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

[mike tesko]

Then again, it could be silencer, DRB/1...

Or is it, SJ/1...

Or is it SBJ/1...

Or is it AE/1...

Or is it CAE/1...

I thought there was only one silencer with all these different exhibit references...

Trouble is, these different silencers don't look like the same one to me:-

[mike tesko]

David Boutflour made a witness statement to COLP investigators, saying that police handed back two silencers to the family after the trial and the one handed back to his father which belonged to him still had a yellow sticky label attached to it:-

[scipio_usmc]

Then again, it could be silencer, DRB/1...

Or is it, SJ/1...

Or is it SBJ/1...

These are all different designations for a single moderator- a moderator with a different shape so the photo can't be such moderator.

SJ/1 was a tentative designation Cook wrote in his pocketbook for the moderator but after talking to Jones and leanring Jones used SBJ as a prefix he used SBJ/1 on all official documents so it never had the SJ/1 exhibit number.  He was planning to assign it that number but exded up assigning it SBJ/1 instead.  SBJ/1 was changed to DB/1 and finally DRB/1.  They are different deginations for a single moderator.  You have no evidence to refute any of this only speculation with doesn't hold up.

Or is it AE/1...

Or is it CAE/1...

There is no evidence at all of any moderator being assigned AE/1 or CAE/1 you just speculate there was without a shred of evidence to actually establish such.

I thought there was only one silencer with all these different exhibit references...

Trouble is, these different silencers don't look like the same one to me:-

The photo could be one of the moderators seized during the 1986 trial.  It could be a moderator that has no connection to the case at all.  Your uncertaintly of what it is doesn't call into question the moderator with a different shape that was tested by police at all- you have to establish a way for it to do such but you can't.

Wild speculation doesn't cut it.

[scipio_usmc]

David Boutflour made a witness statement to COLP investigators, saying that police handed back two silencers to the family after the trial and the one handed back to his father which belonged to him still had a yellow sticky label attached to it:-

A sticky label tha thad 675 or soemthing to that effect on it.  In the menatime he said they were also seized during the trial.   

[mike tesko]

DS Jones took a photograph in the kitchen at whf on 7th August 1985, bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/2:-

[mike tesko]

Photograph bearing identifying mark of SBJ/2 was taken at the scene on the same day Jeremy Bamber made his first witness statement to police on the 7th August 1985 - it must follow that DS Jones took possession of exhibit SBJ/1 on that same date...

[mike tesko]

Photograph bearing identifying mark of SBJ/2 was taken at the scene on the same day Jeremy Bamber made his first witness statement to police on the 7th August 1985 - it must follow that DS Jones took possession of exhibit SBJ/1 on that same date...

Exhibit SBJ/2 was the second piece of evidence that DS Jones seized or took possession of at the scene on 7th August 1985...

[mike tesko]

DS Jones took other exhibits from the scene that6 same morning, namely exhibits SBJ/4 and SBJ/3:-

Photograph of downstairs toilet (SBJ/3) shows Pargeters .22 rifle and his silencer present at the scene on the morning of the shootings (according to Jeremy)...

[scipio_usmc]

Photograph bearing identifying mark of SBJ/2 was taken at the scene on the same day Jeremy Bamber made his first witness statement to police on the 7th August 1985 - it must follow that DS Jones took possession of exhibit SBJ/1 on that same date...

What stands to reason is that SBJ/1 taken on 7 August was also a photo and that these phtoos were given a different prefix on the official forms because someone else actually took them not Jones.

SbJ/1 was the moderator found by Bouthflour, SBJ/2 the scope found by Boutflour, the box the moderator was in was SBJ/3.  All of these items transitioned to DB 1-3 and then DRB 1-3. 

 

[mike tesko]

What stands to reason is that SBJ/1 taken on 7 August was also a photo and that these phtoos were given a different prefix on the official forms because someone else actually took them not Jones.

SbJ/1 was the moderator found by Bouthflour, SBJ/2 the scope found by Boutflour, the box the moderator was in was SBJ/3.  All of these items transitioned to DB 1-3 and then DRB 1-3. 

 

You are losing it...

[lookout]

 He's already lost it,Mike.

[mike tesko]

Clearly, DS Jones took possession of one of the silencers SBJ/1 from the scene on 7th August 1985...

Followed by the taking of the other exhibits, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...

[mike tesko]

Clearly, DS Jones took possession of one of the silencers SBJ/1 from the scene on 7th August 1985...

Followed by the taking of the other exhibits, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...

By the time DCI Taff Jones, and DS Stan Jones went along to speak to Jeremy at his cottage on the 9th August 1985, police already had a silencer in their possession (SBJ/1), which they duly questioned Jeremy about on that (9th August) date. For example, they asked him, if the silencer was fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle on evening 6th August 1985, prior to the shootings, and Jeremy told them it was not...

Surely, this demonstrates to all and sundry that police had one of the silencers in their possession prior to speaking to Jeremy about it on 9th August 1985?

[mike tesko]

By the time DCI Taff Jones, and DS Stan Jones went along to speak to Jeremy at his cottage on the 9th August 1985, police already had a silencer in their possession (SBJ/1), which they duly questioned Jeremy about on that (9th August) date. For example, they asked him, if the silencer was fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle on evening 6th August 1985, prior to the shootings, and Jeremy told them it was not...

Surely, this demonstrates to all and sundry that police had one of the silencers in their possession prior to speaking to Jeremy about it on 9th August 1985?

Lets get the facts right, why would police be speaking to Jeremy about the silencer on 9th August 1985, unless the police knew about such a silencer by that stage? If police knew about a silencer on 9th August, why would they not have seized it beforehand?

FACT IS, police not only knew about a silencer by 9th August 1985, but they clearly already had possession of one of them by that time, in the form of exhibit SBJ/1, along with three other exhibits taken at the scene on that first morning (7th August 1985)...

FACT, FACT, FACT, FACT....

[No-Bits]

You are losing it...

Unfortunately not, the accuracy of his post is common knowledge.  As you well know Mr T!!!!!