"1) The various witness statements reference one moderator handed in to police on July 12, 1985"
wrong, again .
Then post the statements that reference a moderator handed in or seized at any other time in 1985. There are no such statements the only statements discuss the moderator found by Boutflour on Aug 10, that was turned over Aug 12. You can't post any because there are none you just make up the claim there are statements and expect people to accept your word.
"No witness statements provide any evidentiary support to the rubbish you post about Jones seizing a moderator from WHF or Ann Eaton handing in another moderator on September 11" thats what you think. yes, she did .
I know there are no statements that suggest Jones seized a moderator on Aug 7 or at any other date from WHF. The only statements discussing a moderator he took possession of assert it was handed to him by Peter Eaton at Oak Farm on Aug 12. The trial testimony says the same. There is no testimony or any statements discussing Ann Eaton turning over a moderator on September 11 or any other date to police. If they existed you would have posted them you are simply trying to play games but such games are futile- as futile as me going to the Lottery Commission and telling them I won the PowerBall jackpot and telling them to just trust I have a ticket that demonstrates I won the grand prize though I refuse to show it to them. They would not even give me so much as a dime just on my say so.
"There are no lab records detailing any moderators seized from WHF on August 7 by police"
yes, there is Wrong again, bozo
"or handed in by Ann Eaton on September 11."
yes, there is
"Lab records detail a single moderator being examined and it is the moderator the statements all say was taken from Peter Eaton on the 12th of August."
no, they don't. Lab' records give information about 3 of them and it is the moderator the statements all say was taken from Peter Eaton on the 12th of August.
You offer no evidence at all to prove any of your claims. We are just expected to believe your claims though the documents on this site and the COLP findings say you are wrong. It doesn't work that way you need to produce evidence to back up your claims- no tickee no laundry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob05sr6hKW8 "There are no police records detailing any moderators seized from WHF on August 7 by police"
yes, there are
"or handed in by Ann Eaton on September 11."
Wrong again, she handed over a parker hale silencer on that occasion
"Police records detail a single moderator being taken from Peter Eaton on the 12th of August. they took one from him on that date"
this was in addition to the silencer taken frim the scene by DS Jones on 7th August 1985, and much later another parker hale silencer handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11 September 1985...
I posted how there are no police records of any moderator being collected in 1985 beyond the one foudn by Boutflour that was handed in on Aug 12. You have offered nothing to refute this. You have produced no police records or other documents showing a moderator was seized at WHF on Aug 7 and another turned in by Eaton on September 11 all you have done is repeat your unsupported allegation that 2 other moderators were seized. Insisting it happened doesn't prove it happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob05sr6hKW8"There are no photographs detailing multiple moderators let alone photos asserting police seized 1 on the day of the murders and other photos stating one was taken from Ann Eaton on September 11. The only way photos could state such is if they had writing on the back but there are no such photos."
why are you making up all this nonsense about all these different photograohs of alk the parker hale silencers. You are a complete fruitcake
You are the one who made up nonsense about possessing photos detailing multiple moderators including one marked SJ/1 on the label. I am merely pointing out why your claims of possessing such are not credible. Talk is cheap produce if you fail to produce the photos that is solid evidence that you made it up.
"The prefix changes have been innocently explained."
no, they have not
Sure they have.
The statements of all involved and the various things done to documents that contained the exhibit references to amend those references in the documents when the changes occurred all confirm what Jones claimed.
"At the time Jones turned it over to Cook he didn't know who found the moderator so it was simply given his initials SBJ."
no, it was not. There was no label on it, Cook marked the brown label at the lab', he marked it SJ/1, that is the absolute truth of the matter
Cook stated he marked the label SBJ/1. You keep lying pointlessly about this:
The last line states as clear as day it was marked SBJ/1 and this is from his COLP interview:
It is confirmed by the Holab form:
Your claim you have a photo of it with a label marked SJ/1 is a lie which is why you can't produce such photo.
"In September after interviewing the family they found out it was found by David Boutflour so at that time it was changed to DB/1"
you bumbling bafoon, no it wasn't, the parker hale silencer sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, had the exhibit mark of DB/1 (23), so that part of your nonsencicle explanation sank along with the titanic
This is just another of your lies. There is no original Holab form that was submitted on 8/30/85 which referred to the moderator as lab number 23 and police exhibit DB/1. You can't produce such document because it doesn't exist.[/quote]
"and the lab was notified of the change"
and when was that, I might as well humour you?
The precise date might be in the COLP report, the exact date might never have been ascertained. The COLP interviews demonstrate it happened whether they documented the exact date of the change is unknown. You refuse to release the report, the pertinent portions of the Dickinson report, and other COLP documents that would discuss such precisely because you know if you released such then the jig would be up for sure. The jig is up anyway though because the burden of proof rests with you the proponent and you have none. I don't have to prove a negative you have to prove your claims but you can't because they are untrue.
"At the same time [that the moderator was renamed DB/1] the scope was named DB/2, the bullets DB/3 and the shotgun shells DB/4."
wrong again, bozo, these items all had AE and CAE exhibit references beforehand, get your facts right
My facts are straight. The same time the change was made to reflect the moderator had been found by Boutflour the exhibit references for the other items he found were also changed. Thus the scope was changed to DB/2, the bullets to DB/3 and shotgun shells were DB/4. Upon learning DB was already in use by David Bird these all changed in unison to DRB/1-4. So the change to DB featured all of them changing to DB and then the further change also featured all of them. I don't see you claiming there were 3 scopes by virtue of the 3 changes...
"Later they realized David Bird was using DB and thus there were already exhibits with the same designations so they renamed the Boutflour exhibits DRB."
that was the punitive explanation offered but it can easily be exposed as an unnecessary lie. Since, the exhibited items in question were unique to a particular person, found or seized in unique circumstances, so there was no need to change any exhibit references. These individual items had different lab' item reference numbers, and different court exhibit numbers, so as aI say, there was no need to tamper with exhibit references at all.
First of all Biff, this is the 5th time you said this- the word is "putative" not "punitive" you sound like a fool when you say it like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rze0XkDUqQSecond, the exhibit prefix is supposed to denote WHO found an item so that it could be instantly known just by virtue of the prefix that is why different prefixes are used. Otherwise they could just keep a running number and would not even need prefixes at all. They amended it to denote who actually found them.
"They HAD TO change them because there was no way to have two sets of DB exhibits in the same case it would be too confusing."
what an utter load of codswallop. How much more confusibg would it be to keep changing the exhibit references to the same item?
Amending the exhibit numbers didn't cause any confusion it cleared up confusion that would have been caused by multiple items having the same exact exhibit reference.
"You ignore the evidence and ridiculously assert DB/1 and 2 had to be 2 different moderators."
I did no such thing, bozo, I have never said DRB/2 was a silencer, so get your flippin facts right
It was supposed to read DB/1 and DRB/1. By the context you should have figured that out since I stated so many times in the same post DB/2 was the scope and particularly given the point I was making that followed:
"You don't similarly assert there were 2 scopes, two sets of bullets, two sets of shotgun shells."
"You don't similarly assert there were 2 scopes, two sets of bullets, two sets of shotgun shells. So you ignore the changes of the other items to suit your agenda and this cherry picking shows you are not being sincere but rather just pushing your agenda."
what the blooming hell are you going on about, are you nuts or something?
I don't know how I can spell it out anymore clearly. The exhibit references for all 4 items found in the closet by Boutflour were changed at the same time the moderator reference was changed. The moderator became DB/1, the scope DB/2 the bullets DB/3 the shotgun shells DB/4. When the change was made to DRB because David Bird was using DB already the 4 were changed in unison to DRB/1-4.
There is no way to claim the change from DB/1-4 to DRB/1-4 was anything except because of the conflict caused by David Bird already utilizing DB. If one is making the claim there was a different moderator issued DRB/1 then to be consistent one would have to argue there were another scope named DRB/2 and another set of bullets....
