Silencer found by relatives arrives at lab' too late to be one with key blood...

[No-Bits]

Those exhibits were either designated SBJ after the prefix change from SBJ to DB or there was at one point different items with overlapping SBJ designations.

The moderator changed from SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1
The scope from SBJ/2 to DB/2 to DRB/2
The box from SBJ/3 to DB/3 to DRB/3
and the last item that I am not positive if it is a box of bullets or not was SBJ/4 to DB/4 to DRB/4

I don't feel like reading all the various statements right now to look for the SBJ/2-4 references but I did bookmark something to prove the telescopic sight was changed to the DRB prefix as well not just the moderator:



I did so to challenge the claim that SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 were different moderators.  The sights went through the same set of changes (as did the other 2 items found by Boutflour) and there was no allegation of there being 3 sights because of this so that shows how dishonest the claim is when it is applied only to the moderator despite the same conditions applying to 4 different items that had a prefix change not just the moderator.

Yeah, yeah, I go along with all that, I just wasn't aware that the scope was once designated SBJ/2, it wasn't collected until much later by Oakey. It's not making immediate sense to me why it would be given a Jones reference, that's all. 

[No-Bits]

If you see those same exhibits referenced as SBJ's, or indeed a statement explaining the change, then I'd appreciate if you could point it out.

Obviously we're all aware of Howard's and Jones statements regarding the SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1 change.

Cheers.

[scipio_usmc]

Yeah, yeah, I go along with all that, I just wasn't aware that the scope was once designated SBJ/2, it wasn't collected until much later by Oakey. It's not making immediate sense to me why it would be given a Jones reference, that's all. 

Okey's statement is useless at tellign us when the other exhibits were collected because the dates are wrong. The dates do not match the days and make no sense because the dates are before Jones actually got the moderator.

This is one of the areas where if we saw the entire COLP report we coudl find out what they figured out as the the actual dates.

SInce the dates are worng could other parts of the acocutn be wrong too about him collecting them alone?

My only GUESS is that the person issuing the exhibit number presumably Davidson but could have been Cook for all we know) wanted to remain consistent for the evidence taken from Oak Farm.  Unless Jones took part in the collection and this is not on any of the information publicly released it is all I can think of.

We are at a big disadvantage because these items were not used to establish guilt so the police statements do not really reference them besides the Oakey one containing errors.

Not even the defense cares about these items so the parts of the COLP report that address such are largely not published by them either. It is one of those things we have an "academic" interest in and will likely never get an answer unless someone decided to publish everything where we could access it.

I would have expected it to be addressed though since the mistakes are rather significant.  I am surprised Mike doesn't make more of it given his imagination.  Police go on the 11th but don't collect the moderator and wait instead till the 12th?  Golden opportunity to claim something nefarious and we cna't explain it because the answer was not publicly released  .

 

[No-Bits]

Okey's statement is useless at tellign us when the other exhibits were collected because the dates are wrong. The dates do not match the days and make no sense because the dates are before Jones actually got the moderator.

This is one of the areas where if we saw the entire COLP report we coudl find out what they figured out as the the actual dates.

SInce the dates are worng could other parts of the acocutn be wrong too about him collecting them alone?

My only GUESS is that the person issuing the exhibit number presumably Davidson but could have been Cook for all we know) wanted to remain consistent for the evidence taken from Oak Farm.  Unless Jones took part in the collection and this is not on any of the information publicly released it is all I can think of.

We are at a big disadvantage because these items were not used to establish guilt so the police statements do not really reference them besides the Oakey one containing errors.

Not even the defense cares about these items so the parts of the COLP report that address such are largely not published by them either. It is one of those things we have an "academic" interest in and will likely never get an answer unless someone decided to publish everything where we could access it.

I would have expected it to be addressed though since the mistakes are rather significant.  I am surprised Mike doesn't make more of it given his imagination.  Police go on the 11th but don't collect the moderator and wait instead till the 12th?  Golden opportunity to claim something nefarious and we cna't explain it because the answer was not publicly released  .

Before seeing SBJ/2 as the sight on Ratcliffes statement, I'd assumed the sight and ammo cases were given DRB references from the outset as it was after the silencer exhibit reference had already been corrected. I haven't seen the items referred to as SBJ's anywhere else.

As you say, we don't have all of the information.

[scipio_usmc]

Before seeing SBJ/2 as the sight on Ratcliffes statement, I'd assumed the sight and ammo cases were given DRB references from the outset as it was after the silencer exhibit reference had already been corrected. I haven't seen the items referred to as SBJ's anywhere else.

As you say, we don't have all of the information.

Do you know when exactly the items were collected?  I have not seen anything to indicate the correct dates but maybe you came across somethign I didn't.  I just know Oakey is wrong not what the truth is.

 

[No-Bits]

Do you know when exactly the items were collected?  I have not seen anything to indicate the correct dates but maybe you came across somethign I didn't.  I just know Oakey is wrong not what the truth is.

I thought the sight wasn't collected until September,  but it was ages ago that I looked at it, so not sure. 

[grahameb]

Okey's statement is useless at tellign us when the other exhibits were collected because the dates are wrong. The dates do not match the days and make no sense because the dates are before Jones actually got the moderator.

This is one of the areas where if we saw the entire COLP report we coudl find out what they figured out as the the actual dates.

SInce the dates are worng could other parts of the acocutn be wrong too about him collecting them alone?

My only GUESS is that the person issuing the exhibit number presumably Davidson but could have been Cook for all we know) wanted to remain consistent for the evidence taken from Oak Farm.  Unless Jones took part in the collection and this is not on any of the information publicly released it is all I can think of.

We are at a big disadvantage because these items were not used to establish guilt so the police statements do not really reference them besides the Oakey one containing errors.

Not even the defense cares about these items so the parts of the COLP report that address such are largely not published by them either. It is one of those things we have an "academic" interest in and will likely never get an answer unless someone decided to publish everything where we could access it.

I would have expected it to be addressed though since the mistakes are rather significant.  I am surprised Mike doesn't make more of it given his imagination.  Police go on the 11th but don't collect the moderator and wait instead till the 12th?  Golden opportunity to claim something nefarious and we cna't explain it because the answer was not publicly released  .

What do you mean the dates are wrong because the days don't match the dates?

[scipio_usmc]

I thought the sight wasn't collected until September,  but it was ages ago that I looked at it, so not sure. 

The change from SBJ/1 to DB/1 was made in October.  The earliest reference we have to the change is a memo from Cook sent to Fletcher on 10/17/85.  Whether the change was made that exact day or he took a couple of days to notify Fletcher we can't be sure.

My understanding was that all DRB items were collected and labeled prior to this so that there were no items given a DB prefix from the outset but rather all relabeled to DB and then subsequently relabeled again to DRB.

[No-Bits]

The change from SBJ/1 to DB/1 was made in October.  The earliest reference we have to the change is a memo from Cook sent to Fletcher on 10/17/85.  Whether the change was made that exact day or he took a couple of days to notify Fletcher we can't be sure.

My understanding was that all DRB items were collected and labeled prior to this so that there were no items given a DB prefix from the outset but rather all relabeled to DB and then subsequently relabeled again to DRB.

Given Ratcliffes statement, that certainly seems to be the case.

[scipio_usmc]

What do you mean the dates are wrong because the days don't match the dates?

Nevermind there is a misprint in my book.  I have a book that has all calendar cycles and used it to look at 1985.  A misprint caused 1985 to be listed under the wrong cycle.

I found a neat site for future reference   

http://www.timeanddate.com/

I also found a reference that he turned the items in to Wright, (the guy who shared an office with Cook) but Wright makes no reference to the oitems or how he catalogued them in in his statements because they were not used against Jeremy and his statements only pertained to such.

Well anyway at least we know they were not found after the change to DB/1 made in October.

My only guess as to why the items were given SBJ/2-4 would be to remain consistent with the previous item taken form Oak Farm- the moderator or maybe SBJ told Oakey to go them them?

SInce it is of no consequence I guess we are just being anal about it.

[scipio_usmc]

Given Ratcliffes statement, that certainly seems to be the case.

But as they say inquiring minds want to know why.  The cops seemed to play fast and loose with the rules of what prefix to use to label items even though the purpose was to reflect who found that item.

Isn't it funny how they corrected the record to reflect Boutflour found it once they actually realized he would have to help authenticate it.  If they didn't need th eitem chances are none would have been changed from SBJ and there would have been ultiple items with the same number...

I will give critics that, the police were sloppy in these kinds of regards though it doesn't undermine the evidence found on the items like critics would have hoped.

Why didn't Jones want these items and only take the moderator?  The police seemed to handle things piecemeal instead of in a sensible manner.  It is a good thing Jeremy was not more clever in his frame methodology because these cops would have been outsmarted in my opinion.

 

 

[mike tesko]

One of the silencers found at the scene by relatives was not given an exhibit reference of SJ/1 until it ended up in Ron Cooks possession at the lab' on 13th August 1975...

On the other hand, a collection of four exhibits taken from and at the scene on the moring of the shootings, weree all given. Consecutive numbers. SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...

[Alias]

Sorry to interrupt the conversation - Mike, as far as I recall, you once posted a scan of a letter Jeremy wrote to Julie after he was in prison.
Is that orrect or did I dream it? 

[lookout]

If that rifle was heated up at 60 degrees,any blood inside would alter the composition of any sample so it would be no use.

[grahameb]

Sorry to interrupt the conversation - Mike, as far as I recall, you once posted a scan of a letter Jeremy wrote to Julie after he was in prison.
Is that orrect or did I dream it? 

I think he wrote to her asking her to tell the truth, or something like that?