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

[mike tesko]

We then find that somebody attempted to merge the two different identical looking parker hale silencers (SJ/1) and (SBJ/1), into the same silencer...

The person responsible for doing this has been identified as PI Bob Miller...

Ron Cook misread the situation when Stan Jones handed him that (SJ/1) silencer on 13th August 1985,  because on the morning of the shootings (7th August 1985, Ron was the senior SOCO at the scene when Stan had taken possession of a silencer, amongst other things. This was why he labelled the silencer Stan had given him as SJ/1, he thought it was the silencer Stan had took at the scene on that first morning, nobody mentioned to Ron anything at all abiut the silencer which Stan had given him had been found by a relative...

So, silencer handed to DS Jones by Peter Eaton, on evening of 12th August 1985, that Stan Jones showed to PIMiller in the following morning, that Miller advised Stan to hand it to Ron Cook that same day because Ron was due to do a lab run, which was the same silencer which Ron took to the lab and which Glynis Howard examined, was, is, can only ever have been the one bearing the rather unique exhibit reference of SJ/1...

[grahameb]

The passage I posted proves you are lying.  The document Howard signed is the same one COLP provided to Cook to look at and it listed the exhibits as SBJ/1-SBJ/4.  Your claim the document listed them as SJ/1-SJ/4 is a lie and easy to see as a lie jsut from reading the passage above.  SJ/1-4 was liste din hsi pocketbook only.

Hold on a sec scipio. Didn't you argue one time that there never was any record of an "SJ1"? Now you have posted that this chap wrote in his pocket book SJ1. So Mike was right in the first place, there was an SJ1 after all?

[scipio_usmc]

Hold on a sec scipio. Didn't you argue one time that there never was any record of an "SJ1"? Now you have posted that this chap wrote in his pocket book SJ1. So Mike was right in the first place, there was an SJ1 after all?

No I said there were no documents assigning any exhibitts with the SJ prefix.  I noted that the only reference to any SJ/1 was in Cook's pocketbook and that this is where Mike got the idea to make up a SJ/1 moderator.

This was all in that thread where Mike first asserted there was a moderator taken from WHF on 8/7/85 that had exhibit SJ/1 and that the Boutflour moderator was SBJ/1 and that SJ/1 became DB/1 while SBJ/1 became DRB/1 and eventually DB/1 and DRB/1 were merged.

After I posted about the pocketbook he flipped things and claimed SBJ/1 was a moderator found on  8/7/85 and the Boutflour moderaor was SJ/1.

But it is all lies there were no forms sent to the lab or int he evidence book of any exhits with the SJ prefix.  That is just what Cook wrote in his pocketbook before the forms were actually filled out. Mike took the pocketbook entry reference and MADE UP the claim that the Boutflour moderator and other evidence was referenced as SJ/1-SJ/4 on the forms.  If one looks at the forms they say SBJ/1-SBJ/4.  Mike is lying as he is prone to do. 

Since Mike has no actual evidence to refute Jeremy's conviction he just makes up things.  You and lookout seem to be the only ones he manages to fool with it though. It's an open secret that he is making things up but most people don't want to confront him the way I do so just let him post away without responding.

Since it is not accomplishing anything I don't know why he doesn't give up the antics and join in the discussion with everyone else.

[mike tesko]

COLP questioned Cook about the exhibit reference (SJ/1) he had assigned to the silencer given to him by Stan Jones, and he told them what I have repeated in this thread, he said he labelled the silencer on that occasion, SJ/1 because he didn't know that Stan Jones had a middle christian name of Brian...

Just for the record, Ron Cook had nothing whatsoever to do with the four exhibits, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, until much later in the investigation, and as far as I know Stans four exhibits, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3, SBJ/4, were never referred to by the exhibit references of SJ/1, SJ/2, SJ/3 and SJ/4...

By all accounts, the original exhibit reference to the silencer found at the scene by David Boutflour was SJ/1, lab item number 22...

with this in mind, it looks almost certain that there was no need to change the original exhibit reference of SJ/1 because there could be no clash involving the need to change it because it was confusing...

Why change SJ/1?

[mike tesko]

Oh, I get it - nobody was to know the silencer which Cook took from Stan Jones, was to have an exhibit reference of SJ/1, only Ron and Glynis...

[mike tesko]

You know...

the funny thing is, is that the brown coloured CJA exhibit label, bearing the identifying mark of SJ/1 is missing altogether with Rons and Glynis's signatures upon them, its nowhere to be seen, nobody appears the slightest bit concerned that it appears to have vanished off the face of the earth. None of the experts at the lab' refer to the silencer by the exhibit reference SJ/1 despite it now being confirmed that this was the very first exhibit reference given to the silencer found at the scene by relatives, handedto Stan Jones by Peter Eaton on 12th August, shown to Bob Miller on mirning of 13th August, given to Ron Cook the same day and taken to the lab' for Glynis to examine the same day...

The relatives themselves appear to be unaware that the silencer they handed to police ever had the original exhibit reference of SJ/1...

[scipio_usmc]

COLP questioned Cook about the exhibit reference (SJ/1) he had assigned to the silencer given to him by Stan Jones, and he told them what I have repeated in this thread, he said he labelled the silencer on that occasion, SJ/1 because he didn't know that Stan Jones had a middle christian name of Brian...

Just for the record, Ron Cook had nothing whatsoever to do with the four exhibits, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, until much later in the investigation, and as far as I know Stans four exhibits, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3, SBJ/4, were never referred to by the exhibit references of SJ/1, SJ/2, SJ/3 and SJ/4...

By all accounts, the original exhibit reference to the silencer found at the scene by David Boutflour was SJ/1, lab item number 22...

with this in mind, it looks almost certain that there was no need to change the original exhibit reference of SJ/1 because there could be no clash involving the need to change it because it was confusing...

Why change SJ/1?

I posted the actual statement. "The Holab reflects his full initials"  Crash and burn on your claims it was assigned SJ/1 on the forms.  SInce the cat is alreayd out of the bag no point in your trying to keep up the charade.

[mike tesko]

Here are the FACTS...

Cook attaches a brown CJA exhibit label to the silencer which he marks SJ/1 at the lab' on 13th August 1985. Ron and Glynis both signed this (SJ/1), and it is trult shocking that none of the other prosecution witnesses signatures appear on such an exhibit label bearing the identifying mark of SJ/1, since this was the very first identifying mark put to the silencer found by David Boutfliur, the very same silencer which Peter Eaton handed to Stan Jones, same silencer Stan showed to Bob Miller, same silencer (SJ/1) Stan gave to Ron Cook, same silencer (,SJ/1) examed at lab' by Glynis Howard on 13th August 1985,  yet the original exhibit label bearing the identifying matk SJ/1 containing the two signayures of Ron and Glynis is missing, and nobody else ever refers to the silencer we are talking about (SJ/1) by its true refence. Instead, they refer to the silencer found by Boutflour as exhibit SBJ/1, or exhibit DB/1,  and ultimately as exhibit DRB/1...

There is a complete lack of continuity involving the find and examination of the silencer found at the scene by relatives, there is no way of knowing or showing that all these different exhibit references ( SJ/1, SBJ/1, DB/1 DRB/1) refer to the very same silencer...

[mike tesko]

Order silencer exjibit references came into force:-

(1) - SBJ/1 - 7th August 1985 (SC/688/85)

(2) - SJ/1 - 13th August 1885 (SC/688/85)

(3) - DB/1 - 30th August 1985 (SC/688/85)

(4) - DRB/1 - 20th September. 1985 (SC/786/85)

[mike tesko]

Any body who had involvement with a silencer in this case could not identify the silencer in question by any exhibit reference until on or after the date the different exhibit references came into existence...

[Jan]

Just a suggestion if someone has got time  could we have a "sticky thread" with copies of ALL the documents related to the moderator in a times sequence .

So every document that mentions the collection or inspection of the moderator /s 

And then perhaps jsut the dates of statements of the persons who found it .

I would like to also see copies of their descriptions of how they found it and the appearance.

This would be useful for "newbies" that we might get if the case comes more into public view over the next few months

[No-Bits]

Just a suggestion if someone has got time  could we have a "sticky thread" with copies of ALL the documents related to the moderator in a times sequence .

So every document that mentions the collection or inspection of the moderator /s 

And then perhaps jsut the dates of statements of the persons who found it .

I would like to also see copies of their descriptions of how they found it and the appearance.

This would be useful for "newbies" that we might get if the case comes more into public view over the next few months

Not all of the documents are available in the public domain. The only one's which are, have been provided in an attempt to mislead people in to believing that there was more than one sound moderator and that the sound moderator containing blood stains was not actually found by the relatives in the gun cupboard (despite the independent witness of Basil Cock).

[grahameb]

Not all of the documents are available in the public domain. The only one's which are, have been provided in an attempt to mislead people in to believing that there was more than one sound moderator and that the sound moderator containing blood stains was not actually found by the relatives in the gun cupboard (despite the independent witness of Basil Cock).

I could be wrong, but I don't think Basil Cock mentions it?

[No-Bits]

I could be wrong, but I don't think Basil Cock mentions it?

We've only got one statement from Basil, and that is concerned with the estate.

Basil being present during the silencer find is mentioned in David Boutflour's court transcript, and also in the Dickenson Report. Probably in other statements of the relatives also (memory fails me).

I don't know, but I suspect Basil either made a statement detailing his presence and/or was called as a witness at the trial.

[mike tesko]

There is something very odd about Basil Cocks witness statement in which he describes him being present at whf when the silemcer was found. Yet, he says he can specifically rwmember the occasion when the silencer was discovered because there was white fingerprint dust on everything at the scene...

How very remarkable...