Author Topic: Confidential Information, I can now reveal that destroys credibility of silencer  (Read 11579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wilf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
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.
so there was another rifle there was there? with a sound moderator fitted? so thats two rifles and two moderatore in the one cupboard ready to load?

wilf

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Except that Peter Eaton said she did!
And David Boutflour reluctanly admitted it but claimed that he had erm..."Forgotten". So let it go on record that Jeremy has been accused falsely by Adam of lying. But not only will Adam NOT admit this, but neither will he apologise. Jeremy has been found to be truthful yet again in spite of his evil accusers such as Adam. Shame be on you Adam.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
I've just been reading a paragraph from a link,i.e. " excoboard.com/exco archive " which states that :
" DB found the silencer in the cupboard,with what looked like a flake of dried blood on it,, on the 10th of August. It was examined by the police on the 13th of August,but nothing was found "?

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
I've just been reading a paragraph from a link,i.e. " excoboard.com/exco archive " which states that :
" DB found the silencer in the cupboard,with what looked like a flake of dried blood on it,, on the 10th of August. It was examined by the police on the 13th of August,but nothing was found "?
Hi lookout, a flake is not a blob but AE said it was like a 'blob of jam', do wish they could have at least got their stories straight.  I cannot believe in any way that there was any  blood on that silencer when they found it. 

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
My first thought too,Maggie " where was the blob ?". It just shows how many conflicting reports have been bandied about. No wonder the case was a farce. They couldn't remember their own lies.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
My first thought too,Maggie " where was the blob ?". It just shows how many conflicting reports have been bandied about. No wonder the case was a farce. They couldn't remember their own lies.
I'm convinced the silencer 'evidence' was cobbled together, whether the rellies really  believed he was guilty and thought the means justified the end or not, surely it's obvious to anyone that the silencer evidence was fabricated.........  it's a farce.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
When COLP interviewed DB, he told them about the small flake of dried blood he had found on rhe silencer, which he scraped off by using a razor blade he conveniently had to hand.He told COLP that he retained the flake because it fascinated him. When pressed further by COLP regarding this matter he told them that the police knew what he had done, without saying whether or not the police had taken control or possession of the said flake. Neither did COLP seek to identify the two police officers whom DB told about the mysterious flake he had removed from the outside of the silencer...


What happened to this flake?
« Last Edit: March 27, 2014, 06:15:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
A key prosecution witness (DB) removed a vital blood flake from the outside of the silencer, which could have, or did, change the course of the trials, outcome...

There are far to many dodgy discrepancies involving the silencer evidence for it to be regarded as a legitimate case exhibit, use of it in this case has brought the criminal justice system into disrepute and paints all the actors and actresses who helped to pull off the scam, in a very poor light, none of them can ever be trusted by anyone - shame on the lot of them, they are worse than peadophiles the lot of 'em...
« Last Edit: March 27, 2014, 06:32:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
One of the most damning pieces of non disclosed evidence came to light during my tour of duty as Jeremy's Mckensie man - in the form of a handwritren note in the handwriting if DCI 'Ron' Cook, in which Cook noted that :-

David Boutflour noticed blood on the silencer for the first time, when he examined the silencer in the kitchen back at his sisters house...
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 02:04:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
So, Cook must have been one of the police officers who knew that David Boutfloor had removed blood from the silencer using a razor blade...

Cook and David Boutflour both testified at court during the trial, but neither failed to make mention of any of this...

« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 02:22:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
So, there it is, for all to see, David Boutflour telling 'Ron' Cook that he looked at the silencer once it had been taken away from the scene in the boot of his sisters car, in which Sheila's heavily nloodstaind underwear was also being transported ...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
So, there it is, for all to see, David Boutflour telling 'Ron' Cook that he looked at the silencer once it had been taken away from the scene in the boot of his sisters car, in which Sheila's heavily bloodstaind underwear was also being transported ...
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 02:36:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
The silencer truth revealed at last, its official - there was no visible blood upon it when he took it out of the gun cupboard, but if this is true, how come the court which convicted Jeremy weren't told about this...
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 05:35:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Ok, lets run through the finding of the silencer scenario, David Boutflour has already been in various rooms at the farmhouse where there had been bloodshed. He is now in the cupboard, fiddling around recovering bits and pieces, he finds the telescopic sights, and silencer for the rifle. Upon picking up the silencer and examing it, he does not see any blood upon it. He takes into the kitchen at whf and puts it on the kitchen table so that himself, his sister Ann Eaton, and his father Robert Boutflour can examine it. What becomes obvious by that stage is that there is no visible blood upin the silencer, otherwise when David showed the silencer to them at that time, he would have not said to them, 'look, I have found the silencer to the gun', he would have said something like, 'Look at this, look what I've just found tucked away in a box at the back of the cupboard in the downstairs office', he would have said, 'look, its got blood on it'...

His sister, and father, one or other, or perhaps both of them , would surely have taken a closer interest in the silencer at that stage, and upon seeing any blood upon it they would have tpld hom to leave the silencer on the kitchen table for the police to come and collect it from the scene. They would not have bungled a blood stained silencer into the boot of Ann Eatons car, along with Sheila's heavily bloodstained underwear, and driven all the way to the Eaton residency with the silencer, blood soaked panties and other loot they had plundered from the scene, being bounced and thrown this way, then that, up and down, left and right, without risk of contamination. Then upon arrival at the Eatons, the loot in the boot of the vehicle has to be carried out of the boot into the kitchen and the silencer placed on the kitchen table, where David looks at the silencer sgain, and he notices blood upon it for the first time. Blood which could only have got onto the silencer in the handling or transportation process. You would not I would suggest, upon seeing blood upon the silencer for the first time, start trying to physically attempting to unscrew the end cap of the silencer eith a view of looking inside. To have done this at that stage would be unthinkable, since if blood had genuinely been found on the silencer, it was for the police to deal with it, not the relatives...
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 06:37:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
. . . neither failed to make mention of any of this...
Don't you mean "both failed to make" or "neither made", rather than "neither failed to make"?