In the context of this case, why on earth would DS Jones omit details of him taking exhibits at the scene of an official multiple murder suicide investigation, if one of these exhibits (SBJ/1) had been arguably the most striking piece of evidence being relied upon by the prosecution in prosecuting Bamber as the killer? Why would DS Jones not want anyone to know that he took possession of a silencer from the scene on 7th August 1985, if it was the very same silencer which relatives later found at the scene on the 10th August 1985?
Do you not agree that there is something significantly wrong here, and that this police officer has tried to conceal the fact that he found the first silencer, not the relatives?
Do you also not agree, that if DS Jones found a silencer first at the scene (7th August 1985), , which was somehow rediscovered by relatives three days later, that there would be nothing wrong with identifying the silencer in question by reference to DS Jones initials and a corresponding number of 1, and that there would be no need whatsoever to alter the exhibit reference to SJ/1, or DB/1 or even DRB/1, because DS Jones was the first witness to find it, if it were the same silencer as that found by the relatives three days later?
