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

[Jan]

There is no reason at all to believe that Sheila had only 1 wound.  If she received only the first wound and died from that wound then she would have died from bleeding out.  That would have taken a while and would have resulted in her bleeding far more than she did.  The pathologist determined the second shot was delivered within seconds of the first shot because otherwise she would have bled more.  If the shots were delivered hours apart then for sure she would have bled alot more. 

The alleged reviewers are operating from an absurd position that holds no water at all.  The claim she could have been shot the second time hours later than the first many hours after she was dead is impossible.

Moreover, the claim police would attach the suppressor and shoot her a second time well after she died makes zero sense.  Why would police do such?  police were content with blaming Sheila at the time so who would shoot her with the suppressor? 

If these reviewers actually exists and are claiming what they are then they should be sure to make sure they never reveal their last names because they deserve to be endlessly mocked as either intentional liars or complete buffoons.

[mike tesko]

Jeremy Bamber did not shoot and kill his sister, and neither did he stage manage her body to present it as a suicide...

Police shot Sheila and killed her by the shot under the chin, police stage managed her body, and promoted the idea that she had taken her own life...

This is the absolute truth, which Essex police do not want to have to admit too, whilst ever those responsible are still alive...

[Jan]

A  question for you - there is a document showing that the police collected a silencer on the day of the murders ( I am sure Mike can show you )

So do you think they handed it back the relatives and then they kept it for a few days and handed it back from Anne Eatons house on the 12th of august ? Or the 10th Sept as shown in a another document.

Or was this a different silencer?

I am sure mike can show you the documents -I genuinely want to know what you think happened with the Trail of the silencer?

[scipio_usmc]

Why would the COLP investigators mention the existence of a second key silencer which was in the possession of Essex police, if all along there was only ever one silencer with all these different exhibit references, of SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1...

I don't believe COLP investigators did mention 2 suppressors being tested in 1985.  Why would COLP investigators go out of their way to publicly assert there was only 1 and yet admit such privately?
It would not make any sense at all to lie and conceal/destory documents detailing a second suppressor and yet to verbally admit they did so.

Moreover, apart from it making no sense at all to plant paint on 1 suppressor and blood on another, Glynis Howard insists that the suppressor she inspected had both blood and paint.  So that right there tears a big hole in the claim that there was 1 with blood another with paint.

There is no evidence of a SJ-1 exhibit even existing, that prefix appears to be completely made up.  No cops who handled the case use such prefix nor are there any potential civilians to use such prefix.  Since there is no evidence that documents discussing such an exhibit will ever be able to be provided (since it was obviously entirely made up) the claim is being made that the documents related to SJ-1 were destroyed/kept hidden and it was renamed DB-1.  So the trick is to use the documents discussing DB/1 and make the totally unsupported claim this was a different suppressor than the documents marked SBJ/1 and DRB/1. 

But documents and testimony detail how and why SBJ-1 was renamed DB-1 and various people were well aware of this including Glynis Howard who said the change happened before she went on a leave of absense.

It is well documented how SBJ/1 progressed to DB/1 and then DRB/1 and why this progression occurred.
There is no expnation why the prefix SJ would have been used and who it relates to.  It's not the prefix used by either of the cops named Jones.   

It is bad enough to not be able to explain who the initial SJ relate to.  Still it would have been smarter to just use the lie that there was a second suppressor marked SJ/1 for no explainable reason and the records related to which were destroyed or being hidden by COLP than to weave the web of deception even more by claiming SJ/1 was changed to DB/1.  That was downright stupid and shows just how bogus the claim is because COLP went out of its way to fully address how SBJ/1 progressed to DB/1 and then finally DRB/1 so the claim there was a different exhibit that progressed to DB/1 is nonsensical.

 

[Jan]

see post 104 on here where the call about the silencer is recorded  and the statement from Anne above it where she strangely makes no mention of the silencer (14/8)

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,415.msg216524.html#msg216524

[scipio_usmc]

A  question for you - there is a document showing that the police collected a silencer on the day of the murders ( I am sure Mike can show you )

So do you think they handed it back the relatives and then they kept it for a few days and handed it back from Anne Eatons house on the 12th of august ? Or the 10th Sept as shown in a another document.

Or was this a different silencer?

I am sure mike can show you the documents -I genuinely want to know what you think happened with the Trail of the silencer?

If you are asking me (because you seem to have messed up whatever you intended to quote from whomever) there is no document showing any collection of a suppressor on the day of the murders.

There are claims that the suppressor was fingerprinted on scene and left there on the day of the murders but it has not actually been established that they did fingerprint it.

The same way twisting is used to falsely suggest some bullets had wide lands and thus were fired by a different weapon, twisting is also resorted to in order to falsely suggest many other things. 

I fell for one bogus claim with respect to the telephone engineer (the bogus claim he testified a call had definitely been made the night of the murders from WHF to Goldhanger).  I'm not going to fall for any other tricks people who want to convince me of claims are going to need to bring reliable evidence.

The only trail I have seen as far as documents related to a suppressor all discuss the same suppressor.

The only mention of any other suppressors relate to suppressors seized allegedly during the trial from the the relatives. 

[scipio_usmc]

see post 104 on here where the call about the silencer is recorded  and the statement from Anne above it where she strangely makes no mention of the silencer (14/8)

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,415.msg216524.html#msg216524

Her statement only spoke about things they asked her about.  They wanted her to detail what she knew about Sheila's mental state and any recent interactions with her because at the time Taff Jones was running things and considered only that Sheila did it and nothing else.   So it is a brief 1 page statement about Sheila.

She had no idea the suppressor was significant she mentions that in her subsequent statements where they asked her about the suppressor and other things than just about Sheila.

[mike tesko]

COLP did mention the existence of the second silencer (suppressor, sound moderator) in interview of one of the exhibits officers involved in the investigation (DS Davidson), they asked him in interview under caution if he had anything at all to do with the second silencer?

His response was along the lines, "no", he said, "I had nothing to do with it, DI Cook dealt with it"...

[mike tesko]

In a recent communication between one of the reviewers and myself, Claire said, "DS Davidson lied", she told me, " Davidson had involvement in fingerprinting one of the silencers along with DS Eastwood on 13th September 1985", she told me, " at a time when the other silencer was already at the lab", she said, "and had been there from 30th August 1985, onwards"...

[mike tesko]

How could DS Davidson not know anything about the existence of the second silencer, if he fingerprinted one of the silencers aling with DS Eastward on 13th September 1985?

[Jan]

Her statement only spoke about things she thought to be significant.  She had no idea the suppressor was significant she mentions that in her subsequent statements where they asked her about the suppressor.

what about the record of reporting the silencer on 10th SEPT?

And I don't get your explanation above - they reportedly saw blood and a grey hair on the silencer - thought it important enough to call the police to collect it . but did not think it was significant ? Sorry don't agree with you on that one.

[mike tesko]

It is rather untoward, that there was a training exercise at the scene whilst the bodies of the five victims were still insitu at various locations around the farmhouse between 9am and 11.10am...

Why are Essex police and Special branch refusing to publickly declare what this group of training officers did whilst present inside the farmhouse before, during and after disclosed photographs were taken...

[Jan]

It is rather untoward, that there was a training exercise at the scene whilst the bodies of the five victims were still insitu at various locations around the farmhouse between 9am and 11.10am...

Why are Essex police and Special branch refusing to publickly declare what this group of training officers did whilst present inside the farmhouse before, during and after disclosed photographs were taken...

Why would this happen anyway? Has it been known to happen in other murder cases? I have never seen a case where they have had a training exercise after a murder?

[scipio_usmc]

COLP did mention the existence of the second silencer (suppressor, sound moderator) in interview of one of the exhibits officers involved in the investigation (DS Davidson), they asked him in interview under caution if he had anything at all to do with the second silencer?

His response was along the lines, "no", he said, "I had nothing to do with it, DI Cook dealt with it"...

COLP didn't say there was a second moderator and ask if Davison was aware of it.  COLP asked Davidson if he was aware of the existence of any other moderators and if he handled any others.  The question was posed to him not because COLP knew the existence of any other moderators but rather because of allegations that SBJ/DB/DRB related to different moderators but COLP put this claim to bed through documentary and testimonial evidence which demonstrated they were references to the same item the prefix was simply changed at various times for legitimate reasons.



.

   

[scipio_usmc]

what about the record of reporting the silencer on 10th SEPT?

And I don't get your explanation above - they reportedly saw blood and a grey hair on the silencer - thought it important enough to call the police to collect it . but did not think it was significant ? Sorry don't agree with you on that one.

She wasn't asked to provide an all inclusive statement about every single aspect of the case.  She spoke to issues that were deemed significant at the time.  At the time the oly information she had that the police deemed significant was her interactions with Sheial and what she knew about Sheila's mental state, nothing else.  It is a one page statement only about Sheila.

Only after the suppressor was established as holding significant evidence did they decide to ask her about it.  She is not the one who turned it over to police.  She had no way of knowing they would be able to use the suppressor to prove Sheila didn't kill herself.  Even the police did not know the significance they thought the value would be in possible fingerprint evidence.  Only the lab peiced together that the fatal shot would have resulted in drawback, that the blood in the suppressor was Sheila's blood type and that the rifle had no drawback and thus the suppressor was attached when the fatal shot was fired.