And so, to the silencer evidence, where it was found, when and contained in what

[mike tesko]

And so, to the silencer evidence, where it was found, when and contained in what?

David Robert Boutflour Statement (extract):-

[mike tesko]

David Boutflour examined by Prosecution during trial:-

[mike tesko]

David Boutflour cross-examined by Mr Rivlin during trial:-

[ngb1066]

David Boutflour cross-examined by Mr Rivlin during trial:-

Mike

I appreciate that you are busy but when you get a chance could you post the remainder of Mr Rivlin's cross examination of David Boutflour?  I am interested in particular to see whether the "unsuccessful attempt" to unscrew the end cap of the silencer was pursued further with the witness.  As I have posted elsewhere, I have always been very suspicious about this aspect of the case.  I have always believed that if David Boutflour tried to dismantle the silencer by unscrewing the end cap he did in fact dismantle it.  It is very easy to do and he was very familiar with Parker Hale silencers, having two of them already in his possession.

 


 

[mike tesko]

Boutflour testified to the effect that he went back to examine the silencer at his sisters house, at a later date - when was this then?

What later date?

If silencer was found in gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, and it was taken to his sisters house that date, until it was collected by DS Jones, from Peter Eaton, on 12th August 1985, at what stage in between did Boutflour return to his sisters house (at a later date) to examine it?

There is no evidence that he returned to his sisters house at any further stage to examine the silencer, other than on the same evening that it was found, so what is Boutflour talking about?

He tried to unscrew the end cap from the silencer, on the day it was supposedly found, and he states that he did this that evening when they got the silencer back to his sisters house, in the kitchen there, but there is no mention at all, when he used that razor blade to scrape off a small flake of dried blood from the end of it, nor is there any mention of who was present there when he did that?

Or what he did with that small flake of dried blood?

Or even which EP officers he notified about what he did on that occasion?

He didn't see paint or blood on the silencer at the scene...

He claims he only saw blood and paint on the silencer once the silencer was examined in the kitchen at his sisters house, and that the silencer got transported to her house in the boot of her car (along with other items from the scene)...

[mike tesko]

David Boutflour cross-examined by Mr Rivlin during trial:-

Mike

I appreciate that you are busy but when you get a chance could you post the remainder of Mr Rivlin's cross examination of David Boutflour?  I am interested in particular to see whether the "unsuccessful attempt" to unscrew the end cap of the silencer was pursued further with the witness.  As I have posted elsewhere, I have always been very suspicious about this aspect of the case.  I have always believed that if David Boutflour tried to dismantle the silencer by unscrewing the end cap he did in fact dismantle it.  It is very east to do and he was very familiar with Parker Hale silencers, having two of them already in his possession.

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

What I propose to do, is post the full court transcript at some stage, of every witness that testified and was examined, and cross examined, but that will take a bit of organizing and time, but I will eventually get around to doing it...

I agree that Boutflour was determined to look inside the silencer, and I believe that he succeeded although he might not readily admit to this...

Why was he so keen to look inside the silencer?

[Kaldin]

David Boutflour cross-examined by Mr Rivlin during trial:-

Mike

I appreciate that you are busy but when you get a chance could you post the remainder of Mr Rivlin's cross examination of David Boutflour?  I am interested in particular to see whether the "unsuccessful attempt" to unscrew the end cap of the silencer was pursued further with the witness.  As I have posted elsewhere, I have always been very suspicious about this aspect of the case.  I have always believed that if David Boutflour tried to dismantle the silencer by unscrewing the end cap he did in fact dismantle it.  It is very east to do and he was very familiar with Parker Hale silencers, having two of them already in his possession.

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

What I propose to do, is post the full court transcript at some stage, of every witness that testified and was examined, and cross examined, but that will take a bit of organizing and time, but I will eventually get around to doing it...

I agree that Boutflour was determined to look inside the silencer, and I believe that he succeeded although he might not readily admit to this...

Why was he so keen to look inside the silencer?

I'd like to know that too. I just hope that Mr Rivelin asked him why he tried to unscrew the end.

[ngb1066]

David Boutflour cross-examined by Mr Rivlin during trial:-

Mike

I appreciate that you are busy but when you get a chance could you post the remainder of Mr Rivlin's cross examination of David Boutflour?  I am interested in particular to see whether the "unsuccessful attempt" to unscrew the end cap of the silencer was pursued further with the witness.  As I have posted elsewhere, I have always been very suspicious about this aspect of the case.  I have always believed that if David Boutflour tried to dismantle the silencer by unscrewing the end cap he did in fact dismantle it.  It is very east to do and he was very familiar with Parker Hale silencers, having two of them already in his possession.

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

What I propose to do, is post the full court transcript at some stage, of every witness that testified and was examined, and cross examined, but that will take a bit of organizing and time, but I will eventually get around to doing it...

If you get a chance just the next page of Rivlin's cross examination would be very useful as a start.

I agree that Boutflour was determined to look inside the silencer, and I believe that he succeeded although he might not readily admit to this...

I agree


Why was he so keen to look inside the silencer?

I think we can all hazard a fairly accurate guess about that!  I have to say that this evidence stinks and I am surprised that it did not make a greater impact upon the jury.

 

[grahameb]

What made him even think of the silencer? Didn't Jeremy Bamber say that he left the gun on the table without the silencer?

[Kaldin]

What made him even think of the silencer? Didn't Jeremy Bamber say that he left the gun on the table without the silencer?

He said he left the gun on the settle actually. 

He did say there was no silencer on it when he left it.

[smiffy]

Contradicted himself in his own evidence..A liar.
His evidence is riddled with deception in my view .

[nugnug]

what made him want to search the house in the first place

how was he sure the police hadent done complete search.

and how did he know where to look for the silencer

funny that on his first attempt at search he manged to find damming evidence.

[smiffy]

David and Robert's stories about the so called finding of the silencer are contradictory and the whole story about the silencer being found in the cupboard is a fabrication in my view. I am totally confident of that. The signs of deception being particularly abundunt on this issue.

[smiffy]

both David and Robert in their claims speak of the silencer being in a cardboard box  and it was at an ANGLE....when viewed....odd how they both fixate on this ANGLE thing..sounds like collusion in a fabrication. One claiming the angle to be about 45 degrees !!!!!!!
David claims the box was about 8inches by 5 inches by 5 inches.
With possibly (no commitment to claim) bullets in the bottom of the box etc.
This silencer is supposedly  6 or 7 inches wrong so to claim it was at an angle in the box sounds very wrong.. One would not expect any "angle comments" ..as it should have sat in the box lengthways very easily and rolled into place whenever the box was tilted a little.

It looks in my view that the ANGLE comment was an agreed upon comment the pair decided to throw into the claims to try making the claims to be more credible. In my view ..they support the contention that the silencer finding claims are bogus.

[nugnug]

and wouldent the police have allready looked in the gun cupboards.

maybe they dident but i would of thought they would have looked.