The last ultimate test of gun, to prove sound moderator was not used in shooting

[lookout]

I'm still puzzled as to what Bavid Boutfour meant when he was supposed to have said to his wife, "I have something up my sleeve"?

It certainly doesn't sound like anything above board that's for sure.

[scipio_usmc]

29th August 1985 - Cook the crook dismantles the silencer, removing its 17 internalised baffle plates.  He is a crook because he tampered with the internal settings of arguably the most significant exhibits of the case. Not only diid he remove the baffles but he separated the metal end cap, top washer and the fiest 5 of 17 baffle platess fromm the remainimg 12 compressed baffles...

Cook photographed this exercise - the evidence contained in those photographs.is overwhelming, confirming that Cook separated the baffles before he rebuilt it, screwed in onto the thread on the end of the rifles barrel and on the next day submitted the rebuily solencer and rifle to the lab'..

How astonishing, that on the very first occasion the silencer is stripped bare, and the first 5 of the 17 baffles are separated so that there was a distinctive gap between each of the first 6 baffle plates, that Cook does not report seeing any blood on the first 6 baffles, and he fails to see any loose flake of blood in that part of the silencer. Now how can that be true if on or by 11th September 1985, wgen Fletcher reopens the same silencer at the lab' he discovers the loose flake of blood supposedly trapped between baffles 1 and 2, which had not been present in any shape or form in that same pary of the silencer when Cook dismantled it?

How come Fletcher finds the flake of blood, but not Cook...

You can claim he dismantled it till you are blue in the face you have no evidence at all to prove it though.

[grahameb]

You can claim he dismantled it till you are blue in the face you have no evidence at all to prove it though.

If you go to the photo section of the forum there is a picture of the silencer dismantled.

[scipio_usmc]

If you go to the photo section of the forum there is a picture of the silencer dismantled.

Which allegedly was taken after the biologist dismantled it to send to Fletcher and no one has been able to disprove.

In Cook's 1991 statement he spoke about photographing the rifle after super glue fuming it.  People alledge he took apart the suppressor the same date and photographed it but have no evidence and falsely claim he stated such in his 1991 statement but he didn't.

Hence I am still waiting for someone to provide proof to refute the official story.

[mike tesko]

Cook the crook sent a hand written memo to Fletcher making mention of the silencer he had been talking to him about, as shown in the attached photographs. The photographs in the forums picture section show the silencer which Cooky the crooky had dismantled, rebuilt and had screwed it onto the barrel of the anshuzt rifle...

This is what happened, as proveable by the fact that at the time Cooky interferred with the silencer and rifle, neither the rifle nor the silencer had any signed exhibit label attached to them.  Lets review what labels would be attached to both by the time Fletcher received them and his own dismantling of the same silencer on the 11th September 1985:-

SILENCER

12/08/1985 - SJ/1
13/08/1985 - SBJ/1 (signed by Cook and Howard) lab' item no. 22
30/08/1985 - DB/1 - lab' item no. 23

RIFLE

30/08/1985 - DRH/15 (signed by DC Hammersley) lab' item no.18

If you examine the photographs we are talking about, neither the silencer, nor the rifle, has any signed exhibit label attached to it, and both do not have a lab' item number attached to them...

[mike tesko]

Items of evidential value are not accepted at the lab' unless properly labeled and packaged...

It should be clear to everyone therefore, that the dismantled silencer and rifle subject of the photographs we are talking about, were not taken after they had been resent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985...

[mike tesko]

Nothing could be clearer...

[grahameb]

Nothing could be clearer...

Is your face blue yet Mike? It's no use the guilters don't read your posts anyway. I've tried it but their needles seem to be set in the same grooves. They much prefer to lying cops that the truth even though the cops re-wrote the entire thing.

[mike tesko]

Is your face blue yet Mike? It's no use the guilters don't read your posts anyway. I've tried it but their needles seem to be set in the same grooves. They much prefer to lying cops that the truth even though the cops re-wrote the entire thing.

Hi Grahame,

I know what you mean...

I have some new information given to me by the "Cyclops" group, which you might be interested in, I am starting a new thread to deal with it...

[scipio_usmc]

Is your face blue yet Mike? It's no use the guilters don't read your posts anyway. I've tried it but their needles seem to be set in the same grooves. They much prefer to lying cops that the truth even though the cops re-wrote the entire thing.

I read his posts they are all misrepresentations.

He still keeps claiming that SBJ1, DB1 and DRB1 are all different suppressorts though this specualtion was proven wrong many years ago.

He argues that the blood intimately mixed and therefore is a mixture though the complete opposite is what the defense argued and needed to argue because there is no way for the blood to intimately mix and for certain elements to be missing.  He doesn't even understand what the defense argued.

His claim that the flak of blood scraped from in between the first 2 baffles was a loose flake that had been floating around int he gun was a lie.  He has no source for the claim he made it up.

If the defense had a picture showing the suppressor dismantled with no blood on the baffles tha thad been taken before the blood was scraped away by the biologist and tested the defense woudl have raised this in the appeal because this would be their strongest argument. 

The photocopy of a picture is not clear so offers no value at all in assessing whether blood is there or not moreover there is no proof that the photo was taken in August 1985 as claimed.  This claim was published on the net merely not made by Jeremy's lawyers.  That alone means it is nonsense because his lawyers would have pursued it if any of it were true.

Photographic evidence that there was no blood on the baffles prior to blood being found in the lab would be evidence that the blood has been placed there after the photos were taken.  The defense woul dhave loved having evidence of such.

Had such been mentioned to the appeal court and proved then in the section where they discussed possible DNA contamination of the inside of the suppressor they would have mentioned such instance as when contamination could have occurred.

Mike's claims are all unsupported and baseless.

 

[mike tesko]

I would invite everyone to discount what the other party is alleging, he has nothing constructive or truthful to add to this debate...

Why does he keep reading what I write about if what I am saying is a lie?

Don't worry, the truth will out very soon, justice day is looming large...

[mike tesko]

Key to what took place is contained in the inaccessible parts of the anshulzt rifles barrell...

[mike tesko]

Key to what took place is contained in the inaccessible parts of the anshulzt rifles barrell...

The family owned silencer was not used in the shootings of Sheila...

[scipio_usmc]

Key to what took place is contained in the inaccessible parts of the anshulzt rifles barrell...

Back spatter can only travel into the barrel about as far as it was reportedly found in the suppressor. 

Blood found beyond that in the rifle could not arrive there naturally and would be evidence of contamination or intentional planting.  So I don't know what you think coudl be found deep in the barrel that could be helpful.

The first few inches is what matters and if the claim is that the lab concealed evidence found in the first several inches I don't know how anyone would hope to prove that without the person who supposedly did such admitted they did it, how and explaining what they did with the evidence they removed.

[lookout]

If you go to the photo section of the forum there is a picture of the silencer dismantled.

Yes,,and the baffles would be in a different place before it was dismantled,,thus giving a wrong report of where any blood might be. Unless the baffles are numbered or fitted in such a way as to go in their original places.
I wonder if this is what DB meant when he had " something up his sleeve " ?