Confidential Information, I can now reveal that destroys credibility of silencer

[Reader]

I was under the impression that Shaw was a close associate of the officers who did attend the incident at the material time,  . . .

I doubt that a close associate would "break rank" in that way. I realize that one can get that impression because of the detail that Shaw goes into. However, he does it too often. Once you realize that, it becomes obvious that he's simply made up much of the detail. Some of Shaw's reasoning used to be mentioned by you as though you thought he was on the right track, but he reached conclusions that are directly contradicted by information given to you recently. If this more recent information is to be considered plausible, it's important to come up with a plausible explanation of how and why Shaw went wrong.

[grahameb]

I don´t know. I just know that I cannot make myself believe that the police shot Sheila - or anybody else. I know you think they did, I just can´t.

If she was shot from a distance, then there may have been a possibility of the police shooting her? But shhoting her with a contact shot then I am with you on this one.

[mike tesko]

I doubt that a close associate would "break rank" in that way. I realize that one can get that impression because of the detail that Shaw goes into. However, he does it too often. Once you realize that, it becomes obvious that he's simply made up much of the detail. Some of Shaw's reasoning used to be mentioned by you as though you thought he was on the right track, but he reached conclusions that are directly contradicted by information given to you recently. If this more recent information is to be considered plausible, it's important to come up with a plausible explanation of how and why Shaw went wrong.

Hi Reader,

I think there is a lot of truth in what Shaw has said, however, even when we were corresponding via the internet I still had doubts about his contention that police had not fired any shots during the incident, and his claim that Sheila had shot herself twice, once downstairs as police were forcing their way into the farmhouse, and secondly in the bedroom after she had regained consciousness after the first shot downstairs, and her fleeing upstairs to the main bedroom where she took possession of the anshulz rifle that had been resting against the window, and she shot herself for a second time by use of this second weapon. What puzzled me upon being given this information at that time was the position Sheila was photographed in on the bedroom floor, with the rifle minus the silencer on her body, with the muzzle of the gun beneath her chin, since if Sheila had taken her own life as Shaw told me, I doubt that the body, rifle position, and her hands would have ended up on the floor like that, and the flows of blood on her face and neck be like they are...

But I do think that Shaw was trying to exonerate Jeremy from involvement in the killings, without putting the blame directly onto the police. Shaw made out that Sheila killed the others, and then took her own life (at the second attempt), and that this came about because of police blunders during the operation as it unfolded between initial entry at around 7.30am, and later...

I do not know what motivated Shaw to contact me, other than at that stage I was acting as Jeremy's McKensie man, and we were trying to fathom out what had taken place inside the farmhouse when police went in, and why hundreds of thousands of pieces of information were being withheld under pii, and why many police officers involved in the operation had been granted immunity from prosecution?

Immunity from prosecution, for what?

[mike tesko]

If she was shot from a distance, then there may have been a possibility of the police shooting her? But shhoting her with a contact shot then I am with you on this one.

Hi Grahame,

ask yourself why, if police took that photograph of the mark around the non fatal bullet wound on Sheila's neck, which is a mark that bears almost exactly the same dimensions as the end of a silencer, around the bullet hole, on 7th August 1985, with an absence of any similar mark or bruising around the second fatal bullet entry wound under the chin, why at no stage did police start looking for a silencer used in the shootings? Unless of course, you accept that police did take control of a silencer (SBJ/1) that same day, in keeping with DS 'Stan' Jones, seizing it at the scene that same date, along with three other exhibits, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...

You might also wish to take into account the fact that 'Ron' Cook had taken two paint samples (RC/1 and RC/2) at the scene on 8th August 1985, which he handed to DS Davidson at the scene that same date, detail which Cook denies ever took place, despite DS Davidson telling COLP during his 1992 police interviews that he did. Interestingly enough, Davidson told COLP that Cook had taken those paint samples on 8th August 1985, because of same paint found on the end of a guns barrel, a guns barrel found downstairs at the scene, not upstairs...

In the very same interview, Davidson confirmed that paint had not been found on the end of a silencer by that stage (8th August 1985), but had been found on the end of a guns barrel (still officially unidentified). You might like to consider that any marks present on the aga surround by that stage had been made by the end of this mysterious guns barrel - although from information I have been given suggests that paint samples, RC/1 and RC/2, were taken by Cook from the door, and door surround of the internal kitchen door which separates the back entrance hall and the main kitchen, marks found there were suspected of having been made at the time PS Woodcock was trying to enter the main kitchen and his weapon came into contact with the door, the door frame, and the wall inside the kitchen itself...

Then, you might wish to consider why during the trial, the prosecution did not seek to rely upon the visible mark upon Sheila's neck which had the same dimensions as the cap end of a silencer, to support their case that a silencer had been fitted to the ansulz rifles barrell at the time she was initially shot, yet absent at the time when the second shot beneath the chin was discharged? Finally, you might wish to consider why police felt it was necessary to swap over the original badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) removed during autopsy by Venezis, on 7th August 1985, with a test fired bullet fired via the anshulz rifle by police after 7th August 1985, so that by the time the batch of crime scene ammunition, was sent to the lab' on 20th September 1985, how that original badly fragmented PV/20 bullet had become transformed into a whole bullet to enable the ballistic expert (Malcolm Fletcher) to conclude that it (the replaced bullet) had been fired via the anshulz rifle at the time Sheila was killed...

If Sheila killed herself, with use of the anshulz rifle having fired both bullets (PV/20 and PV/20) into her throat, why did police feel it was necessary to tamper with the original badly fragmented bullet, and why manufacture all the dodgy silencer, blood and paint evidence?

If your son was being prosecuted for the murders based on this type of evidence, would you sit back quietly and not question it?

Everybody, and I mean everybody, would be arguing and suggesting that police must have had something to do with the death, otherwise they would not be tampering with exhibits, and relying upon dodgy evidence...

Hope this helps...

[Reader]

I do not know what motivated Shaw to contact me, . . .

It wasn't simply for Jeremy's benefit or Shaw would have told you more. Hence it was for Shaw's benefit, because he knew he hadn't solved the jigsaw puzzle correctly and wanted any help he could get to enable him to improve his narrative. In the event, he never continued his account or amended what he'd already released, and it seems likely he never will.

[Adam]

One of the things I find most amusing though concerns the rabbit claim. 

From the kitchen he supposedly saw or heard 2 rabbits by the barn. Given the time of day (it was dark out already) one has to seriously question how he could see or hear the rabbits and how he could expect to shoot them in the dark. 

At any rate rabbits move in a flash when they hear the crack of a rifle which is why a suppressor is important. Someone who knows what they are doing would be sure to attach the suppressor if it were not already attached.

Another rifle had the suppressor attached so why not select that one?  At any rate it only takes a minute to attach a suppressor the scope is what takes a while to play around with. You would want a scope anyway, the iron sights on the rifle were not very good.

[maggie]

One of the things I find most amusing though concerns the rabbit claim. 

From the kitchen he supposedly saw or heard 2 rabbits by the barn. Given the time of day (it was dark out already) one has to seriously question how he could see or hear the rabbits and how he could expect to shoot them in the dark. 

At any rate rabbits move in a flash when they hear the crack of a rifle which is why a suppressor is important. Someone who knows what they are doing would be sure to attach the suppressor if it were not already attached.

Another rifle had the suppressor attached so why not select that one?  At any rate it only takes a minute to attach a suppressor the scope is what takes a while to play around with. You would want a scope anyway, the iron sights on the rifle were not very good.

I thought Jeremy saw the rabbits before he entered the farmhouse, not through the kitchen window Adam. 

[Adam]

He also changed his story about the suppressor and scope repeatedly.  He lied about the gun not fitting in the cuboard with the suppressor and scope attached.  This was one of the red flags that made his cousins suspicious.

Another was he lied about Sheila going shooting with his cousin and Nevill. His cousin knew this didn't happen when he learned of the claim.

Moreover, he at first claimed he didn't use the gun between the time his cousin used it and when he took it out to shoot rabbits hours before the murders.  His cousin though stated the gun had the suppressor and scope attached when he removed it from the closet and when he put it back. He said that this how it was usually stored.

To try to refute his cousin's claims, jeremy changed his story and claimed he used the gun repeatedly the week before the murders. He claimed sometimes the scope and suppressor were attached othertimes they were not.

Jeremy told the police the gun found on Sheila did not have the suppressor on. This was because he knew he had taken it off.

[Caroline]

He also changed his story about the suppressor and scope repeatedly.  He lied about the gun not fitting in the cuboard with the suppressor and scope attached.  This was one of the red flags that made his cousins suspicious.

Another was he lied about Sheila going shooting with his cousin and Nevill. His cousin knew this didn't happen when he learned of the claim.

Moreover, he at first claimed he didn't use the gun between the time his cousin used it and when he took it out to shoot rabbits hours before the murders.  His cousin though stated the gun had the suppressor and scope attached when he removed it from the closet and when he put it back. He said that this how it was usually stored.

To try to refute his cousin's claims, jeremy changed his story and claimed he used the gun repeatedly the week before the murders. He claimed sometimes the scope and suppressor were attached othertimes they were not.

Jeremy told the police the gun found on Sheila did not have the suppressor on. This was because he knew he had taken it off.

Except that Peter Eaton said she did!

[mike tesko]

It wasn't simply for Jeremy's benefit or Shaw would have told you more. Hence it was for Shaw's benefit, because he knew he hadn't solved the jigsaw puzzle correctly and wanted any help he could get to enable him to improve his narrative. In the event, he never continued his account or amended what he'd already released, and it seems likely he never will.

Hi Reader,

I don't know what his motive for contacting me was, you could be right, but in any event I was grateful he decided to contact me with his information, because it led on to other things for us to look at and investigate. But, as I have said before, I always suspected that police might have discharged shots inside the farm house, before Shaw contacted me, and I know 100% that police are responsible for shooting Sheila, either side of Dr Craig pronouncing her dead at 8.44am...

[mike tesko]

One of the things I find most amusing though concerns the rabbit claim. 

From the kitchen he supposedly saw or heard 2 rabbits by the barn. Given the time of day (it was dark out already) one has to seriously question how he could see or hear the rabbits and how he could expect to shoot them in the dark. 

At any rate rabbits move in a flash when they hear the crack of a rifle which is why a suppressor is important. Someone who knows what they are doing would be sure to attach the suppressor if it were not already attached.

Another rifle had the suppressor attached so why not select that one?  At any rate it only takes a minute to attach a suppressor the scope is what takes a while to play around with. You would want a scope anyway, the iron sights on the rifle were not very good.

Hi Adam,

I don't recall that Jeremy ever said he had seen rabbits from the kitchen. Since, on the occasions I have spoken to him about this he told me that on his return from the field driving the farm tractor and trailer (rape seed), that he saw rabbits near the barn, before he went into the farmhouse. Upon going into the kitchen he walked into a debate going on involving his parents and Sheila, about getting Sheila some sort of help because her parents were saying, that Sheila was not well enough to look after them both all by herself. They were talking about getting her some help from her social worker, and things of that nature - and Sheila said nothing at all. Jeremy by this stage had collected the family rifle, and a box of ammunition, which he took into the kitchen and proceeded to load rounds into the guns ammunition magazine. He then left the farmhouse and went out towards the barn area intending to shoot the rabbits he had seen earlier, but by the time he got there, the rabbits had ran off...

So, Jeremy never fired any shots at any rabbits on this occasion...

He was asked by DCI 'Taff' Jones, and DS 'Stan' Jones, on 9th August 1985, if the telescopic site and silencer was fitted to the gun he handled on the evening preceding the shootings of the family victims, when he went out intending to shoot rabbits near the barn, and he told them, 'No'. What is very interesting about the police asking Jeremy about the silencer on 9th August 1985, is that the silencer found by the relatives was not found until later on the following day (10th), unless of course, you accept that DS Jones took possession of a different silencer (SBJ/1) at the scene on 7th August 1985, in which case police already had one silencer in their possession before relatives found the other a few days later...

If police didn't already have possession of one silencer by the time Jones and Jones spoke to Jeremy about a silencer being on the gun, on evening of 6th August 1985, when he intended to shoot rabbits, then where was the other second silencer that was known to always be kept at the farmhouse, since two identical looking parker hale silencers were known to be kept at the farm, and both had been habitually kept there, one belonging to Anthony Pargeter from 1980, and a second one belonging to the Bamber family, from November 1984, when it had been purchased...

[lookout]

Mike,,I'd read a while ago that someone had come forward regarding the truth of the silencer.I can't remember where I read about it,,or how long ago,but I'm almost sure it was this year.

[Jan]

Mike - a quick question - I was reading DB statements about finding the silencer etc. But a couple of times he mentioned a gun with a rubber stock? As if he had been asked by the police if there was a gun with a rubber stock in the house. The statement was that he did not know of a gun of this sort held at WHF - but the statement was not clear as to why he would be saying that?

Do you know anything about why the police might be asking him that?

[mike tesko]

Mike,,I'd read a while ago that someone had come forward regarding the truth of the silencer.I can't remember where I read about it,,or how long ago,but I'm almost sure it was this year.

Hi Lookout,

are you referring to the witness named, David, who contacted Ewen Smith and arranged a meeting in London, and he told Ewen that the silencer found by the relatives was kept on 'Taff' Jones desk for a long time before it was sent to the lab', and that two other named people could verify this to be the case?

[lookout]

Hi Lookout,

are you referring to the witness named, David, who contacted Ewen Smith and arranged a meeting in London, and he told Ewen that the silencer found by the relatives was kept on 'Taff' Jones desk for a long time before it was sent to the lab', and that two other named people could verify this to be the case?

Mike,,if I remember rightly,no names were mentioned at the time that I read about this witness. I rather think his,or her name was being kept confidential. Possibly this came as a result from the request which was made asking anyone who was involved in the case,to come forward.
Whatever information this witness has could possibly be contained in Simon McKays' address to the CCRC.