New silencer tests set to cast serious doubt upon safety of convictions...

[susan]

lookout

[lookout]

lookout

Back at you,Susan. x

[Caroline R]

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.

Hi Martin, great post and I agree with 'most' of it. However, I don't believe that a silencer was ever used as the DNA evidence is far too ambiguous and is most likely due to contamination from the lab. The police finding of a silencer in the early days might also explain the comment made by Hammersely of "I didn't find it" when he was later interviewed for disciplinary purposes.

[mrstiggywinkle]

The question I ask is:

"Why would David Boutflour be rooting through any cupboards in somebody else's house immediately after a series of murders?" 

That is completely bizarre behaviour by any standards - even if he did know what he was looking for.
and again, "Why would he be looking for the silencer?"

Plus I always thought the silencer was found at the back of the gun cupboard, but that daft documentary seemed to show it was found in 'a cupboard'.

[lookout]

The question I ask is:

"Why would David Boutflour be rooting through any cupboards in somebody else's house immediately after a series of murders?" 

That is completely bizarre behaviour by any standards - even if he did know what he was looking for.
and again, "Why would he be looking for the silencer?"

Plus I always thought the silencer was found at the back of the gun cupboard, but that daft documentary seemed to show it was found in 'a cupboard'.

Yes,,the last thing I'd have thought of doing in someone else's home. I didn't even go opening drawers and cupboards after my mother died. I felt it disrespectful so soon after.
It tells me what sort of people they are !
They'll all be losing their marbles if they're not careful,,as liars have to have good memories and unless ones' mind is clear,then they'll slip up somewhere along the line.

[Caroline R]

The question I ask is:

"Why would David Boutflour be rooting through any cupboards in somebody else's house immediately after a series of murders?" 

That is completely bizarre behaviour by any standards - even if he did know what he was looking for.
and again, "Why would he be looking for the silencer?"

Plus I always thought the silencer was found at the back of the gun cupboard, but that daft documentary seemed to show it was found in 'a cupboard'.

Have you read David Boutflour and Ann Eaton's statement? The answers to your questions are there.

[susan]

Hello mrs tiggywinkle

I have always been puzzled by this as well why would somebody go looking through cupboards in a house that was not theirs what were they expecting to find.  Vidvic a poster on the forum who has knowledge of the extended family told me the gun cupboard is a really deep cupboard and the silencer was found right at the back with some bullets.

[grahameb]

The question I ask is:

"Why would David Boutflour be rooting through any cupboards in somebody else's house immediately after a series of murders?" 

That is completely bizarre behaviour by any standards - even if he did know what he was looking for.
and again, "Why would he be looking for the silencer?"

Plus I always thought the silencer was found at the back of the gun cupboard, but that daft documentary seemed to show it was found in 'a cupboard'.

Exactly. They were earnestly looking for anything that would incriminate Jeremy. How can a person be more transparent when allegedly finding the silencer. Words to the effect, "Ooh look! this must be the silencer to the gun. Ooh look! there's some blood on it. It must be Sheila's blood".

[Jane]

The question I ask is:

"Why would David Boutflour be rooting through any cupboards in somebody else's house immediately after a series of murders?" 

That is completely bizarre behaviour by any standards - even if he did know what he was looking for.
and again, "Why would he be looking for the silencer?"

Plus I always thought the silencer was found at the back of the gun cupboard, but that daft documentary seemed to show it was found in 'a cupboard'.

Hiding a silencer bloodied with victims blood in a gun cupboard where it's bound to be found. Hmmm!!! Takes hiding in plain sight to a new level.

[nugnug]

personal i dont think he did look in te cupboard.

[mrstiggywinkle]

Have you read David Boutflour and Ann Eaton's statement? The answers to your questions are there.

Although I have read many documents connected with this crime, including those you refer to; I'm afraid I am one of those people that cannot trust what people say what they do or say what they did and I prefer to see what actions they actually took and their manner / mannerisms.

Nothing they said about going to the house and the discovery of the silencer should be believed IMO.

Not even your own immediate family would go through personal possessions and property straight after a murder unless the police invited them to do so; let alone members of the extended family going through a house which they didn't own immediately after a bloodbath like this one. It certainly isn't British human nature.

IMO, that silencer was an object to be urgently retrieved from probably the normal place of keeping and at some stage, evidence collected upon it; then it was returned to be amazingly discovered.

The fact that they had access to the house indicates to me that they knew the house well, so did they have keys to be able to grab the silencer a day or so before it was found? Or (me being mischievous) was it already in their possession before the shootings?

[susan]

mrstiggywinkle  Jeremy gave them the keys to WHF after the murders is this the action of a guilty man I ask.

[Jane]

Although I have read many documents connected with this crime, including those you refer to; I'm afraid I am one of those people that cannot trust what people say what they do or say what they did and I prefer to see what actions they actually took and their manner / mannerisms.

Nothing they said about going to the house and the discovery of the silencer should be believed IMO.

Not even your own immediate family would go through personal possessions and property straight after a murder unless the police invited them to do so; let alone members of the extended family going through a house which they didn't own immediately after a bloodbath like this one. It certainly isn't British human nature.

IMO, that silencer was an object to be urgently retrieved from probably the normal place of keeping and at some stage, evidence collected upon it; then it was returned to be amazingly discovered.

The fact that they had access to the house indicates to me that they knew the house well, so did they have keys to be able to grab the silencer a day or so before it was found? Or (me being mischievous) was it already in their possession before the shootings?

But much of the point rests around that the police had SUPPOSEDLY searched the gun cupboard 3 times!!! Believe what you will of that one. When it was "found" all they could do was hold up their hands. If they's done the job properly they'd have known it was there, or not, as the case may be. I thought that Jeremy gave them the keys which I can't imagine any killer doing if they'd left behind evidence of what they'd done.

[grahameb]

mrstiggywinkle  Jeremy gave them the keys to WHF after the murders is this the action of a guilty man I ask.

Exactly. My thoughts as well.

[nugnug]

also what were the relatives expecting to find in the cupboard when they looked.