Bit strange what Pargeter says in his statement though... about DB and the police returning a silencer to DB.
I have changed my opinion on that subject. I admit that, at first, I had thought that Anthony Pargeter had let it slip that the silencer had been returned to the house by the police, and that the finding of it was a sham. I now rather think that it was just a case of the relatives giving false evidence in support of each other.
This is just a guess. I think it might have been the case that Pargeter did not completely understand the plan at first. Being aware that a blood stained silencer had been found at the scene of the crime by the police, he just thought that David Boutflour finding the silencer implied that the police must have returned it. For people to believe that Boutflour had found that silencer, they would need to be informed that the silencer had been returned, so he may have thought. Perhaps he just didn’t know that the plan was simply to retract the reports of a silencer being found altogether and to start from scratch as it were.
Just as there were, of course, witnesses present when David Boutflour allegedly found the silencer, as if to counter any suspicion that the finding of a silencer conforming to that description did not really take place, it was probably thought to be a good idea to add further circumstantial weight to Boutflour’s claim by adding the testimony of more witnesses. People would be inclined to say the finding of the silencer must be genuine, given the number of people who confirmed it.
It may have been as if somebody thought “And we’ll have Anthony say that he received a call from David saying he had found the silencer with blood and paint on it. People will hardly be likely to believe that all of us are lying.”
But we know they are lying, because a blood stained silencer was found by the police on the day of the killings and was sent to the laboratory and examined BEFORE the date when the Boutflour silencer was handed in.Putting two and two together, I think what happened is that there was a silencer the relatives had in their possession that played no part in killings and this gave someone the idea of faking the silencer evidence to frame Jeremy. They deliberately contaminated the other silencer and later sent that to the laboratory, so then there were two and the two became merged together in the fraud which ensued.
Documentation proves that two different silencers were examined and there are differing descriptions of where the blood and paint are said to be on each one. The Jury were led to believe that there was only one silencer which David Boutflour had found three days after the killings. But the documentation proves he lied.
People who lie sometimes get the idea for the lie from incidents which really did occur. I suspect that the police got the idea of a silencer with blood and paint on it, which would be damning evidence against Bamber, from the blood stained silencer which they had already found and from a gun which was found which had red paint on the muzzle. Those two things gave those people the idea for the deception they performed.
Obviously, once that plan had been put into operation the police had to retract the real finding of a silencer which, from interviews with the police had gotten into the papers. I mean, the relatives couldn’t very well have found the silencer if the police had already had it in there posession and had sent it to the laboratory before the time when the relatives handed it in.
The date when that information was retracted is for me a definite indication of when the evil conspiracy involving Essex Police and Bamber’s relatives got into full swing.
An interesting question is could Sheila have used the gun with the silencer on it at first, but then removed it before shooting herself. The finding of June Bamber’s DNA in one silencer appears to support that view as does the opinion of the ballistics experts who say that they can tell from photographs of Sheila that the silencer was not on the gun when she was shot.
