Hartley ...... Many thanks for your answers and I appreciate such a detailed response. I respect that you did not want to debate the answers / views put forward but I'd just like to make 2 small points that you don't need to answer.
No worries.
1) Surely you must agree that Essex Police were in possession of 3 identical silencers? Why? Only the silencer that was kept at the house should have been in their possession. Police records show 2 being handed back to the relatives under signature which confirms for definite EP were in possession of at least 3 silencers in total.
Yes, they collected Robert and David Boutflours sound moderators, why I don't know. They later handed the items back with receipts.
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here?
2) Tampering with evidence - David Boutflour not only took the silencer away from the scene but he admitted later (in 1991) that he scraped a large lump of blood off it with a razor blade (apparently because it fascinated him!). if evidence is discovered in a murder trial it should be left where it is and Police / forensics called, not put in the back of a car, driven around, tampered with, blood scraped off it, put on various surfaces and who knows what else. The silencer evidence was not fit to be used in court and David Boutflour should have been arrested for tampering with vital evidence. The Police were never given the opportunity to see this evidence "as discovered" in situ which makes me very very suspicious of it's integrity.
Yeah this is a tricky point to understand and is what accounts for any doubt over the conviction that I do have.
The gun cupboard is underneath the stairs and there are nooks and crannies where the silencer could quite easily have been overlooked by the police, although I really would have expected them to have carried out a more thorough search. Having said that, they did leave a shotgun leaning against the office wall, so who knows.
It's described that the silencer was found on Sat 10/8/85, it was thought that the police case officers would not be on duty until the Monday, so they took it back to Oak Farm. I can sort of see the logic in the sense that I would not want to leave it in place until Monday, during which time it could be removed/stolen etc. Although I think I would have left it alone, called the police and set up camp until they arrived to take it away.
The next thing we hear is that on Mon 12/8/85 Robert Boutflour is talking to DS Jones about the silencer find, however DS Jones hasn't heard anything about it, so Robert tells DS Jones to collect it from Oak Farm, which he does.
All of that still seems quite plausible and acceptable to me in terms of the credibility of the evidence. David Boutflours examination of the silencer is concerning, but I still don't see it having affected the evidence found. I know, yourself and others are likely to disagree, but that's my take on it.
Can you remember where the razor blade scraping is described? I've seen it somewhere, but can't recall where now.
Hartley - thank you for posting all the statements but I feel a bit like we've left the fox looking after the chickens with all your help! No offence and I do appreciate a strong / detailed argument from the other side. You agree above that you can't "explain away" the tampering of the silencer evidence but whatever arguments are put forward you can't seem bring yourself to stray far from the Boutflours / Eatons viewpoint (to say the least). You, David Boutflour or Ann Eaton don't know for certain that Jeremy is guilty but you won't seem to entertain the possibility that he is innocent in any shape or form. I have for some time believed the case could possibly be a very complex example of "noble cause corruption" and that many of the people involved were one hundred percent sure they were doing the right thing at the time (this includes JM). Once you go down a certain track it is difficult to turn back - your mind won't let you because it is so convinced that you become completely blinkered in your outlook / approach. The truth that you could be wrong is just too much to contemplate. Hartley.......are you so close to the case that you don't have an open mind? It seems that any tricky angle / viewpoint put forward by the pro Bamber side is often categorised by you as "interesting" which is hardly acknowledging there is a lot of areas that just don't add up.
Honesty is often the best approach, and to this end would it be possible to detail what your connection is to the Boutflour's / Eaton's? It seems to run deep and perhaps yet again we're not being told half the story. Are you able to be honest about your agenda?
