HOLD THE FRONT PAGE HEADLINE - Bamber was definitely framed. ..

[mike tesko]

Whereas, another contradictory Lab' document, dated, 13th August 1985, refers to the same silencer, by the alternative exhibit reference of DB/1...

How can a silencer which had no exhibit reference at all when Jones handed it over to Crooky, at 9.15am, who upon arrival at the lab' to get Glynis Howard to examine it, Crooky had given the silencer exhibit reference Sj/1 (or SBJ/1), yet Crooky makes a witness statement declaring that at 9.15am, on 13th August 1985, he received a silencer bearing exhibit reference DRB/1? Alternatively, the lab' document records the exhibit reference DB/1 for one and the same item...

If ever there was such a blatently obvious attempt to falsify and merge the exhibit references of different silencers and merge them into one, then this is it...

[mike tesko]

Then, as if matters do not get any worse for this group of prosecution witnesses, here is Davy Bootyflour, joining in the prosecution festivities, by declaring the following:-

"This statement, consisting of 1 pages, each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that if it is tended into evidence I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not know to be true".


This is a typical example of the dishonesty that I am drawing everyone's attention to. Since, all that was required for David Bootyflour to have done, was to tell the truth by declaring that on the 10th August when he found the silencer it did not have an exhibit reference, although since that time I understand that it has been referred to by many different exhibit references such as SJ/1, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1. I do not know when these alternative exhibit references came into being, or who altered them on each of these occasions..

You see, if Bootyflour had taken that approach the jury would have been left in no doubt that there was a problem of integrity which needed to be resolved before they could accept that the silencer being relied at the court in those proceedings under an exhibit reference of DRB/1, was the very same unidentified silencer found at the scene by David Bootyflour a long time beforehand...

There was an integrity issue at each and every stage when the exhibit reference became altered. And unless the jury were satisfied that all these different contradictory exhibit references were explained away by innocent reasons, the jury would have no option other than to reject the silencer altogether, which of course would also mean that the key blood group and paint evidence would have also been rejected. So, the police, the experts at the lab' and the relatives all took the easy option, by just referring to the silencer by its last known exhibit reference, which quite frankly is just not good enough. You can't be allowed to fabricate evidence in this manner, just so it avoids a thorough examination into the entire history and the integrity of the silencer now bearing the exhibit reference DRB/1...

[mike tesko]

Organised collusion, they were all in on making all these different silencers into one. All making false witness statements, lying about a silencers identity when the said silencer either did not have an exhibit reference, or a different one...

[David1819]

The only evidence you produce to support your claim of a moderator being found by Ann Eaton on September 11 is an entry from Whiddon made in November which he admits was a mistake.  He wrote 9/11 as the date items were found assuming all DB items were found on that day though in fact they had been found on August 10. SO far from Jeremy's team being able to use this they already are aware that this allegation fell apart because they made this allegation to COLP and COLP ended up refuting it

How safe is it to take Whiddons word? You do realise COLP had an agenda to cover up the police incompetence

[scipio_usmc]

On 13th August 1985, DI Ronny Crook, received a silencer from DS Jones, and at this time, it did not have an exhibit reference attached to it. Cook took it along to the Lab' to be provisionally examined by Glynis Howard, and he gave it the exhibit reference of SJ/1. Some people argue that Cook gave the silencer in question by that stage the exhibit reference of SBJ/1. This discrepancy warranted sorting out during the trial, because it has a direct bearing upon the integrity of the silencer evidence, as relied upon by the prosecution.

On 23rd September 1986, Crooky made a witness statement. It starts off with the following Citation clearly printed on the front page, as follows:-

"This statement, consisting of 1 pages, each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that if it is tended into evidence I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not know to be true".

Well, what I want to know is why hasn't Crooky been prosecuted for making a false witness statement about the exhibit reference at the time / date specified in the body of his signed statement?

Because evidence elsewhere confirms that the exhibit reference of that silencer at 9.15am, on the 13th August 1985, was definitely not DRB/1...

The statement doesn't assert the reference was DRB/1 at the time it was collected. The statement refers to it as DRB/1 because that was the current reference.  Furthermore, Whiddon told COLP he went through all the statements and adjusted the numbers after they changed so that they would all be in sync so even the older statements ended up being amended.

 

[scipio_usmc]

How safe is it to take Whiddons word? You do realise COLP had an agenda to cover up the police incompetence

The ultimate evidence rests in the people who collected the evidence.  They are the witnesses who matter. Whiddon wasn't involved in the collection. Whiddon wrote something different than everyone else did and different than all other documents had listed.  The only way to figure out why he wrote something different is to ask him.  COLP did so. Whiddon wrote that all DB exhibits were found September 11 but admitted it was a mistake.  He admitted he was not informed when they were found and didn't see it in the documents he had before him so he just assumed everything was found the day 2 DB items were collected from Ann Eaton.  Nothing was found that day in fact everything was found August 10 according to the witnesses who were present when the items were found. 

Only DB/2 and DB/3 were handed in by Ann Eaton on September 11 the moderator was handed in August 12 and DB/4 was handed in September 14.  We know this because of the statements from those who handed the items to police and the statements of the police who received the items.  Those statements existed before the records that Whiddon created containing the errors.  Whiddon didn't have access to such though and they didn't have a computer system for him to have easy access he was stuck with the limited info he had been given. 

So the bottom line is to ask where he came up with the entry you have to ask him.  Consulting those who found the items, those who turned them over to police and the police who accepted them is how you figure out when and where the items were found and when and where turned over.

The burden is on those who want to challenge them to prove their claims to be untrue.

 

[scipio_usmc]

Whereas, another contradictory Lab' document, dated, 13th August 1985, refers to the same silencer, by the alternative exhibit reference of DB/1...

How can a silencer which had no exhibit reference at all when Jones handed it over to Crooky, at 9.15am, who upon arrival at the lab' to get Glynis Howard to examine it, Crooky had given the silencer exhibit reference Sj/1 (or SBJ/1), yet Crooky makes a witness statement declaring that at 9.15am, on 13th August 1985, he received a silencer bearing exhibit reference DRB/1? Alternatively, the lab' document records the exhibit reference DB/1 for one and the same item...

If ever there was such a blatently obvious attempt to falsify and merge the exhibit references of different silencers and merge them into one, then this is it...

There was no SJ/1 the more you post that lie the more you demonstrate your dishonesty.  In the meantime the original of the form you posted said SBJ/1 after the change they amended the form like they amended MANY documents. This was pointed out to you countless times. 

You are dishonestly suggesting you have new evidence Jeremy and his lawyers were unaware of on the contrary they made allegations to COLP based on these very documents and COLP learned they were simply amended for valid reasons.  Your argument is of no use to Jeremy at all it was already found to be baseless.

This kind of crap is only useful for propaganda to fool uninformed people into thinking there is evidence of an effort to doctor evidence in order to frame Jeremy.  Of course it is all bunk no such evidence exists this supposed evidence is a farce.

 

[scipio_usmc]

Organised collusion, they were all in on making all these different silencers into one. All making false witness statements, lying about a silencers identity when the said silencer either did not have an exhibit reference, or a different one...

There was only one moderator at WHF and only one moderator found at WHF and turned over to police.  That moderator was known as SBJ/1 then amended to DB/1 and ultimately DRB/1.  You have zero evidence of any other moderators being at WHF and zero evidence of multiple moderators being collected.  Other items also went through the same changes at the same time for the same reason.  I don't see you alleging there were 3 scopes since the scope was AE/1 then DB/2 and finally DRB/2. 

[David1819]

The ultimate evidence rests in the people who collected the evidence.  They are the witnesses who matter. Whiddon wasn't involved in the collection. Whiddon wrote something different than everyone else did and different than all other documents had listed.  The only way to figure out why he wrote something different is to ask him.  COLP did so. Whiddon wrote that all DB exhibits were found September 11 but admitted it was a mistake.  He admitted he was not informed when they were found and didn't see it in the documents he had before him so he just assumed everything was found the day 2 DB items were collected from Ann Eaton.  Nothing was found that day in fact everything was found August 10 according to the witnesses who were present when the items were found. 

Only DB/2 and DB/3 were handed in by Ann Eaton on September 11 the moderator was handed in August 12 and DB/4 was handed in September 14.  We know this because of the statements from those who handed the items to police and the statements of the police who received the items.  Those statements existed before the records that Whiddon created containing the errors.  Whiddon didn't have access to such though and they didn't have a computer system for him to have easy access he was stuck with the limited info he had been given. 

So the bottom line is to ask where he came up with the entry you have to ask him.  Consulting those who found the items, those who turned them over to police and the police who accepted them is how you figure out when and where the items were found and when and where turned over.

The burden is on those who want to challenge them to prove their claims to be untrue.

The only argument Jeremy supporters could say against this is that they are all conspiring and sticking to the script and afraid to say otherwise in fear of being prosecuted for perverting the course of justice and perjury.  Very unlikely situation

[scipio_usmc]

The only argument Jeremy supporters could say against this is that they are all conspiring and sticking to the script and afraid to say otherwise in fear of being prosecuted for perverting the course of justice and perjury.  Very unlikely situation

Most do allege there is such a vast conspiracy with no one talking.  Alleging it is not enough though you have to prove it to get his conviction vacated.  If there were such a vast conspiracy with no one talking then it is too bad for Jeremy because it means he has no evidence and that is essentially what he contends-that they framed him but he can't prove it.  But as you point out it is virtually unheard of for vast conspiracies like that alleged to exist with no one talking. The conspiracies alleged by people invariably make no sense otherwise are not fleshed out. When you ask for them to flesh it out it is sort of like this:




 

[mike tesko]

Let's recap all the prosecution witnesses who resorted to falsifying their witness statements, by suggesting that the silencer only had the exhibit reference DRB/1 when it was found, handed over to someone else, sent to the lab' to be examined, or shown?

David Bootyflour
Robert Bootyflour
Annie Eaton
Peter Eaton
Ronnie Crook
Stan the man Jones
Radcliffe the gun dealer
Glynis Howard
John Hayward
Malc' Fletcher
Elliot (not the Ness)
Prosecutor

During the trial, the silencer was always referred to as exhibit reference DRB/1, with no inclination or mention at all to the court, or the Jury, or to the media and general public at large that there existed so much dishonesty and confusion surrounding other silencers bearing other exhibit references which very deliberately and discreetly behind the scenes, all became merged into the same silencer, using dirty tricks to fool the jury into relying upon fake evidence to help convict Jeremy Bamber of the murders, murders which police know he could not have committed, and debt riddled relatives who kept insisting that he had....

[mike tesko]

There was wholesale collusion between police, relatives, lab' experts, and the prosecution to fool everyone else into thinking there were no problems surround the integrity of the silencer, to which crucial blood group and aga paint was conveyed as the source with which to establish Bambers culpability...

They faked evidence to help convict an innocent victim of murders he could not and had not committed...

[mike tesko]

The correct way to approach this problem, if there was a problem with the exhibit references, would have been to leave the original labels, and recorded exhibit references as they were in all documents, statements and reports, and make reports, fresh records, witness statements, pocketbook entries, stating the need for the exhibit reference and lab' item numbers to be altered, each and every time there might be justification for altering an exhibit reference. At the very least, alterations had to be made in records, the old exhibit reference, should have been crossed out, and the person who crossed it out, should have initialed it, and done exactly the same thing when altering it into a new exhibit reference. In this way everyone could come along at a later date and instantly know who changed the exhibit references, and why. But in the instant case all of this has been ignored, and all the prosecution witnesses have all colluded and faked the exhibit reference to a silencer which certainly did not have such an exhibit reference at the time it was being referred to...

That is a deception by anybody's standards...

[mike tesko]

Lets be honest, how many of us would be happy to find out that the most significant piece of evidence in the whole prosecution case against us, was not properly documented, not put in secure storage for 17 days, but instead carried around in the coat pocket of the senior scenes of Crime officer? Would you not expect there to be legal arguments made in open court to test whether or not this evidence ought to be admitted or not?

Of course you would...

Then, on top of this. You find out that the item of evidence being used to prosecute you, has an exhibit reference which does not register in any police records. You discover somebody has altered the exhibit  references, and replaced these with the exhibit reference used to you being prosecuted under? Don't tell me that any of you would not be shouting from the roof tops of the riability of such evidence...

Of course you would...

[mike tesko]

How utterley astounding, that police had the silencer evidence in the pocket, so to speak, and that contained inside the silencer, contained in the pocket, was paint from the kitchen aga, and the unique blood group evidence belonging solely to Sheila Caffell? How come none of the paint from the kitchen aga, and Sheila's blood never contaminated each other?