Relatives did not hand sound moderator over for a month after it was found...

[mike tesko]

Mike, keep going! 

Hi Alias,

I will update shortly...

[mike tesko]

SBJ/1 (not the one found by David Boutflour)

DB/1  (not the one found by David Boutflour)

AE/1

CAE/1

DRB/1 (found by David Boutflour in August, handed over to police in September 1985...

SBJ/1 (not the one found by David Boutflour)

DB/1  (silencer not the one found by David Boutflour, but could be loose flake handed to police)

AE/1  (found by David Boutflour in August, handed over to police in September 1985, by Ann Eaton)...

CAE/1  (found by David Boutflour in August, handed over to police in September 1985, by Ann Eaton)...

DRB/1 (found by David Boutflour in August, handed over to police in September 1985, by Ann Eaton)...

[Roch]

So if we take this line of approach, Cock isn't present during the discovery.  Yet he is present between 8th September and 11th September.  However that doesn't fit in with the claim being made that the silencer was transported to another premises after having been discovered on 10th Aug... Unless Cock's alleged remark about the fingerprint dust was not connected to any actual presentation of the silencer  at all?

[mike tesko]

SBJ/1 (not the one found by David Boutflour)

DB/1  (silencer not the one found by David Boutflour, but could be loose flake handed to police)

AE/1  (found by David Boutflour in August, handed over to police in September 1985, by Ann Eaton)...

CAE/1  (found by David Boutflour in August, handed over to police in September 1985, by Ann Eaton)...

DRB/1 (found by David Boutflour in August, handed over to police in September 1985, by Ann Eaton)...

Sound moderator (AE/1) handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985, had its exhibit reference altered to CAE/1, and later into DRB/1, so that the evidence regarding its discovery, and the alleged handing over of it (DRB/1) to police, could be given as the responsibility of Ann's husband, Peter Eaton, to DS 'Stan' Jones, a month sooner. The excuse that the only sound moderator ever in police possession in connection with this case, originally had an exhibit reference of SBJ/1, which was altered to DB/1 because SBJ/1 clashed with another prosecution witnesses ID, is false, as is the claim that DB/1 had to be altered to DRB/1, using the same pathetic excuse. For a start, what other exhibit did 'Stan' Jones have, which had an exhibit reference of SBJ/1, and when did he take possession of it?

The known facts regarding the seizure of 'Stan' Jones exhibit SBJ/1, is that it was seized along with three other items from the scene on the morning of 7th August 1985, all four exhibits given the identifying marks of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4. If you cannot bring yourselves to accept that / this as being true, then the next available opportunity for 'Stan' to receive a sound moderator, was on the 12th August 1985, when Peter Eaton gets in on the act, supposedly handing over the sound moderator (DRB/1) which David Boutflour had found at the scene in a cupboard in the downstairs office, on 10th August 1985, but this suggestion cannot be true, because if relatives only found one of the two sound moderators known to be present at the scene (the other one belonging to Anthony Pargeter), how could Peter Eaton's wife, Ann Eaton, hand over the same (AE/1, CAE/1 or DRB/1) to police a month later on 11th September 1985...

[mike tesko]

So if we take this line of approach, Cock isn't present during the discovery.  Yet he is present between 8th September and 11th September.  However that doesn't fit in with the claim being made that the silencer was transported to another premises after having been discovered on 10th Aug... Unless Cock's alleged remark about the fingerprint dust was not connected to any actual presentation of the silencer  at all?

Hi Roch,

Basil Cock does not actually say that he saw the sound moderator found, although he does make mention of being present at the scene on 10th August 1985, and also being at the scene later between the 8th and 11th September, 1985 (when we know there was fingerprint dust all over the place) - if Basil Cocks witness statement where he makes mention of the fingerprint dust being all over the place falls on or after 11th September 1985, he could easily have got himself mixed up about whether or not he might have also seen fingerprint dust at the scene on 10th August 1985, or the person taking his witness statement could have paraphrased the detail contained in his statement, thus  misrepresenting the true facts...

[Roch]

Hi Roch,

Basil Cock does not actually say that he saw the sound moderator found, although he does make mention of being present at the scene on 10th August 1985, and also being at the scene later between the 8th and 11th September, 1985 (when we know there was fingerprint dust all over the place) - if Basil Cocks witness statement where he makes mention of the fingerprint dust being all over the place falls on or after 11th September 1985, he could easily have got himself mixed up about whether or not he might have also seen fingerprint dust at the scene on 10th August 1985, or the person taking his witness statement could have paraphrased the detail contained in his statement, thus  misrepresenting the true facts...

Hi Mike, I get your drift.

I'm not sure this will make sense but...

If we remove Cock's alleged remark about the fingerprint dust from being associated with the silencer discovery, then it undermines the case for the silencer having been discovered after the farmhouse had been finger printed.  If we cannot prove that the relatives held on to the silencer for one month, it's not really doing the defence any favours to also cancel out Cock's remark as being potential evidence that it was discovered much later than the police / prosecution witnesses' claim.   

[mike tesko]

What we find, by the time the case comes to trial in October 1986, is that police have altered all of Ann Eatons exhibit references to items taken from the scene, from AE and CAE references, into DRB references...

[mike tesko]

Hi Mike, I get your drift.

I'm not sure this will make sense but...

If we remove Cock's alleged remark about the fingerprint dust from being associated with the silencer discovery, then it undermines the case for the silencer having been discovered after the farmhouse had been finger printed.  If we cannot prove that the relatives held on to the silencer for one month, it's not really doing the defence any favours to also cancel out Cock's remark as being potential evidence that it was discovered much later than the police / prosecution witnesses' claim.   

I will answer, shortly...

[No-Bits]

Hi Mike, I get your drift.

I'm not sure this will make sense but...

If we remove Cock's alleged remark about the fingerprint dust from being associated with the silencer discovery, then it undermines the case for the silencer having been discovered after the farmhouse had been finger printed.  If we cannot prove that the relatives held on to the silencer for one month, it's not really doing the defence any favours to also cancel out Cock's remark as being potential evidence that it was discovered much later than the police / prosecution witnesses' claim.   

Surely it can be ascertained from various sources, when finger print searches took place? 

Would common sense not dictate that it occurred whilst the house was still controlled as a crime scene?

[Roch]

Surely it can be ascertained from various sources, when finger print searches took place? 

Would common sense not dictate that it occurred whilst the house was still controlled as a crime scene?

8th September is the only actual date I'm aware of but I think Vic mentioned something about there having been earlier fingerprinting carried out.

[maggie]

8th September is the only actual date I'm aware of but I think Vic mentioned something about there having been earlier fingerprinting carried out.

I agree Roch, think Vic said they fingerprinted soon after the crime and then again at a later date, no doubt in September.

[No-Bits]

8th September is the only actual date I'm aware of but I think Vic mentioned something about there having been earlier fingerprinting carried out.

It seems absurd to me that they wouldn't have searched for fingerprints before releasing the house. 

It seems pointless to me to search afterwards.   

[Jane]

It seems absurd to me that they wouldn't have searched for fingerprints before releasing the house. 

It seems pointless to me to search afterwards.   

Why would it have been thought necessary to fingerprint the house when it was considered to be a cut and dried case of 4 murders and a suicide? I can see, however, that once they thought differently, fingerprints would be necessary. It was hard luck if they'd already released the house to the family.

[No-Bits]

Why would it have been thought necessary to fingerprint the house when it was considered to be a cut and dried case of 4 murders and a suicide? I can see, however, that once they thought differently, fingerprints would be necessary. It was hard luck if they'd already released the house to the family.

They finger print tested the rifle and other firearms in the house.

[Jane]

They finger print tested the rifle and other firearms in the house.

I can see that they would as one or more had obviously been part of the scene.