Unravelling the Lab' item numbers to the exhibits...

[mike tesko]

Read:-

Pay attention to the dodgy silencer exhibits...

[mike tesko]

The plot thickens...

[mike tesko]

I wonder what lab' item number, and exhibit reference was given to the silencer that police sent to the lab' on 26th September 1985, to be checked for blood, abd fibers from a tampon?

[mike tesko]

How could DS Davidson and DS EASTWOOD fingerint the same silencer on 13th September, if it had already been sent to the lab' in 30th August 1985...

[mike tesko]

And...

What about the silencer taken to the lab' on 29th April 1986, by DI Cook, and examined by Glenis Howard, what lab' item number and exhibit number did it have at that stage?

[mike tesko]

One thing we know for certain, is that right up until 17th October 1885, the silencer at the lab' was being referred to by the exjibit reference of SBJ/1, lab' item number 22, because Cook sent a hand written note toDF at the lab' on that date asking him to ammend  it to DB/1,  22...

Therefore, any lab' documents bearing any silencer exhibit references og DB/1 and DRB/1 before that date must be forgeries, if it is going to be maintained that there was just the one silencer
..

[mike tesko]

Lab' GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS, pertaining to a silencer, dated, 13th August1985, and 26th September 1985, are therefore forgeries - they are fake and forgeries because the exhibit references recorded on them did not exist nor were they known about on those dates. Infact, DB/1 did not come into existence until 17th October 1985, and DRB/1 did not come into existence until 29th April 1986...

[mike tesko]

It now seems almost certain that the two Boutflour silencers were introduced in early to mid September 1985, and that one of these two silencers was sent to lab', on 20th September 1985, along with exhibits DRB/2 and DRB/3, that same day, and that the other Boutflour silencer (DRB/1) was not taken to the lab' until 29th April 1986...

Police then altered the exhibit references of DRB/2 and DRB/3, by giving them Ann Eatons exhibit marks...

[mike tesko]

It now seems almost certain that the two Boutflour silencers were introduced in early to mid September 1985, and that one of these two silencers was sent to lab', on 20th September 1985, along with exhibits DRB/2 and DRB/3, that same day, and that the other Boutflour silencer (DRB/1) was not taken to the lab' until 29th April 1986...

Police then altered the exhibit references of DRB/2 and DRB/3, by giving them Ann Eatons exhibit marks...

When the two Boutflour silencers were submitted to the lab', on 20th September 1985, and 29th April 1986, they were not given thier own lab' item numbers, they were accepted under the lab' item numbers previouzly given to the other two silencers, SBJ/1 (22), and DB/1 (23) - which helps to show that all those involved in introducing the damning silencer, blood and paint evidence, all conspired to try to convict Jeremy Bamber by reliance upon fabricated silencer evidence...

[Alias]

Item 8, DRH/15 .22 rifle was also sent and received both on the 13th and on the 30th, but the sound moderator aka silencer takes the cake by being also sent on those dates, the "sound moderator" DRB1 SBS/1 on both dates, and the "silencer" SBS/1 DBI (??) only on the 30th.

What is the explanation from police and lab??

[Patti]

I'm interested in ND/5 which is June's nightdress.  In 1991 Davidson was asked by the London police why ND/5 was also given to the window catch taken from the bathroom by RWCook on the 27th September 1985. Elliot also claimed to have taken the said same catch on 1st October 1985. 

Here we have ND/5 June's nightdress on its way to the lab on the 4th October 1985. 

Davidson explains that there may have been two reasons the catch which was originally ND/5 had turned into RWC/8

"There's two possible reasons, one os that ND/5 was already allocated to another exhibit, um, there is, there may have been a mistake on my part that perhaps I received that exhibit, I called it my own exhibit in actual fact it was RWC'c exhibit no 8. and so that is possibly the answer."

I know I keep harping on about this, but how is it possible to allocate an existing exhibit number ND/5 to two exhibits from the same crime scene? Davidson was in charge...He explains the procedure's and that each exhibit number follow's the other and they are logged....

Each exhibit is clearly labelled and recorded if there appears to be two exhibits with the same exhibit numbers, then sure this is a little bit more that a mistake....If they can get the numbers mixed up then who is to say the actual exhibits are from the same crime...

[tyler]

I agree that exhibit numbers should follow the other.Same with Stan Jones exhibits.SBJ/1,2,3 and 4 were found at the scene on morning of the murders,weren't they? And we all know that SBJ/1 was a sound moderator!

[lookout]

I wonder what would have happened if there'd been no silencer at all.? What " item/s " would then have been pivotal in this case. Taking into consideration that there was no forensic evidence anyway.!

[susan]

Morning lookout

if the silencer had not been submitted as evidence we would have just had the testimony of Julie and I doubt he would have been convicted on her alone I feel the Jury were influenced by Sheila's blood being found on the silencer and really when you look at it objectively no real evidence existed and he would not have been convicted in a Court of Law today. Infact on reflection everything else i.e. he could have entered WHF through a window used his Mother's bike for the journey to and from the farm and as far as the phone calls are concerned I will leave you to work that one out yourself lookout.

[Patti]

Morning girls

No fibers, hairs or fingerprints to put JB in the main bedroom. The only evidence was a contaminated moderator. Would the sound moderator hold up in a court of today??