13 bullet cases in m/bedroom, yet no follower plate mark found on them...

[scipio_usmc]

David Boutflour falsified the contents of his witness statement where he describes  having found the silencer on 10th August as having the identifying exhibit reference DRB/1, at which time that exhibit could not have got the aforementioned  exhibit reference (DRB/1)...

Your lies never cease I already proved you wrong about this countless times.  It was changed to DB/1 in September and DRB/1 while it was at the lab in October or early November.

Boutflour's statement is dated November 17:



The gun dealer's statement is November 16 and refers to it as DRB/1:



The moderator was transferred from the lab to the property room on November 13 and at the time this happened it had a label marked DRB/1:




You have senseless allegations but no actual proof of anything.

[scipio_usmc]

"There is nothing logged into any property register as being taken from WHF on August 7 by Stan Jones or anything taken period by him from anywhere on August 7 and logged into evidence:
Yes, there is, how would you know considering you don't have possession of the documentary evidence confirming that What I say to be true .

The testimony of the officers and the COLP investigation make it quite clear you are lying and that is why you can't produce any evidence to back up your claims. Your assertion you possess such evidence but don't feel like posting it is not in the least bit credible. You bear the burden of proof, claiming you have evidence isn't sufficient you need to produce such evidence and it needs to withstand scrutiny.  On those occasions you put forth your supposed evidence it always falls apart like your bogus claim that Cook slapped a sticker marked SJ/1 on the moderator received from the Eatons.  The statement that you claim asserts such in fact asserts he slapped a label marked SBJ/1 and wrote same on the Holab forms. Your version of what your sources demonstrate and what they actually demonstrate are seldom the same.  In the meantime you don't have any evidence for your most spectacular claims they are simply allegations built around wild speculation that ignores the actual evidence developed by COLP.

So, if we mistakenly accept what you say regarding this matter, then the sound moderator, could not ever have had the original exhibit reference of SJ/1 on 13th August 1985, when Cook took it along to the lab' to be shown to Glynis Howard?

Cook says he put a lable on it bearing "SBJ/1"  He wrote on the forms submitted to the lab with the moderator that it was "SBJ/1". Glynnis Howard recorded in her documents that it was marked SBJ/1 when she received it on August 13.  Howard told COLP that it was marked SBJ/1 when she received it.   ALL the documentary evidence and testimony from those involved agree that it was marked SBJ/1 initially.  Your SJ/1 claim is fictional- it is not supported by any of the documents or by any of the verbal testimony of the witnesses COLP spoke to.  The ONLY person to reference SJ/1 was Cook and what he stated was that he planned to identify the moderator as SJ/1 but by the time he wrote up the label and paperwork he had found out Stan Jone's full initials and thus used SBJ/1 on the paperwork and label. Lying about this doesn't help you in any way so you might as well give it up already.  You have spent more than 8 months arguing with me over this and each time I demonstrate your claims false.  You fail to produce any evidence to demonstrate it was ever labeled SJ/1- no lab documents, no Holab forms, no verbal testimony, no witness statements identifying it as such...  The ONLY thing you cite is the bogus claim that COok stated in his COLP statement that he labeled it SJ/1 but I proved he didn't claim such.  I have proved he said it was marked SBJ/1 on the label and documents and proved it by posting the relevant portions of his statement.  You won't address these snapshots you just ignore them and continue with claims people can see are nonsense.  Such games are a waste of time.

If we accept your proposition as being true, then David Boutflour cannot have found a sound moderator marked with the exhibit reference of DRB/1 at the scene 3 days previously bearing the identifying mark of DRB/1. Since, using your warped sense of logic, the sound moderator had the exhibit reference of SBJ/1 when it was taken to the lab' by Cook on the 13th August 1985, would that be a fair assessment of what you are trying to argue?

What I am posting is the truth. The truth is that the moderator found by Boutflour was identified as SBJ/1 but in September after it was fully appreciated who found it then it was redesignated DB/1 but sometime in October or early November it was redesignated DRB/1 because the intials DB were already being used by David Bird. This is what COLP determined after a thorough investigation.  You have zero evidence to refute that it was found by Boutflour on August 10 and turned over to the lab on August 13.  You have zero evidence to refute the reason for the changes in designation that COLP found.  You just make allegations that don't have any support at all and make no sense.  They are the same allegations made by Bamber to COLP which COLP ended up rejecting as false after a thorough investigation..     

Look, pea brain, I am not lying about anything, since if DAV d Boutflour found silencer DRB/1 at the scene on 10th August, then how come by the time the same silencer is supposedly handed over to DS Jones by Peter Eaton on evening of 12th August 1985, both DS Jones, and Peter Eaton refer to the exhibit reference of that silencer, as having been DRB/1 at that time? If you are right, how could the silencer have had an exhibit defence of DRB/1 on the 10th August and the 12th August 1985, respectively, yet on the 13th August same year, it had a completely different exhibit label reference of SBJ/1, upon it?

Neither of them assert it bore a label period when it was handed to Jones let alone a label marked DRB/1.  The label was created by Cook and placed on it right before he took it to the lab. Peter Eaton's first statement discussing his turning over of the moderator to police is dated November 4  and it doesn't even mention what the exhibit reference is.  it simply says he turned over the moderator that had been found by Boutflour.  His December 16 statement is the first to identify the exhibit number of the moderator and refers to it as DRB/1 because it was marked DRB/1 at the time of this statement.  He doesn't assert it was marked DRB/1 at the time it was taken from him, it had no label or reference at that point in time. it didn't have a reference number until Cook labeled it on July 13.  All documents create din August and early September refer to the moderator as SBJ/1.  After the change to DB/1 the documents began referring to it as DB/1.  After the change to DRB/1 the documents began referring to it as DRB/1.  Some people unaware of the changes still referred to it by th eprior designation in some of their documents but once they learned of the changes they stopped and began referring to it under the current designation.  No one referred to it by a latter designation before the change was even made.

If what you claim, Cook told COLP investigators that the silencer had a label marked SBJ/1 by the time Cook had taken the silencer to the lab' on the 13th August 1985, then it would be an impossibility for David Boutfloyr, and others, to reference to the silencer bearing the exhibit reference of DRB/1, on any occasion beforehand. This in turn would cast very serious doubt upon the prosecution claim that all these different references to a different exhibit reference for any silencer prior to that 13th August silencer bearing the exhibit reference of SBJ/1. That silencer could not ever have had an exhibit reference of DRB/1, before it had ever been referred to as exhibit SBJ/1, so on any instance where it is claimed the silencer had an identifying mark of SBJ/1, the same silencer found by David Boutlour at the scene bearing an exhibit reference of DRB/1 beforehand has to be regarded as completely wrong, is that the gist of what you are saying?

There are no instances where it was referred to as DRB/1 in August or September (before police assert it was changed to DRB/1).  All references to DRB/1 are from periods of time after the change took place. You are spinning your wheels. 

Because if that's what you are saying, you are more stupid than I first thought you are, since in the grand scheme of things, how on earth could the silencer found at the scene in a cupboard on the 10th August 1985, have attached to it by 10th August 1985, an exhibit label marked DRB/1, if three days later it had a contradictory exhibit reference SBJ/1 attached to it when Cook first took the silencer to the lab' to show it to Howard?.

No one is claiming it had a DRB/1 label on it at anytime in August or September.  No one is claiming it had a label on it at all on the 10th of August.  The police are the ones who put labels on evidence and they didn't even take it until August 12 and it was not until August 13 that Cook tagged it. He told COLP that he tagged it SBJ/1 and put SBJ/1 on the paperwork sent to the lab with it.  he lab worker identified it as SBJ/1 on her paperwork and told COLP that is what was on it when she received it.  It was not changed to DRB/1 until October or early November.  The exact date is known by COLP but you won't release the full report to us because you don't want us to see the precise date they ascertained.  We know it was changed to DB/1 in September the police notified the lab of the change towards the end of September.  When they changed it form DB/1 to DRB/1 they also changed DB/2 and 3 to DRB/2 and 3.  They didn't just change the moderator they changed the other items that were taken from Boutflour.  DB/2 was the scope and DB/3 was unfired ammunition.  These were changed to DRB/2 and 3 the same time the moderator was changed to DRB/1. There was nothing sinister going on their explanation for these changes was well supported.  You keep trying to falsely suggest there are documents created in August and September referring to these items under the "DRB" prefix but that is false.  They did amend documents at later dates but amending a document months later is far different from the original document containing an exhibit number not yet in existence.  Your games are worthless.

       
If that be the case, then how on gods earth could David Boutfliur (10th August), and Peter Eaton (12th August)'refer to the exhibit reference of DRB/1; since Cook himself had no involvement with the silencer in question, prior to the 13th August 1985?

They didn't refer to it on those dates by that exhibit number or any exhibit number.  This is just another of your absurd claims that you failed to use even a modicum of intelligence to conjure up.

   
The exhibit reference of that silencer can never have had a different label attached to it in any other occasion prior to the 13th August 1985, Otherwise you are suggesting that it is somewhat alright to keep referring to the wrong sequence of events insofar as the order which the prosecuting authorities say the various exhibit references had come into existence (SJ/1, then SBJ/1, followed by DB/1; then DRB/1?

It didn't have an exhibit label when Boutflour found it.  He never claimed it had a label on it when he found it in the close you made such up like you make up so many absurd things.  Nor did Peter Eaton claim it had a label on it when he handed it to Stan Jones on August 12.  They don't claim it had a label let aloen a label marked DRB/1.  You are just embarrassing yourself.

[mike tesko]

Your lies never cease I already proved you wrong about this countless times. You have not proved me wrong about anything I have ever spoken about. The truth of the matter is, that you have proved yourself wrong so many times with the nonsense and garbage that keeps coming out if your gob... It was changed to DB/1 in September and DRB/1 while it was at the lab in October or early November. hang on a minute bird brain, it got changed into DB/1 on 30th August 1985, didn't it?

Boutflour's statement is dated November 17: Yeah, but he refers to the silencer as DRB\1, at a time when the silencer was named as SJ/1 and then SBJ/1..,



The gun dealer's statement is November 16 and refers to it as DRB/1:



The moderator was transferred from the lab to the property room on November 13 and at the time this happened it had a label marked DRB/1: from 20th  September 1985, the silencer handed to police by Ann Eaton, on 11th September, came into play and this was the first time Ralph Bambers parker hale silencer surfaced




You have senseless allegations Wrong again but no actual proof of anything. How can you possibly profess to know that?

[scipio_usmc]

"Your lies never cease I already proved you wrong about this countless times. It was changed to DB/1 in September and DRB/1 while it was at the lab in October or early November."

You have not proved me wrong about anything I have ever spoken about. The truth of the matter is, that you have proved yourself wrong so many times with the nonsense and garbage that keeps coming out if your gob... hang on a minute bird brain, it got changed into DB/1 on 30th August 1985, didn't it?

I have proven you to be lying far too many times to count.  I have proved beyond question you lied about Cook placing a label marked SJ/1 on it- he stated SBJ/1- you can't tell the truth to save your life.

As for the change to DB/1 the lab was notified in September.  Whether the police changed it that exact day or earlier is unclear all that is known is that it changed by that date.  The COLP report might specify the exact day of the change but you refuse to reveal the report because it proves all your claims to be nonsense.  This is the same reason you refused to post part of the Dickinson report. 

"Boutflour's statement is dated November 17"
Yeah, but he refers to the silencer as DRB\1, at a time when the silencer was named as SJ/1 and then SBJ/1..

It was never labeled SJ/1 it was initially SBJ/1 then renamed DB/1 in September and renamed DRB/1 prior to the date of his Nov 17 statement.  It was known as DRB/1 at the time he gave his statement and was correctly identified as such in his statement.

"The moderator was transferred from the lab to the property room on November 13 and at the time this happened it had a label marked DRB/1:"

the silencer handed to police by Ann Eaton, on 11th September, came into play and this was the first time Ralph Bambers parker hale silencer surfaced

There wasn't any moderator handed by Ann Eaton on September 11 this is more fiction from you. 

[mike tesko]

I have proven you to be lying far too many times to count No, you haven't, so stop fooling yourself, what you have actually done is prove what a lying toe rag you yourself really is...  I have proved beyond question you lied about Cook placing a label marked SJ/1 on it- you have proved no such thing, it would be impossible for you to be able to prove he didn't attach the label SJ/1, because he certainly did... he stated SBJ/1 Elsewhere he stated SBJ/1, he also claims he took silencer DRB/1 to the lab' on the same occasion on the 13th August 1985, which is also evidence that the exhibit label of the silencer is dodgy...- you can't tell the truth to save your life That's only your opinion, but since you don't recognise that you yourself can't see that you lie with every breath you take, what chance do you have of forming such an opinion about others? .

As for the change to DB/1 the lab was notified in September Silencer DB/1 sent to lab' on 30th August 1985, according to Cook .  Whether the police changed it that exact day or earlier is unclear all that is known is that it changed by that date. there does not exist a paper trial of evidence confirming what you have said...   The COLP report might specify the exact day of the change but you refuse to reveal the report because it proves all your claims to be nonsense how do you know that if you've not seen the report?.  This is the same reason you refused to post part of the Dickinson report Again, how could you possibly know that, without seeing all the report? . 

It was never labeled SJ/1 Yes, it was. Cook wrote SJ/1 on the brown CJA brown exhibit label at the lab', he wrote SJ/1 instead of SBJ/1 because he didn't know that DS Jones had got the middle Christian name of ' Brian'... it was initially SBJ/1 SJ/1 then renamed DB/1 in September and renamed DRB/1 SBJ/1 prior to the date of his Nov 17 statement.  It was known as DRB/1 at the time he gave his statement Yes, it had been altered into DRB/1, from a date prior to the 17th November 1985 and was correctly identified as such in his statement and yet, he identified it by different exhibit references elsewhere in other police documents and records .

There wasn't any moderator handed by Ann Eaton on September 11 Yes, there was. She handed that silencer (DRB/1) over to the police on that date, after her brother David Boutflour contancted the police on the same date, or it could have been the day before, by telephone to tell the police that he had found a silencer. So, why was Boutflour phoning the police up on 11th September 1985, telling them that he had found a silencer, if the police already had the same silencer in question and they had already had it for nearly a month already?  Furthermore, Ann Eaton handed over to police that very same date, all the other DRB exhibits,so put that in your pipe and smoke it... this is more fiction from you. how can I be blamed for what other people actually did? Are you for real?

[scipio_usmc]

"I have proved beyond question you lied about Cook placing a label marked SJ/1 on it"

you have proved no such thing, it would be impossible for you to be able to prove he didn't attach the label SJ/1, because he certainly did...

I proved it by posting his COLP statement.  You claim that in this statement he indicated he marked it SJ/1 but in reality it clearly states he marked it SBJ/1.  The evidence I posted proves you are lying about what he wrote.



Furthermore here is the actual Holab form which proves he told the truth in his COLP statement:



You misrepresented that in his COLP statement he said he labeled it SJ/1 and keep telling this lie on purpose despite the fact I nailed you to the wall countless times.

he also claims he took silencer DRB/1 to the lab' on the same occasion on the 13th August 1985, which is also evidence that the exhibit label of the silencer is dodgy...

More lies from you. He said he it was marked SBJ/1 when taken to the lab on August 13.  He said the reference changed to DB/1 later on and then to DRB/1 subsequent to that.  AFTER it became known as DRB/1 EVERYONE referred to it as that so said things like DRB/1 was taken to the lab on August 13, 1985.  That doesn't mean he was claiming it was marked DRB/1 at the time it was taken there. You distort and distort and distort some more and the reason you distort is because you have nothing valid to raise to challenge the evidence with.

"As for the change to DB/1 the lab was notified in September"
Silencer DB/1 sent to lab' on 30th August 1985, according to Cook

Cook never said such in his COLP interview nor did he say it in court or in any of his statements.  So this is just another baseless claim.  The exact date they realized Boutflour found it and decided to change it to DB/1 doesn't matter anyway though.

"Whether the police changed it that exact day or earlier is unclear all that is known is that it changed by that date." there does not exist a paper trial of evidence confirming what you have said...

There is a document indicating the lab was told of the change to DB/1.  There is also paperwork showing they crossed out SBJ/1 and changed it to DB/1 on various documents.  any of them were retyped with the new designation and the same was done when the change to DRB/1 was effected.

There is no doubt at all that they changed the designation to DB/1 and then again to DRB/1.

"The COLP report might specify the exact day of the change but you refuse to reveal the report because it proves all your claims to be nonsense"
how do you know that if you've not seen the report?

I don't know if COLP ascertained the precise days the changes were decided upon.  That is why I said maybe.  There is no doubt though that the report REJECTED the allegations of multiple moderators and found that the moderator was initially labeled SBJ/1 then changed to DB/1 and finally DRB/1.  That much is known for sure and that is why you won't post it.  It rejected so many different allegations made by Jeremy which you continue to make despite the fact they were proved nonsense.

"This is the same reason you refused to post part of the Dickinson report" Again, how could you possibly know that, without seeing all the report?

Because it is well established that all of Jeremy's allegation were rejected by COLP just like it is well estbalished that all of the latest CCRC submisisons were thoroughly rejected by the CCRC.  The defense refuses to release the CCRC's report because they don't want people to see the smackdown but we still know it happened.  We know the Colp smackdown happened you just don't want us to see the full specifics of what was rejected and why.  The index tells which portions of the Dickinson report you concealed and it was all the paragraphs that described the reinvestigation including the work done by the lab and all the portions related to the trial. You clearly didn't post these because they smash your nonsense.

"It was never labeled SJ/1"
Yes, it was. Cook wrote SJ/1 on the brown CJA brown exhibit label at the lab', he wrote SJ/1 instead of SBJ/1 because he didn't know that DS Jones had got the middle Christian name of ' Brian'...

That's not what he said in his COLP statement- in his COLP statement he said he figured out his middle initial and wrote it on the label and the Holab form confirms he labeled it SBJ/1

yet, he identified it by different exhibit references elsewhere in other police documents and records

He identified it as SBJ/1 initially.  After the change was made to DB/1 he referred to it as such then after the change to DRB/1 he referred to it as such.  There is nothing at all dodgy except in your imagination.

"There wasn't any moderator handed by Ann Eaton on September 11"
Yes, there was. She handed that silencer (DRB/1) over to the police on that date, after her brother David Boutflour contancted the police on the same date, or it could have been the day before, by telephone to tell the police that he had found a silencer. So, why was Boutflour phoning the police up on 11th September 1985, telling them that he had found a silencer, if the police already had the same silencer in question and they had already had it for nearly a month already?

Furthermore, Ann Eaton handed over to police that very same date, all the other DRB exhibits,so put that in your pipe and smoke it..

Boutflour didn't contact police in September claiming he found a moderator that needed to be picked up.  This is another of your fictional claims.  Likewise your claim that Ann Eaton gave police a moderator on the 11th is fictional- here is what was taken from her on September 11:



When they took the above items they failed to take some shotgun ammunition he wanted them to take so he had to notify them and he brought it to them the next day:



your lies are a waste of time.

[mike tesko]

Mention of the type of ammunition received by DC Oakey, was made on 2nd October 1985, and there was no evidence proving these were the very same cartridges at the scene at the time of the shootings...

[scipio_usmc]

Mention of the type of ammunition received by DC Oakey, was made on 2nd October 1985, and there was no evidence proving these were the very same cartridges at the scene at the time of the shootings...

The Eatons and Boutflours say it was the same ammunition they found int he cupboard at WHF.  That is evidence it was such ammunition.  Furthermore such ammunition is the same kind and brand the dealer said he sold Nevill and identical to the 30 rounds of unfired ammunition police seized from the kitchen.

You have no evidence to refute their claims just empty allegations.  Those allegation not only are unsupported but worse make no sense at all.

[mike tesko]

The Eatons and Boutflours say it was the same ammunition they found int he cupboard at WHF. No they never say that in the way you allege, and besides what the gun dealer says he sold to Ralph Bamber is ambiguous, as was the manner with which Fletcher described the bullets and cartridge cases used in the shootings, again, ambiguous, depending upon the source relied upon That is evidence it was such ammunition there is evidence that these people describe the ammunition differently depending upon the source you refer to, so there is considerable doubt which can be placed on your point   Furthermore such ammunition is the same kind and brand the dealer said he he says something different depending upon what source you rely upon - there is therefore considerable doubt cast upon your claims. sold Nevill and identical to the 30 rounds of unfired ammunition police seized from the kitchen. Again, it is not described at all sources as alleged by you, so your claims do not stand up to all the tests which can be levelled against all these claims of yours

You have no evidence to refute their claims Wrong, you can't even get that right just empty allegations.  Those allegation not only are unsupported On the contrary, fully supported but worse make no sense at all. So, says you...

[scipio_usmc]

"The Eatons and Boutflours say it was the same ammunition they found int he cupboard at WHF."

No they never say that in the way you allege, and besides what the gun dealer says he sold to Ralph Bamber is ambiguous, as was the manner with which Fletcher described the bullets and cartridge cases used in the shootings, again, ambiguous, depending upon the source relied upon

The Eatons and Boutflours say the ammunition they turned in was found in the cupboard and the cop who accepted it recorded that is where they told him it came from.  Suggesting  otherwise is nonsense.

In the meantime Neither Fletcher nor the gun dealer were ambiguous.  Both expressly stated in their statements Eley 22LR Subsonic Hollow Points. I posted the exact snapshots of their statements where they stated such.  You want to pretend they were ambiguous to pretend the nonsense you post is not ruled out by their statements though it is.

there is evidence that these people describe the ammunition differently depending upon the source you refer to, so there is considerable doubt which can be placed on your point

Nonsense, 22 rimfire and 22LR are synonymous terms.  Your suggestion Nevill purchased something other than 22LR for a rifle chambered in 22LR is patently absurd.  In the meantime their statement trumps hand notes where they didn't need to be as specific because the hand notes were for their own benefit. Statements are written for an audience.

"Furthermore such ammunition is the same kind and brand the dealer said sold Nevill"

he says something different depending upon what source you rely upon - there is therefore considerable doubt cast upon your claims.

Saying .22 rimfire on some documents instead of 22 LR doesn't cast any doubt at all- both are the same.  He wrote .22 Anschutz 525 which means 22LR because the Anschutz 525 is ONLY available in 22LR.  You are desperately trying to pretend he could have meant something other than 22LR when that is impossible.  Your games just render you a lying joke. He stated EXPRESSLy in his statement that he sold Nevill 500 rounds of Eley .22 long rifle Subsonic Hollow points.  He knew what his records meant and posted such.  You have zilch to contradict them just the complete nonsense claim that maybe he sold  something other than 22LR though such would not work in the Anschutz and furtherore the others are NOT referred to as .22 rimfire simply that is reserved for 22LR.  .22 short is called .22 short.  .22CB is called .22CB. ...
 

"and identical to the 30 rounds of unfired ammunition police seized from the kitchen."

Again, it is not described at all sources as alleged by you, so your claims do not stand up to all the tests which can be levelled against all these claims of yours

You have nothing to refute my claims with besides lies. Your allegations are all unsupported nonsense and your claim by evidence doesn't stand for the proposition I assert is a giant lie.  Here once again is what Fletcher wrote about the 30 rounds found in the kitchen- each time you lie about it I will post it again to demonstrate your lack of honesty:

"You have no evidence to refute their claims just empty allegations.  Those allegation not only are unsupported"


On the contrary, fully supported

You posted nothing in support, just nonsense allegations that make no sense.

[mike tesko]

It becomes very clear how police set about intending to deceive everyone over the silencer evidence. Not to be forgotten is that in the build up to Bambers 1986 trial, and during it, intact all the way until I became involved in the case in 1989, the silencer was only referred to by the exhibit reference of DRB/1. No information was disclosed to to indicate the volatile history associated with "IT". There was no suggestion that it had had its exhibit reference altered, from SJ/1, to SBJ/1, to DB/1, ending up as DRB/1. There was no suspicion, no acknowledgement that 'THIS' silencer (DRB/1) had at one time or another, it had been referred to by two different Lab' item numbers ( 22, 23, and back to 22). There was no mention at all the a silencer had been found at the scene on 7th August 1975. There was no mention that Ann Eaton had handed over silencer DRB/1 to police on 11th September 1975, or that her brother David Boutflour had not in fact phoned police on 10th September 1975, to report finding a gun silencer. No mention that DS Davidson and DS Eastwood had in fact fingerprinted the silencer on 14th September 1975, (DRB/1) handed to Police by Ann Eaton previously as stated. No mention that this very same silencer (DRB/1) had not in fact been sent along to the lab' until the 20th September 1985, and not physically examined by any expert until 25th September 1985. They kept all this key information secret so that blood and paint evidence could be wrongly linked to the Bamber family owned silencer, but they did not anticipate that years further down the line, someone like myself would come along and drag the truth about it out into the open...

By 20th September 1985, blood had already been found, analysed inside a silencer which had been present at Huntingdon Lab' ever since 30th August 1985; under an exhibit reference of DB/1, bearing a lav' item reference number 23. It was inside "THIS" silencer that the key blood evidence was found (DB/1 - 23), not the silencer still in the possession of relatives until 11th September, had been fingerprinted (14th September) and sent along to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers on the 20th September at which point the silencer (DRB/1) handed to police on the 11th September 1985 by Ann Eaton, then came into play for the very first time. You will no doubt realize that if the silencer handed to police on the 11th September 1985, that was not fingerprinted by police on 14th September, not sent along to the lab' for the very first time until after the key blood evidence had already been found inside the "OTHER" silencer (DB/1), a silencer which had been present at the lab' ever since 30th August1985. Blood from "THAT" silencer (DB/1 - 23) having already been removed and analysed on the following dates confirming blood group activity (12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1975, the net conclusion being held that this collection of blood group activity belonged exclusively to Sheila Caffell, yet the silencer handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September, had not by "THAT STAGE", been sent along to the lab' until after the key blood evidence had already been found in the "OTHEr" silencer (DB/1 - 23)...

Sheila Caffells blood has been wrongly attributed to the silencer DRB/1 belonging to the Banner rifle, this can be proven by reference to the fact that all the key blood and paint evidence was associated to a different silencer at the lab' on dates before the Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1) came into play on 11th September 1985, for the very first time...

You do not send a silencer (DRB/1) to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, requesting that it be checked for blood and fibers, if it was already at the lab' and had been there continually since 30th August, and blood had already been found inside that silencer (DB/1 - 23), blood had already been removed, and analysed between 12th and 19th September, and try to claim that there was only one silencer, one silencer upon which key blood evidence can be associated, when the silencer (DRB/1) it is being linked to, did not come onto the scene until it was much too late to have been the silencer (DB/1 - 23) thevkey blood evidence had been found inside. Silencer DB/1 - 23, and silencer DRB/1, were bit, and could never have been one and the same silencers for the reasons given. The relatives know that, Essex police know that, the COS know that, I know that / this, and everyone else should by now know that. The bottom line is that key blood evidence was not found in the so called Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1), it was found inside a silencer (DB/1 - 23) belonging to one of the relatives. Sheila Caffells blood was found in a silencer (DB/1 - 23) belonging to one of the accusers, which throws a different light in the question of, " Who killed the victims?

[mike tesko]

Careful study of all the facts exposes the manner with which police, relatives and bent lab' experts falsified the blood evidence attributing it to the wrong silencer (DRB/1) not sent to the lab' until it was too late to have found the key blood group activity inside it...

Get wise, don't be fooled by the practices adopted by this group of corrupted individuals....

[mike tesko]

In a reply to an email dated 6th April 2004, sent by myself to Essex police, Kim Perks, press officer, sent me the following reply, dated, 8th April 2004:-

Dear Mr Teskowski,

You emailed Essex police on April 6 with regard to the white house farm murders and questions about the silencers. Having consulted with the both the senior officer who oversaw the latest appeal and our force solicitor all I am able to say is that all parties connected with the case were made aware of the sound moderators and all the issues surrounding them, but that this detail is not a matter for public disclosure. I am sorry we are unable to assist you further on this occasion.

Regards

Kim Perks

Press Office

DDI: 01245 452455

Ext 50620

Mobile: 07850 882215

[lookout]

More or less the answer I got when I e-mailed them for information early this year. They're not giving anything away !!

[mike tesko]

In a reply to an email dated 6th April 2004, sent by myself to Essex police, Kim Perks, press officer, sent me the following reply, dated, 8th April 2004:-

Dear Mr Teskowski,

You emailed Essex police on April 6 with regard to the white house farm murders and questions about the silencers Note that I was enquiring into silencers, not only one silencer . Having consulted with the both the senior officer who oversaw the latest appeal and our force solicitor all I am able to say is that all parties connected with the case were made aware of the sound moderators and Note, this part of the response is very misleading because even to this date, (7 June 2015) Essex police have sought to conceal the truth about blood that was found inside one of the silencers belonging to a relative, was later attributed to the Bamber family owned silencer, so that they could focus on prosecuting Jeremy Bamber, instead of having to deal with another rifle belonging to one of the other relatives, ammunition which belonged to another relative, and a parker hale silencer belonging to one of the other relatives all the issues surrounding them, but Again, note the reference and admission that there were more than just one solitary silencer, having numerous different exhibit and lab' item numbers at different stages of the proceedings that this detail is not a matter for public disclosure. I This is akin to admitting that Essex police, relatives and corrupt lab' experts did alter, swap and switch references given to different silencers, and come up with the falsified claim that there had only been just one silencer which had all these different exhibit references and corresponding lab' item numbers. If the truth had to be made public there would be an enormous outcry, and immense damage caused to the criminal justice system. Therefore, the truth is hidden away under pii, hidden and concealed because what it would prove if all the facts were acknowledged publickly, is that not only was / is Jeremy Bamber innocent, but that these monsters who call themselves police officers, relatives, and lab' experts, are evil beyond comprehension  am sorry we are unable to assist you further on this occasion.

Regards

Kim Perks

Press Office

DDI: 01245 452455

Ext 50620

Mobile: 07850 882215