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

[mike tesko]

Section 3:-

[mike tesko]

The contents of this fingerprint document,(Section 1) confirms that DS Davidson was the fingerprints officer who attended the scene on the 7th August 1985, at 9am. It means that Davidson knew about the silencer (SBJ/1) collected from the scene by DS Jones, that same morning (7th August 1985)...

[mike tesko]

The contents of this fingerprint document,(Section 1) confirms that DS Davidson was the fingerprints officer who attended the scene on the 7th August 1985, at 9am. It means that Davidson knew about the silencer (SBJ/1) collected from the scene by DS Jones, that same morning (7th August 1985)...

Based even on the overall content of the fingerprint documents (sections, 1, 2, and 3), DS Davidson lied to the COLP investigators by claiming he had no knowledge of a silencer at all, because he signed this fingerprint form consisting of 3 different sections, bearing dates, (1) - 7th August 1985, (2) - 10th September 1985, and (3) -

[scipio_usmc]

Here is section 1, of the fingerprint form:-

The 4 items all listed together under a receipt index number of 5620, date of crime, 7th August 1985, time and date of arrival at the scene, 9am, on the 7th August 1985...

On the above date, at the above time, the fingerprint officer attending the scene at whf, is identified as DS Davidson...

The date listed is the date of the crime and date of attendance at the crime scene not the date items were taken from the scene or the date any items were fingerprinted.

[scipio_usmc]

Receipt number 5620, refers to all these items seized at the scene on the 7th August 1985. To confirm this as being true, it will be necessary to identify other items bearing receipt numbers 5619 and 5621...

The anshuzt rifle was fingerprinted on the 9th August 1985, the ammunition magazine, 25 cartridge cases and the silencer itself were all fingerprinted on the 9th August 1985 (Factual)...

This document doesn't say anything about the date any of the items were fingerprinted.  OTHER documents detail the actual fingerprinting including who did it, when and what was found.  The bottom section is completed by the people doing the testing not the first section. The bottom section with the results is not Davidson's handwriting.  The actual documents detailing the fingerprinting reveal Cook did it not Davidson and he first did so on the 15th of August and broguth this form with him and they returned HQ's copy on the very next day the 16th.  The other 2 copies they kept for their records for when the results were finally obtained and comparisons made.  This form is SOLELY to note the results of comparisons done not to detail where and when the fingerprinting was done this form is for the comparisons of the fingerprints found to the various fingerprint cards.

It states nothing about when the items were fingerprinted or by whom your claims it states August 9 is a lie such is no where on the form.  The documents detailing the fingerprinting reveal they were first fingerprinted the 15th.  They were subsequently fingerprinted on other occasions including subjected to superglue fuming.

[scipio_usmc]

Section2:-

All it says is two sets of prints were received on 9/10 presumably belonging to MM and Jeremy and on August 9 they obtained fingerprint samples from Nevill, June and Sheila.

There is nothing detailing when the items were fingerprinted.

[scipio_usmc]

Section 3:-

Details that 5 prints were found on the rifle 2 of which were adequate to try to match to someone but 3 which were insufficient to match to anyone.

It doesn't detail when the rifle or other items were fingerprinted or when the comparisons were made.  Such things are recorded on other documents this simply notes a result was received.

[scipio_usmc]

The contents of this fingerprint document,(Section 1) confirms that DS Davidson was the fingerprints officer who attended the scene on the 7th August 1985, at 9am. It means that Davidson knew about the silencer (SBJ/1) collected from the scene by DS Jones, that same morning (7th August 1985)...

It doesn't state any such thing.  It simply says he filled out the form that would be used eventually by the lab to record if any results were obtained. It doesn't detail when the testing occurred or who did the fingerprint testing other documents exist to record such.

[scipio_usmc]

Based even on the overall content of the fingerprint documents (sections, 1, 2, and 3), DS Davidson lied to the COLP investigators by claiming he had no knowledge of a silencer at all, because he signed this fingerprint form consisting of 3 different sections, bearing dates, (1) - 7th August 1985, (2) - 10th September 1985, and (3) -

At best this proves he was told about the moderator in order to fill the document out but forgot about it and paid no attention and wasn't told much about it.  COLP recognized he must have been told once but forgot and didn't care because such is insignificant.  They cared about if someone told him something about it that could be indicative of those people engaging in wrongdoing.  But no one told him who found it when etc.  SO he was of no use to them in that regard.

Your distortions are just making you look bad but I guess you already have zero credibility so can't fall further no matter how hard you try.  Long ago you reached absolute zero.

 

[mike tesko]

The date listed is the date of the crime and date of attendance at the crime scene not the date items were taken from the scene or the date any items were fingerprinted.

Rifle,(7th August 1985),  its ammunition magazine, (7th August 1985) and bullet cases (7th / 8th August 1985), and a silencer, (7th August 1985), were all seized, found, handed to, or retained at the scene prior to the 9th August 1985. DS Davidson is the nominated fingerprint officer in the case, he signs at the bottom of section 3, at at time when he brought these items to be fingerprinted, at that stage, the contents of section 2 and 3 were not completed...

[mike tesko]

This document doesn't say anything about the date any of the items were fingerprinted.   But it records the date DS Davidson put his name by way of his signature and the time and date police had possession of the silencer, and the other items (7th August 1985), all the items being grouped together under the index receipt reference of 5620... OTHER documents detail the actual fingerprinting including who did it, when and what was found.  The bottom section is completed by the people doing the testing not the first section. The bottom section with the results is not Davidson's handwriting.  The actual documents detailing the fingerprinting reveal Cook did it not Davidson and he first did so on the 15th of August and broguth this form with him and they returned HQ's copy on the very next day the 16th.  The other 2 copies they kept for their records for when the results were finally obtained and comparisons made.  This form is SOLELY to note the results of comparisons done not to detail where and when the fingerprinting was done this form is for the comparisons of the fingerprints found to the various fingerprint cards.

It states nothing about when the items were fingerprinted or by whom your claims it states August 9 is a lie such is no where on the form.  The documents detailing the fingerprinting reveal they were first fingerprinted the 15th. DS Davidson was present at the scene when DS Jones returned to the farmhouse on the morning of 7th August 1985  They were subsequently fingerprinted on other occasions including subjected to supe rglue fuming.

[mike tesko]

It doesn't state any such thing. Yes, it does, it clearly states that the F/P officer in the case, was / is DS Davidson...  It simply says he filled out the form that would be used eventually by the lab to record if any results were obtained. No, it does not, it clearly states that DS Davidson was the fingerprint officer in the case, which took place on 7th August 1985, and that DS Davidson was aware by 9am, that same date, that police had seized or taken control of the rifle, the ammunition magazine, the 25 cases, and the silencer... It doesn't detail when the testing occurred or who did the fingerprint testing other documents exist to record such. For the purpose of the point I set to make, it is irrellevant who fingerprinted the silencer, or even when, because notwithstanding the now known facts, you appear to be agreeing with me that police did have possession of the silencer prior to the occasion when David Boutflour found the silencer (again) inside the gun cupboard...

[mike tesko]

If so, then there was obviously some truth in what Anthony Pargeter was told by David Boutflour during the first days of the police investigation into these 5 deaths when Boutflour told Pargeter that police had given the silencer back to the family, Boutflour explained it this way to Pargeter as he did, because Boutflour was fully aware that police had returned the silencer in question, back into the gun cupboard on the evening of 9th August 1985, when Essex police gave the keys to whf back to Ann Eaton, and Peter Eaton at the scene...

[mike tesko]

If so, then there was obviously some truth in what Anthony Pargeter was told by David Boutflour during the first days of the police investigation into these 5 deaths when Boutflour told Pargeter that police had given the silencer back to the family, Boutflour explained it this way to Pargeter as he did, because Boutflour was fully aware that police had returned the silencer in question, back into the gun cupboard on the evening of 9th August 1985, when Essex police gave the keys to whf back to Ann Eaton, and Peter Eaton at the scene...

The spot light is also now firmly on what was meant by Ann Eaton, when she wrote in her handwritten notes, that on 9th August 1985, her husband, Peter, had returned the gun back to whf - was the reference to 'THE GUN', reference to the silencer? Is the truth of the matter, that Jones handed the silencer back to Peter Eaton at the scene on the evening of the 9th August 1985, and that when DS Jones heard on the 12th August 1985, from Robert Boutflour, news to the effect that his son, David had found a silencer in the gun cupboard at the scene, a couple of days earlier, that DS Jones panicked thinking it must have been the silencer he himself had handed to Peter Eaton on the 9th August 1985, so Jones went back to revisit Peter Eaton at his home address, on the evening of 12th August 1985, and subsequently took possession of that silencer, again, thinking that that would be the end of the matter, insofar as police handing the silencer back to the family. However, little did DS Jones know, that there were normally 2 identical looking silencers kept inside the aforementioned gun cupboard, and what the police did not realise until the following month, was that the silencer found at the scene, had not been the same silencer that was handed back to Essex police by Peter Eaton on the evening of 12th August 1985, Boutflour had kept the silencer he found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, until the 10th September 1985...

[scipio_usmc]

Rifle,(7th August 1985),  its ammunition magazine, (7th August 1985) and bullet cases (7th / 8th August 1985), and a silencer, (7th August 1985), were all seized, found, handed to, or retained at the scene prior to the 9th August 1985. DS Davidson is the nominated fingerprint officer in the case, he signs at the bottom of section 3, at at time when he brought these items to be fingerprinted, at that stage, the contents of section 2 and 3 were not completed...

The document in question doesn't state the date any of the times were found, seized by police or fingerprinted.  You always do the same thing you repeated the same disproved mantra over and over again.  You can't identify where on the document they indicate the date each specific item was found, by whom each was found, when each item was fingerprinted or who fingerprinted each item.

That is because for the purposes of this document NONE of those things matter.  Other documents were created to record such things.  This document exists solely for the lab to record whether results were obtained.  It notifies the officer who submitted it that results were obtained and the officer knows at that point to go research what the results were.

If you want to see with specificity what results then you need to look at the documents that were kept from the testing which indicate who tested the items, when, where any prints were found on such items and who the prints belonged to if they made an identification.

Your distortions simply dig your hole deeper nothing more.