Superglue problems when Silencer examined on 23rd August 1985

[Kaldin]

Anyway...

A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?

Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...

By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...

Do you agree, or not?

No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.

I am not sure you are correct on this.  The "Action" form completed by DS Davison dated 13/9/85 shows him asking for examination of "the following" for blood, fibres and fingerprints.  There are then three numbered items listed which are clearly what he is asking to be examined.  It is true that item 3 reads "check silencer for fibres" but surely that is just repeating or emphasising the generic request at the top of the form, rather than saying that in the case of the silencer he only wanted an examination to be made for fibres?

Yes it does say that, but it might mean the first two items on that forum. It specifically asks for the silencer to be checked for fibres. People don't always fill in forms properly, or they write something which is ambiguous.

[clifford]

Why when to all intents and purposes they were looking at 4 murders, and one suicide.

[Kaldin]

If silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the Lab' from 30th August 1985, and the crucial blood flake was found inside it, and EP had another silencer (DRB/1) in their possession, which they did not send to the lab' at Huntingdon,. until 20th / 26th September 1985, then it could not have been the same silencer, and EP have not explained how this other silencer (DRB/1) came to be in  their possession, from 11th September 1985, onwards?

It could be the same silencer if the lab had sent it back after testing it for blood.

[mike tesko]

Anyway...

A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?

Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...

By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...

Do you agree, or not?

No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.

I am not sure you are correct on this.  The "Action" form completed by DS Davison dated 13/9/85 shows him asking for examination of "the following" for blood, fibres and fingerprints.  There are then three numbered items listed which are clearly what he is asking to be examined.  It is true that item 3 reads "check silencer for fibres" but surely that is just repeating or emphasising the generic request at the top of the form, rather than saying that in the case of the silencer he only wanted an examination to be made for fibres?

--------

If, by 30th August 1985, silencer DB/1, was already at the lab' (item number 23), why would the police be referring to (1) ammunition box; (2) cardboard box containing silencer and ammunition, and (3) silencer, if all were not received by the police together at the sane time, and sent to the Lab' at the ame time, to be checked for blood, fibers and to be fingerprinted?

Lets look at what exhibit references, the ammunition box, and the cardboard box containing the silencer, and ammunition, was found inside?

CAE/1, CAE/2 and CAE/3, or alternatively - DRB/1, DRB/2 and DRB3 (in no particular order)?

[mike tesko]

Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff.  I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc.  Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it?  Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?

I think it's a question of being able to concentrate for long enough rather than anything else. I must admit I don't really have enough patience for the silencer thing. 

----------------------

Silencer evidence is key to these convictions, so perhaps you should try to pay more attention...

I've tried, but all this speculation presented as facts is confusing the issue. You haven't even proved that a silencer was found on 11th September yet.

-------------------

Of course one was found on 11th September 1985, why do you think David Boutflour was phoning up EP on that date to report the find of a silencer in the gun cupboard on that date? Are you suggesting that he phoned up EP on that date, to report a silencer he found in the same gun cupboard a month previously?

[ngb1066]

Anyway...

A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?

Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...

By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...

Do you agree, or not?

No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.

I am not sure you are correct on this.  The "Action" form completed by DS Davison dated 13/9/85 shows him asking for examination of "the following" for blood, fibres and fingerprints.  There are then three numbered items listed which are clearly what he is asking to be examined.  It is true that item 3 reads "check silencer for fibres" but surely that is just repeating or emphasising the generic request at the top of the form, rather than saying that in the case of the silencer he only wanted an examination to be made for fibres?

Yes it does say that, but it might mean the first two items on that forum. It specifically asks for the silencer to be checked for fibres. People don't always fill in forms properly, or they write something which is ambiguous.

Fair point.  I agree it can be read either way, but on balance I think it is more likely to be a request for the fulll examination of all three numbered items, but with emphasis in the case of the silencer on examination for fibres   Why there should be a concern about the presence of fibres I am not sure, unless it was connected with the box of tampax.

 

[mike tesko]

Why did DS Eastwood and DS Davidson, take possession of the silencer, on 13th September 1985, to fingerprint it, considering that the other silencers had been fingerprinted on 15th and 23rd August 1985?

[mike tesko]

Anyway...

A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?

Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...

By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...

Do you agree, or not?

No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.

I am not sure you are correct on this.  The "Action" form completed by DS Davison dated 13/9/85 shows him asking for examination of "the following" for blood, fibres and fingerprints.  There are then three numbered items listed which are clearly what he is asking to be examined.  It is true that item 3 reads "check silencer for fibres" but surely that is just repeating or emphasising the generic request at the top of the form, rather than saying that in the case of the silencer he only wanted an examination to be made for fibres?

Yes it does say that, but it might mean the first two items on that forum. It specifically asks for the silencer to be checked for fibres. People don't always fill in forms properly, or they write something which is ambiguous.

Fair point.  I agree it can be read either way, but on balance I think it is more likely to be a request for the fulll examination of all three numbered items, but with emphasis in the case of the silencer on examination for fibres   Why there should be a concern about the presence of fibres I am not sure, unless it was connected with the box of tampax.

 

-------------------

Ammunition box, and the box containing the silencer and ammunition was submitted to the lab' on and after 11th September 1985, so why mention the silencer to be checked for fibers in the same document, if the author of that document did not also have possession of all three items at that stage?

It also states at the bottom of the page:-

"Above items (which includes the silencer) forwarded to the lab' on 20th / 26th September 1985, SC/786/85 refers - well, the other silencers were submitted to the lab' on dates when the case was being conducted under SC/688/85, namely SBJ/1 - Lab' item number 22, on 13th August 1985, and similarly, DB/1 - Lab' item numb er 23, , on 30th August 1985, and the submission of the above items to the lab' that took place on 20th / 26th September 1985, was done so when the nature of the investigation was altered into SC/786/85...

That is the point...

Additionally, if this was the same silencer that was coated in super-glue residue, (on 23rd August 1985) how the hell did anyone expect fibers to be found on such a silencer?

[Kaldin]

Of course one was found on 11th September 1985, why do you think David Boutflour was phoning up EP on that date to report the find of a silencer in the gun cupboard on that date? Are you suggesting that he phoned up EP on that date, to report a silencer he found in the same gun cupboard a month previously?

The document you posted is not very clear.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=444.0;attach=1339;image

It could be a mistake. It looks as if that form is a summary of messages received on separate occasions, so maybe the date was misread. If you can find another document which makes it clear that David Boutflour rang on 11th September and said he'd just found a silencer in the cupboard, then you might have a case.

The last sentence on there still doesn't make sense to me.

[ngb1066]

Anyway...

A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?

Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...

By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...

Do you agree, or not?

No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.

I am not sure you are correct on this.  The "Action" form completed by DS Davison dated 13/9/85 shows him asking for examination of "the following" for blood, fibres and fingerprints.  There are then three numbered items listed which are clearly what he is asking to be examined.  It is true that item 3 reads "check silencer for fibres" but surely that is just repeating or emphasising the generic request at the top of the form, rather than saying that in the case of the silencer he only wanted an examination to be made for fibres?

--------

If, by 30th August 1985, silencer DB/1, was already at the lab' (item number 23), why would the police be referring to (1) ammunition box; (2) cardboard box containing silencer and ammunition, and (3) silencer, if all were not received by the police together at the sane time, and sent to the Lab' at the ame time, to be checked for blood, fibers and to be fingerprinted?Lets look at what exhibit references, the ammunition box, and the cardboard box containing the silencer, and ammunition, was found inside?

CAE/1, CAE/2 and CAE/3, or alternatively - DRB/1, DRB/2 and DRB3 (in no particular order)?

That is a very good point in my view.  Something here does not stack up properly.

 

[Kaldin]

Ammunition box, and the box containing the silencer and ammunition was submitted to the lab' on and after 11th September 1985, so why mention the silencer to be checked for fibers in the same document, if the author of that document did not also have possession of all three items at that stage?

It also states at the bottom of the page:-

"Above items (which includes the silencer) forwarded to the lab' on 20th / 26th September 1985, SC/786/85 refers - well, the other silencers were submitted to the lab' on dates when the case was being conducted under SC/688/85, namely SBJ/1 - Lab' item number 22, on 13th August 1985, and similarly, DB/1 - Lab' item numb er 23, , on 30th August 1985, and the submission of the above items to the lab' that took place on 20th / 26th September 1985, was done so when the nature of the investigation was altered into SC/786/85...

That is the point...

Additionally, if this was the same silencer that was coated in super-glue residue, (on 23rd August 1985) how the hell did anyone expect fibers to be found on such a silencer?

Re your last point, I assumed it meant fibres in the silencer rather than on it - ie, to indicate if there had been an attempt to clean the inside with a tampon.

[clifford]

Kaldin, can you tell me the relevance of the silencer. It has been established that no silencer was in place when SC recieved the final shot. Does it matter what silencer was used for the murders.One last thing the search by boutflour in the garage where he said No bolts. could have been refering to the fact that he removed the bolt from HIS rifle when he left it at the farm. With this in mind why was he searching for the bolt.I am a bit thick.

[mike tesko]

Of course one was found on 11th September 1985, why do you think David Boutflour was phoning up EP on that date to report the find of a silencer in the gun cupboard on that date? Are you suggesting that he phoned up EP on that date, to report a silencer he found in the same gun cupboard a month previously?

The document you posted is not very clear.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=444.0;attach=1339;image

It could be a mistake. It looks as if that form is a summary of messages received on separate occasions, so maybe the date was misread. If you can find another document which makes it clear that David Boutflour rang on 11th September and said he'd just found a silencer in the cupboard, then you might have a case.

The last sentence on there still doesn't make sense to me.

----------------

Yes, there exists an action report, where it clearly states that DB rang up EP on 11th September 1985 (whilst JB was in custody) to inform them that he had found a silencer in the gun cupboard on that date - if true, why was the silencer already at the lab' on two previous occasions (13th August 1985, under SBJ/1 - Lab' item number 22) and again on and from 30th August 1985 (under DB/1 - Lab' item number 23), if he did not find the Bamber silencer in the gun cupboard at whf until 11th September 1985?

[Kaldin]

Kaldin, can you tell me the relevance of the silencer. It has been established that no silencer was in place when SC recieved the final shot. Does it matter what silencer was used for the murders.One last thing the search by boutflour in the garage where he said No bolts. could have been refering to the fact that he removed the bolt from HIS rifle when he left it at the farm. With this in mind why was he searching for the bolt.I am a bit thick.

Hello Clifford.

It hasn't been established that no silencer was in place when Sheila was shot. In fact, the prosecution said that a silencer was indeed in place when Sheila was shot. They said that her blood was found in it, and the jury believed them. The problem is that the silencer was not on the gun when the police found Sheila, so she couldn't have shot herself and then put the silencer away in a cupboard.

[Kaldin]

Of course one was found on 11th September 1985, why do you think David Boutflour was phoning up EP on that date to report the find of a silencer in the gun cupboard on that date? Are you suggesting that he phoned up EP on that date, to report a silencer he found in the same gun cupboard a month previously?

The document you posted is not very clear.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=444.0;attach=1339;image

It could be a mistake. It looks as if that form is a summary of messages received on separate occasions, so maybe the date was misread. If you can find another document which makes it clear that David Boutflour rang on 11th September and said he'd just found a silencer in the cupboard, then you might have a case.

The last sentence on there still doesn't make sense to me.

----------------

Yes, there exists an action report, where it clearly states that DB rang up EP on 11th September 1985 (whilst JB was in custody) to inform them that he had found a silencer in the gun cupboard on that date - if true, why was the silencer already at the lab' on two previous occasions (13th August 1985, under SBJ/1 - Lab' item number 22) and again on and from 30th August 1985 (under DB/1 - Lab' item number 23), if he did not find the Bamber silencer in the gun cupboard at whf until 11th September 1985?

You mean there's another report which clearly says that David Boutflour rang on 11th September to say he'd just found the silencer? Can you please post that report?