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

[No-Bits]

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

Well there we go then, finger print testing took place, Basil complained of the mess it caused.

Do we actually have his statement indicating that? I thought the only reference we have is in one of Ann's statements. 

[Jane]

Well there we go then, finger print testing took place, Basil complained of the mess it caused.

Do we actually have his statement indicating that? I thought the only reference we have is in one of Ann's statements. 

Are you splitting hairs here? I don't think this is a discussion about fingerprinting objects directly associated with the scene, I THOUGHT it was about fingerprinting the house and just because the former occurred at the time, it doesn't indicate conclusively that the latter did.

[No-Bits]

Are you splitting hairs here? I don't think this is a discussion about fingerprinting objects directly associated with the scene, I THOUGHT it was about fingerprinting the house and just because the former occurred at the time, it doesn't indicate conclusively that the latter did.

Not that I was aware of. 

What I was saying is that it wouldn't be very helpful to search for finger prints after the house was no longer controlled as a crime scene, as there is obviously no way of knowing if prints were made after the house had been returned.
The police went back in September, I thought just to finger print the windows which Julie had told them was used as an access.

The weapons, with the exception of the Anshutz were not removed from the house by the police, but they were checked for finger prints presumably in the house, it may be the source of the mess Basil allegedly complains about.

I'm not sure what the merits of finger print searching the house itself would have been, any prints found wouldn't have been out of place and therefore would not be of evidential value. Maybe the house itself wasn't ever finger print searched?

[mike tesko]

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.

it is my understanding that police did fingerprint the various scenes within the premises during the first three days of the investigation, and in fact at least two scenes of crime officers who took part in the search and retention of exhibits from the scene at that time, were fingerprint expert's, namely, DI 'Ron' Cook, and DS 'Neil' Davidson...

[mike tesko]

it is my understanding that police did fingerprint the various scenes within the premises during the first three days of the investigation, and in fact at least two scenes of crime officers who took part in the search and retention of exhibits from the scene at that time, were fingerprint expert's, namely, DI 'Ron' Cook, and DS 'Neil' Davidson...

Police also took fingerprints from the three adult victims at the time of their respective autopsies, which were used to make comparison against prints found at the scene during the first part of the investigation...

[Jane]

Not that I was aware of. 

What I was saying is that it wouldn't be very helpful to search for finger prints after the house was no longer controlled as a crime scene, as there is obviously no way of knowing if prints were made after the house had been returned.
The police went back in September, I thought just to finger print the windows which Julie had told them was used as an access.

The weapons, with the exception of the Anshutz were not removed from the house by the police, but they were checked for finger prints presumably in the house, it may be the source of the mess Basil allegedly complains about.

I'm not sure what the merits of finger print searching the house itself would have been, any prints found wouldn't have been out of place and therefore would not be of evidential value. Maybe the house itself wasn't ever finger print searched?

SNOW-BITS For once we are in complete  harmony. How nice. I fail to see the purpose of them returning in September for ANY fingerprinting to be done because of very real probabality of contamination.

[No-Bits]

SNOW-BITS For once we are in complete  harmony. How nice. I fail to see the purpose of them returning in September for ANY fingerprinting to be done because of very real probabality of contamination.

Agreed, unless they found prints belonging to Mcdonald of course.

[mike tesko]

What is also relevant is that there was no DRB/1 silencer reference until after Ann Eaton handed a sound moderator and all the other bits and pieces over to police, on 11th September 1985, under AE, CAE and then DRB references...

The sound moderator sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, had the identifying mark SBJ/1, lab' item no. 22, and was clearly a completely different sound moderator to the one which Ann Eaton handed to police (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) on 11th September 1985, which was not sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers, until 20th September 1985...

Incidentally, 'Ron' Cook, the (SOC) fingerprint expert, checked silencer SBJ/1 for fingerprints on 15th August 1985, by reliance on the oblique light technique, and again on, the 23rd August 1985, by super glue technique, whereas, DS Davidson and DS Eastwood, fingerprinted the silencer (DRB/1) on the 13th September 1985, handed into police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985...

For the benefit of doubt, it should be pointed out that once 'Ron' Cook had used the super glue technique to fingerprint the sound moderator (SBJ/1) on 23rd August 1985, it would be hardly worth re-fingerprinting the same sound moderator(DRB/1), again, on 13th September 1985, by Davidson and Eastwood, now would it...

Since, Davidson and Eastwood, are both still very much alive, the most obvious questions to ask them would be, (1) - "what was the exhibit reference to the sound moderator you fingerprinted on the 13th September 1985? (2) - were there any signatures present on the exhibit label prior to handling it? (3) - Do you know how it came to be in police possession at that stage? (4) - What did you physically do with it, once you had fingerprinted it? (5) - Did you find any fingerprints upon it when you examined it on 13th September 1985? (6) - Did you obtain any fingerprints for elimination purposes at that stage? (7) - What date was the silencer you fingerprinted on that date, sent to the lab', and who was it received at the lab' by?

[mike tesko]

What is also relevant is that there was no DRB/1 silencer reference until after Ann Eaton handed a sound moderator and all the other bits and pieces over to police, on 11th September 1985, under AE, CAE and then DRB references...

The sound moderator sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, had the identifying mark SBJ/1, lab' item no. 22, and was clearly a completely different sound moderator to the one which Ann Eaton handed to police (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) on 11th September 1985, which was not sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers, until 20th September 1985...

Incidentally, 'Ron' Cook, the (SOC) fingerprint expert, checked silencer SBJ/1 for fingerprints on 15th August 1985, by reliance on the oblique light technique, and again on, the 23rd August 1985, by super glue technique, whereas, DS Davidson and DS Eastwood, fingerprinted the silencer (DRB/1) on the 13th September 1985, handed into police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985...

For the benefit of doubt, it should be pointed out that once 'Ron' Cook had used the super glue technique to fingerprint the sound moderator (SBJ/1) on 23rd August 1985, it would be hardly worth re-fingerprinting the same sound moderator(DRB/1), again, on 13th September 1985, by Davidson and Eastwood, now would it...

Since, Davidson and Eastwood, are both still very much alive, the most obvious questions to ask them would be, (1) - "what was the exhibit reference to the sound moderator you fingerprinted on the 13th September 1985? (2) - were there any signatures present on the exhibit label prior to handling it? (3) - Do you know how it came to be in police possession at that stage? (4) - What did you physically do with it, once you had fingerprinted it? (5) - Did you find any fingerprints upon it when you examined it on 13th September 1985? (6) - Did you obtain any fingerprints for elimination purposes at that stage? (7) - What date was the silencer you fingerprinted on that date, sent to the lab', and who was it received at the lab' by?

(8) - More importantly, was the sound moderator which you fingerprinted on 13th September 1985, coated in white residue, from a previous super glue examination? Yes, or no?

[mike tesko]

There can be very little doubt, if any at all, that the crucial blood group evidence, (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) was not obtained from a small flake of dried blood found trapped between the first couple of baffle plates inside the sound moderator (AE/1, CAE/1 or DRB/1) handed in to police on 11th September 1985, because that sound moderator could not possible have been the same sound moderator already submitted to the lab' on 30th August 1985, which in turn was examined by the ballistic expert, Fletcher, on 12th September 1985, enabling him, according to his evidence, to discover the crucial flake of blood (aforemtioned) inside it...

It simply is not possible for Fletcher to examine the very same sound moderator on 12th September 1985, and for him to discover the crucial flake of loose blood within it, considering that the one handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September, did not get sent to the lab' for the very first time until the 20th September 1985. The one Fletcher had in his possession on 12th September 1985, was coated in white super glue residue, whereas, the one handed in to police by Ann Eaton had not been exposed  to super-glue treatment by 12th September 1985...

[mike tesko]

Fletcher could be asked, "Was the sound moderator you handled on 12th September 1985, inside which you found the all important flake of blood, which eventually produced the blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1, (by John Hayward, between 12th and 19th September 1985), coated in white residue from super glue treatment? Yes, or No?

[mike tesko]

Fletcher could be asked, "Was the sound moderator you handled on 12th September 1985, inside which you found the all important flake of blood, which eventually produced the blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1, (by John Hayward, between 12th and 19th September 1985), coated in white residue from super glue treatment? Yes, or No?

He could also be asked, "Did you have anything at all to do with the other sound moderator received at the lab', on the 20th September 1985? If so, can you confirm the exhibit reference assigned to that item on that occasion?

[Roch]

Incidentally, 'Ron' Cook, the (SOC) fingerprint expert, checked silencer SBJ/1 for fingerprints on 15th August 1985, by reliance on the oblique light technique, and again on, the 23rd August 1985, by super glue technique, whereas, DS Davidson and DS Eastwood, fingerprinted the silencer (DRB/1) on the 13th September 1985, handed into police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985...

For the benefit of doubt, it should be pointed out that once 'Ron' Cook had used the super glue technique to fingerprint the sound moderator (SBJ/1) on 23rd August 1985, it would be hardly worth re-fingerprinting the same sound moderator(DRB/1), again, on 13th September 1985, by Davidson and Eastwood, now would it...

The allegation document makes reference to COLP documentation, to the effect that DS Davidson examined a silencer for fingerprints on both 9th Aug and 18th September.

[mike tesko]

Relatives have gone on record as saying that they only ever found one silencer, and with this in mind, they could not have handed over two different sound moderators to police, one on the 12th August 1985 (SBJ/1) and another to police on the 11th September 1985 (DRB/1), it would be impossible to have done so, it couldn't be done, not even by a magi...

[Alias]

Relatives have gone on record as saying that they only ever found one silencer, and with this in mind, they could not have handed over two different sound moderators to police, one on the 12th August 1985 (SBJ/1) and another to police on the 11th September 1985 (DRB/1), it would be impossible to have done so, it couldn't be done, not even by a magi...

Please no Ali Bongo!