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

[scipio_usmc]

I pose the following question to each and everyone of these Conspirators:-

"How could you know the exhibit reference (DRB/1) of the silencer when at the time you are referring to, such an exhibit refence was not in existence, and in fact was being referred to by a different exhibit reference of either, SBJ/1, SJ/1 and or DB/1?

All you are doing is humilating yourself.

There is no lab paperwork period referencing an exhibit SJ/1.  Nor any police paperwork wxcept a pocketbook entry that this is tentatively what Cook was going to assign to the Boutflour moderator but INSTEAD he assigned it SJB/1 so the lab on 8/13/85 received SBJ/1-SBJ/4 and the paperwork clearly denotes such.

You entirely made up a moderator being seized on 8/7/85 there is not a shred of evidence, not a single document that asserts this.

The orignial documents all reference SBJ/1 for th emoderator.  DOwn the road when it was assigned DB/1 and later stil DRB/1 new paperword was generated with the correct exhibit numbers BUT the originals with the SBJ/1 designation all still existed and were looked at by COLP. 

ALl your distortions and games are for nothing.  You are clearly making things up, we all know it so just drop the antics and try posting like a normal person for a change.

[mike tesko]

David Boutflour did not find silencer SBJ/1 in the gun cupboard at the scene on the 10th August 1985, because Stan Jones had already seized a silencer from the scene on 7th August 1985, bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1, together with a further three exhibits, bearing correspinding exhibit references of SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...

[No-Bits]

David Boutflour did not find silencer SBJ/1 in the gun cupboard at the scene on the 10th August 1985, because Stan Jones had already seized a silencer from the scene on 7th August 1985, bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1, together with a further three exhibits, bearing correspinding exhibit references of SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...

Nope.

Do you have Basil Cocks statement describing the find?

[mike tesko]

Items received at the lab' have to be properly packaged and labelled, if not such items will normally be rejected and not scientifically examined...

[mike tesko]

Two of the four SBJ exhibits taken by Stan Jones at the scene on 7th August 1985, were photographs. One of these photographs was taken in the vicinity of the downstairs toilet where Anthony Pargeter normally kept all his firearms, ammunition and accessories, such as his Parker Hale silencer...

The other photograph Stan Jones took at the scene was in the main kitchen...

Now, for some reason both of the photographs did not form any part of the official police photographic album...

[mike tesko]

Two of the four SBJ exhibits taken by Stan Jones at the scene on 7th August 1985, were photographs. One of these photographs was taken in the vicinity of the downstairs toilet where Anthony Pargeter normally kept all his firearms, ammunition and accessories, such as his Parker Hale silencer...

The other photograph Stan Jones took at the scene was in the main kitchen...

Now, for some reason both of the photographs did not form any part of the official police photographic album...

Information contained in official police records suggest that the two key photographs taken by Stan Jones at the scene on 7th August 1985, were destroyed without any explanation...

[mike tesko]

The removal of these two photographs from the batch of four exhibits taken at the scene by Stan Jones raises a number of key issues, as does the fact that a third exhibit, SBJ/1 (a silencer) has also been taken out of the equation altogether...

[Jan]

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).

well all the ones that are available then - that would be a start .

[scipio_usmc]

David Boutflour did not find silencer SBJ/1 in the gun cupboard at the scene on the 10th August 1985, because Stan Jones had already seized a silencer from the scene on 7th August 1985, bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1, together with a further three exhibits, bearing correspinding exhibit references of SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...

I challenged yo uat least 15 times to post evidence to prove a moderator was seized on 8/7/85.  You have never been able to do so.

The above claims are all simply made up by you.  No matter how many times you repeate the claim it will not change that you simply made it up.

The documents all indicate only 1 moderator, the Boutflour one submitted 8/13/85 under SBJ/1 along with the other items like the scope SBJ/2. 

You can post the same made up claim 500 times but it will not make it any less fiction and will not change that you have no evidence at all to support your fictional claims.

 

[No-Bits]

I challenged yo uat least 15 times to post evidence to prove a moderator was seized on 8/7/85.  You have never been able to do so.

The above claims are all simply made up by you.  No matter how many times you repeate the claim it will not change that you simply made it up.

The documents all indicate only 1 moderator, the Boutflour one submitted 8/13/85 under SBJ/1 along with the other items like the scope SBJ/2. 

You can post the same made up claim 500 times but it will not make it any less fiction and will not change that you have no evidence at all to support your fictional claims.

Scope SBJ/2?  Erm Okay, but I'm not so sure that's right. 

[No-Bits]

[scipio_usmc]

Scope SBJ/2?  Erm Okay, but I'm not so sure that's right. 

4 pieces of evidence were recieved by the lab transferred from Ann Eaton to Jones and then from Jones to Cook.  The rifle scope was SBJ/2, a box was SBJ/3 and I forget off hand what SBJ/4 was.

I will have to look to see what document has the evidence but I assure you unlike Mike I not making this up and there was evidence I saw that made me aware of this.

[Caroline]

4 pieces of evidence were recieved by the lab transferred from Ann Eaton to Jones and then from Jones to Cook.  The rifle scope was SBJ/2, a box was SBJ/3 and I forget off hand what SBJ/4 was.

I will have to look to see what document has the evidence but I assure you unlike Mike I not making this up and there was evidence I saw that made me aware of this.

Hartley has posted a document showing the evidence associated with those reference numbers. You don't have to be making it up, perhaps you are simply mistaken. 'Wrong' doesn't equal 'liar'.

[scipio_usmc]

images

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.

[scipio_usmc]

Hartley has posted a document showing the evidence associated with those reference numbers. You don't have to be making it up, perhaps you are simply mistaken. 'Wrong' doesn't equal 'liar'.

See post 58