she had signed a new exhibit label  DRB/1,,without having seen what she was signing for,nor examining same,for case SC/786/85,,,so in effect creating a false label to mislead the jury.

I also believe that Glynis Howard signed two different exhibit labels, one bearing the exhibit reference of SBJ/1, and another one bearing the exhibit reference of DRB/1. These were signed after she examined the two different silencers, once on 13th August 1985 (SBJ/1), and secondly, on 29th April 1986, when Cook brought the other silencer (DRB/1) to the lab' for the defence blood expert (Professor D. Lincoln), to examine. This is borne out by the hand written notes bearing her name and Ron Cooks name, dated, 29th April 1986, the same date and time, as hand written notes relating to Lincolns examination the same day, bearing Ron Cooks and Lincolns names (both versions timed at 11:30am, that same date). This proves that Howard did examine a silencer bearing the exhibit reference DRB/1, on 29th April 1986...

The relevant entry in the MPR confirms that Ron Cook took possession of the silencer (DRB/1) and took it to the lab' that (29th April 1986) same date, where Lincoln, and Howard examined it...

[mike tesko]

Details recorded in connection with the following entry in the MPR, refers to another entry, numbered 342:-