PC Whiddon got it spot on in the witness statement he made to COLP, about the identity of the silencer (SBJ/1) returned to the police in November 1985, for the very first time, when he said it had been found at the scene by DS Jones. Now, according to the relatives, DS Jones himself, and Ronny Crook, by 12th August 1985, David Bootyflour had found it at the scene on the 10th August, and it had been taken away from the scene back to Annie Eaton's house and kept in storage there until Pete Eaton supposedly handed it over to Jonesie on 12th. PC Whiddon was the case exhibits officer, he would have known which people had found which item, so if by 13 November 1985, Whiddon is saying the silencer bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1 was returned for the first time to police from the lab', and that this silencer had been found at the scene by DS Jones, then of course this silencer cannot have been the same silencer found at the scene by David Bootyflour on 10th August, which was taken to the lab' by Ronny Crook, and examined by Glynis Howard that same day before being handed back to the police the same date, because according to PC Whiddons COLP statement, the first time silencer SBJ/1 got handed back to police by the lab' was on 13th November 1985. Well, I thought that by 30th August 1985, the question of wrongly labelled silencers had been altered into DB/1, and that on this date the silencer submitted to the lab' by police had the identifying mark of DB/1, not SBJ/1? If the silencer had become DB/1 by 30th August 1985, how could the lab' be handing it back to police, in particular, to the exhibits officer in the case, PC Whiddon, on 13 November 1985, still bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1?
If on 13th August 1985, the silencer taken to the lab' had been SBJ/1, and as we are being led to believe that Howard handed that silencer (SBJ/1) back to the police on that very same date (13th August 1985), then it can't have been the same silencer handed back to police on 13th November 1985, for the very first time, because it had already been handed back to the police once already on 13th August 1985...
What chance did the jury have of knowing that the silencer at the heart of the case, containing the key blood group evidence, and paint, bearing the identifying mark of DRB/1, was in fact the same silencer returned to police from the lab' on the 13th August, and again on 13th November 1985, under conflicting exhibit references, SBJ/1 (13th August) and SBJ/1 (13th November), when by all accounts the silencer sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, had an identifying mark if DB/1? Let's get the facts right, exhibit references bearing the identifying marks of DB/1 to DB/7 did not come into existence until recovered from the scene on the 11th September 1985, so how can the silencer have an exhibit reference of DB/1 from as early as 30th August 1985, in time for police to send that silencer (DB/1) to the lab' bearing that (DB/1) identifying mark, some 13 days before DB/1 had even been recovered from the scene on the 11th September 1985?
The jury were not made aware of these very serious contradictions involving different exhibit references of silencers, and how bent coppers and prosecutors had sought to merge all these different silencer references into one, under the guise of exhibit DRB/1...
Bent coppers, dishonest relatives, dodgy blood group and paint evidence, wrong conviction...
