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

[scipio_usmc]

Since there is no evidence, and there was no evidence that the silencer exhibited at trial, had ever had the identifying marks of either, "SJ/1", or "SBJ/1", there was no way of knowing with certainty that the silencer exhibited during the trial at court, and the silencer which produced the key blood group and paint evidence, was in fact one and the same silencer, or an identical looking one, which had come into the possession of the police by some other means not yet admitted to by them, or their mouth pieces..

There is considerable evidence that SBJ/1 was redesignated DB/1 and ultimately DRB/1.  The redesnations occurred to several items not just the moderator.  The scope was redesignated DB/1, rifle ammunition DB/3 and shotgun ammo DB/4.  The all were changed together to DRB when it was discovered Bird was using DB.

You spend so much time on wasted convoluted theories.  If they were going to plant evidence they would plant it in SBJ/1.  They would not have planted blood in/on other moderators or paint on other moderators.  You have no evidence of anything being planted but if you insist on making allegations just be normal and claim they did it to the moderator collected in this case.  Prior to the COLP investigation Jeremy had no idea the moderator was redesignated or why he found documents referring to SBJ/1 and DB/1 and made allegations blindly.  Those allegations were disproved.  They redesignations have nothing to do with anything and simply are used for coming up with absurd convoluted tales.

Tales of evidence being planted can be made up without any reference to the redesignations which were easily explained away. If someone were planting evidence they would simply plant it on SBJ/1 not plant it on others and have others collected and merger them together such is ridiculous and not necessary.

Since you have no evidence to actually back up that anyone planting anything you use the redesignations to try to create the spectre that they were doing wrong and this is an attempt to avoid having to find real evidence.

[mike tesko]

There is considerable evidence that SBJ/1 was redesignated DB/1 and ultimately DRB/1.  The redesnations occurred to several items not just the moderator.  The scope was redesignated DB/1, rifle ammunition DB/3 and shotgun ammo DB/4.  The all were changed together to DRB when it was discovered Bird was using DB.

You spend so much time on wasted convoluted theories.  If they were going to plant evidence they would plant it in SBJ/1.  They would not have planted blood in/on other moderators or paint on other moderators.  You have no evidence of anything being planted but if you insist on making allegations just be normal and claim they did it to the moderator collected in this case.  Prior to the COLP investigation Jeremy had no idea the moderator was redesignated or why he found documents referring to SBJ/1 and DB/1 and made allegations blindly.  Those allegations were disproved.  They were not disproved, a jury has never rejected any of this material. During the trial, there was no mention at all or whatsoever that the silencer had got multiple exhibit references, the silencer was simply referred to as "DRB/1"They redesignations have nothing to do with anything and simply are used for coming up with absurd convoluted tales.

Tales of evidence being planted can be made up without any reference to the redesignations which were easily explained away. If someone were planting evidence they would simply plant it on SBJ/1 not plant it on others and have others collected and merger them together such is ridiculous and not necessary.

Since you have no evidence to actually back up that anyone planting anything you use the redesignations to try to create the spectre that they were doing wrong and this is an attempt to avoid having to find real evidence.

[scipio_usmc]

Glynis Howard, only ever signed one exhibit label in connection with the silencer she examined on the 13th August 1985 - she told the COLP investigators. She told them that the exhibit label she had signed, had the identifying mark of "SBJ/1", yet when COLP showed her the exhibit label bearing her signature, and the signature of Ron Cook, bearibg inly the identifying mark of "DRB/1", she could not explain  how her signature appeared on that exhibit label...

More disturbingly, When the COLP investigatirs pointed out to her that a witness statement made in her name, identified the silencer she had examined on the 13th August 1985, as exhibit "DRB/1", she denied ever having made such a witness statement, or dealing at all with a silencer marked "DB/1", only the one bearing the reference mark of "SBJ/1"...

She didn't deny signing the statement she was mad that they administratively amended the Exhibit number to DRB/1.  She said if they asked her to sign a new one she would have done so.  But you well know they amended all the documents when they made the changes.  You posted the statements where it was discussed how they were told to make the exhibit numbers uniform across all the documents including statements so they would be uniform and there would be no confusion.

The document she signed on August 13 said SBJ/1.  She was told of the change to DB so her November examination form was marked DB.  She amended the reference before she submitted it. After it was changed again the documents already in existence were all changed administratively.  It would be quite confusing having documents discussing 2 different DB/1s, 2 different DB/2s and so forth plus some documents referring to some of these at DRB/1-4.

Moroever, you got the signature issue backwards.  COLP asked her why her signature was not on the label.  She previously told them she signed it.  She clarified she signed the one marked SBJ/1 so that was why her signature was missing on the one they showed her marked DRB/1.

 

[scipio_usmc]

They were not disproved, a jury has never rejected any of this material. During the trial, there was no mention at all or whatsoever that the silencer had got multiple exhibit references, the silencer was simply referred to as "DRB/1"

It didn't require a jury to disprove them  The allegations were made by Jeremy to COLP.  The purpose was to have COLP investigate the allegations.  COLP investigated and the evidence they developed proved the allegations false.

They discovered the items being changed to DB to reflect they were found by Boutflour and then chanced again to DRB because there were already DB exhibits.   

[mike tesko]

She didn't deny signing the statement she was mad that they administratively amended the Exhibit number to DRB/1.  She said if they asked her to sign a new one she would have done so.  But you well know they amended all the documents when they made the changes.  You posted the statements where it was discussed how they were told to make the exhibit numbers uniform across all the documents including statements so they would be uniform and there would be no confusion.

The document she signed on August 13 said SBJ/1.  She was told of the change to DB so her November examination form was marked DB.  She amended the reference before she submitted it. After it was changed again the documents already in existence were all changed administratively.  It would be quite confusing having documents discussing 2 different DB/1s, 2 different DB/2s and so forth plus some documents referring to some of these at DRB/1-4.

Moroever, you got the signature issue backwards.  COLP asked her why her signature was not on the label.  She previously told them she signed it.  She clarified she signed the one marked SBJ/1 so that was why her signature was missing on the one they showed her marked DRB/1.

You have got it wrong yet again, and again, and again, you will never change...

[mike tesko]

It didn't require a jury to disprove them  The allegations were made by Jeremy to COLP.  The purpose was to have COLP investigate the allegations.  COLP investigated and the evidence they developed proved the allegations false.

They discovered the items being changed to DB to reflect they were found by Boutflour and then chanced again to DRB because there were already DB exhibits.   

COLP only investigated parts of Jeremys complaint, the parts they hand picked - this is typical of how the police and other administrative agencies and organisations investigate anything thrown up by an outsider. What happens is that the investigating body search for reasons to repel any allegation made against someone in the circle of investigation, ignoring anything which tends to prove an allegation. They conlude using these selected reasons without commenting at all on other more compelling evidence favouring guilt. Not all Jeremys complaints were individually investigated to the detail he had complained in, COLP carried out a 'general investigation', without needing to answer many of the individual complaints that  he made. COLP in fact discovered that there had been 2 identical looking parker hale silencers belonging to the family, which had been merged into one academically,  along with a 3rd police issue silencer taken completely off the radar. What became clear after the COLP investigation concluded was that it became difficult to determine one of these 3 key silencers from the other, or vice versa, because externally they were all pretty much alike. I have the full list of Jeremys complaints, and the response to them by the COLP investigators, and COLP do not address each and every complaint Jeremy made...

[mike tesko]

The admissibility of the silencer evidence is problematic, rendering the blood group and the paint evidence, unreliable. What everyone has got to realize is that without the introduction of the "Dodgy" silencer debacle, the blood group evidence found inside it, and the red paint from the aga surround found upon it, wouldn't count for nothing - in other words, once the police, the experts, and the relatives, started tampering with the exhibit reference to the key silencer, there was and is no opportunity in legal terms for the silencer itself, and the blood group activity ( A, EAP BA, HP 2-1 and AK1), nor red paint from the kitchen aga surround in and upon it, to be allowed into the trial proceedings, without an investigation into the integrity of the silencer itself, before the jury were given access to all the information, regarding (a) date and time of find of the silencer, (b) name of person who found it, (c) where stored until it was handed to the police, (d) names, dates and times of any person who had contact with the silencer prior to police gaining control of it, (e) where stored once police took possession of it, and by this I am of course referring to entries in police storeroom, to its place of storage, and or any entries from the property other than found book, (f) all movement records pertaining to the removal and return of the silencer, (g) the original signed and dated, exhibit labels, correctly documented...

[mike tesko]

The alleged sequence of events, involving the supposed and necessary changes to the key silencers exhibit references, at different stages of the two investigation beggars belief, and surely no-one of sound mind would believe or accept such utter gibberish. Let's get the facts into perspective, the key silencer has had its exhibit reference changed or altered, several times, from SJ/1, or SBJ/1 (vice versa), to DB/1, to DRB/1, yet nobody thought to properly document the reason, or the need, to alter or change one reference, to the other, by submitting an official police report, police action report, witness statement, or pocketbook entry, detailing such. Nobody seemed the least bit interested in whether or not the integrity of the silencer was /is genuine or not. The CPS never questioned the silencers integrity, neither did the trial judge, nor the prosecution, or defence counsel, or for that matter, Jeremy himself. The key silencer was simple introduced into the proceedings as, "COURT EXHIBIT, No.9", and exhibit reference, " DRB/1", lab' item number 22". Yet, had the jury known that, associated with this silencer, all manner of bizarre circumstance, including change in exhibit reference, alteration to its lab' item number, confusion as to the date of find, by whom, when and whom had handed it over, confusion regarding the dates it was submitted to the lab' to be examined, confusion about who fingerprinted the silencer, and when, on and on the discrepancies go, until you are left with no option but to come to the inevitable conclusion that with so much confusion and inconsistant facts, that surely the trial judge himself would certainly have directed the jury to totally disregard the silencer, and anything relating or associated with it. Of course, this means the blood group, and paint evidence, would also have to be discounted. Justice demands that this would have been and is the case, otherwise, the Criminal Justice System is brought into disrepute...

FACT...

[mike tesko]

The cover story introduced for the purpose of trying to overcome the logistical problem of the police having got possession of a different number of identical looking parker hale silencers at different times of the investigation, merging them all into as it were one and the same silencer, when logistically these silencers could not possibly have been one and the same silencer, because the official line was /is (a) that only Ron Cook fingerprinted the silencer, and that he did so on two separate occasions, namely 15th and 23rd August 1985. Simply for the purpose of being complete, Cook fingerprinted the silencer on the 15th August 1985, by 'Oblique light test', and again on 23rd August 1985, using 'Cynoacrylate fuming", otherwise known as, "Superglue treatment". However, DS Davidson carried out two separate fingerprintings of a silencer, on the 9th August 1985, and again on the 14th September 1985. So, in a nutshell, somebody has got the story, and the facts wrong, which is always a good sign that the cast have got mixed up, or lied because what they have proposed is totally untrue. DS Davidson accompanied DS Davidson in the fingerprinting exercise which they were obliged to carry out before the submission of 'that' silencer to the lab', along with other items to be checked for "blood" and "fibers", as per the instructions written onto a submission of articles form made out by the police,  after one of the other silencers (DB/1) had already been sent to the lab' , on the 30th August 1985. Bear this in mind, if all the different silencer references relate to one and the same silencer, how could Davidson and Eastwood fingerprint the silencer on the 14th September 1985, considering that the silencer (DB/1) had already been previously submitted to the same lab? If there was only the one silencer, and at various stages of the 2 investigations it had one or other of these highly volatile exhibit references, then Davidson and Eastwood could not possibly have fingerprinted the same silencer previously submitted to the lab', because that silencer was still there at the lab' secured in its property store...

So, Davidson and Eastwood fingerprinted a separate silencer, one which police still had in there possession by and after the 14th September 1985. By 20th September 1985, the silencer that they fingerprinted, was itself submitted to the lab' to be examined, and checked for blood and fivers..,

FACT...

[scipio_usmc]

The cover story introduced for the purpose of trying to overcome the logistical problem of the police having got possession of a different number of identical looking parker hale silencers at different times of the investigation, merging them all into as it were one and the same silencer, when logistically these silencers could not possibly have been one and the same silencer, because the official line was /is (a) that only Ron Cook fingerprinted the silencer, and that he did so on two separate occasions, namely 15th and 23rd August 1985. Simply for the purpose of being complete, Cook fingerprinted the silencer on the 15th August 1985, by 'Oblique light test', and again on 23rd August 1985, using 'Cynoacrylate fuming", otherwise known as, "Superglue treatment". However, DS Davidson carried out two separate fingerprintings of a silencer, on the 9th August 1985, and again on the 14th September 1985. So, in a nutshell, somebody has got the story, and the facts wrong, which is always a good sign that the cast have got mixed up, or lied because what they have proposed is totally untrue. DS Davidson accompanied DS Davidson in the fingerprinting exercise which they were obliged to carry out before the submission of 'that' silencer to the lab', along with other items to be checked for "blood" and "fibers", as per the instructions written onto a submission of articles form made out by the police,  after one of the other silencers (DB/1) had already been sent to the lab' , on the 30th August 1985. Bear this in mind, if all the different silencer references relate to one and the same silencer, how could Davidson and Eastwood fingerprint the silencer on the 14th September 1985, considering that the silencer (DB/1) had already been previously submitted to the same lab? If there was only the one silencer, and at various stages of the 2 investigations it had one or other of these highly volatile exhibit references, then Davidson and Eastwood could not possibly have fingerprinted the same silencer previously submitted to the lab', because that silencer was still there at the lab' secured in its property store...

So, Davidson and Eastwood fingerprinted a separate silencer, one which police still had in there possession by and after the 14th September 1985. By 20th September 1985, the silencer that they fingerprinted, was itself submitted to the lab' to be examined, and checked for blood and fivers..,

FACT...

Your lies are old. All your claims have been proven as lies or proven to have no support at all.

No matter hoe many times you are challenged to post evidence establishing Davidson printed a moderator in August and September you either refuse to do or revert to a form that simply states Davidson filled it out and doesn't claim when he filled it out or that he fingerprinted anything. 

The reality is there was only 1 moderator at WHF at the time of the murders.  There thus is no reason why the police would have multiple moderators and they didn't.  The evidence proves beyond question SBJ/1 was renamed with other items to reflect Boutflour found them.

It is bad enough to lie claiming the family planted blood in their own moderator and falsely submitted it as Nevill's and that police pretended they never collected Nevill's so this fabricated evidence can be used and that in order to do so in October they made up a new designation.

This makes no sense at all. Making up a new designation in October would not help hide it.  But worse you say they had a third one which they merged for no reason.  You take an already crappy story and make it more convoluted. You suggest they should have left a moderator DB/1 even though there was a prior exhibit with this designation.  They should have kept 2 items with the same exhibit reference?  Changing DB1-4 because there already were exhibits with that reference is mandatory. You are being a fool for trying to use such change period let alone to invent some third moderator.

Scenario:

A) Police collect Nevill's moderator

B) Family knows police collected it but decides to plant blood anyway in one of their own moderators and to lie claiming it was Nevill's

C) Police decide to have the family moderator tested though they know it can't be Nevill's

D) Police like the results of the testing so they pretend it was Nevill's and they dispose of Nevill's real moderator and erase the paperwork entries related to Nevill's moderator

There is no need to rename anything. 

This tale already makes no sense of family planting evidence knowing police already have Nevill's moderator.  Why are you trying to dig the hole deeper by adding a third moderator and trying to suggest the designation changes are related to this planting scenario? 

You take a relatively simple but not credible planting claims and then add confusing pointless claims of a third moderator and other babble which just makes you look nuts.

 

[mike tesko]

There two silencers at the scene that morning, one belonging to Anthony Pargeter, the other belonging to Ralph Bamber, police introduced a 3rd silencer into the equation, relatives found the other two, at different times...

[scipio_usmc]

There two silencers at the scene that morning, one belonging to Anthony Pargeter, the other belonging to Ralph Bamber, police introduced a 3rd silencer into the equation, relatives found the other two, at different times...

AP's moderator was in his rifle case which was at his home.  That is why police never saw his rifle case and why the family didn't find his rifle case when they went through the house after the police turned it over to them.

Nevill's moderator was the only one at the scene when the murders occurred and the only one found at WHF after the murders.

If the family wanted to doctor a moderator they would have doctored Nevill's moderator not sub their own. That is the only planting allegation against the family that would be even remotely believable.

[mike tesko]

AP's moderator was in his rifle case which was at his home.  That is why police never saw his rifle case and why the family didn't find his rifle case when they went through the house after the police turned it over to them.

Nevill's moderator was the only one at the scene when the murders occurred and the only one found at WHF after the murders.

If the family wanted to doctor a moderator they would have doctored Nevill's moderator not sub their own. That is the only planting allegation against the family that would be even remotely believable.

Pargeters rifle was there at the time of the shootings, so was his silencer, He lied about where his gun was either to Essex police when he made a witness statement to them as part of thier ongoing investigation, to the effect that he kept his rifle at whf and had done so ever since he purchased it in 1980. He removed and took the bolt away with him when he left to go home  (bolt from his rifle) when leaving the farmhouse, so that no-one could fire it in his absence, as opposed to the other conflicting version he gave to the COLP investigators, by which time Pargeter was advocating that he had taken his rifle home on the penultimate week-end before the tragedy unfolded...

[scipio_usmc]

Pargeters rifle was there at the time of the shootings, so was his silencer, He lied about where his gun was either to Essex police when he made a witness statement to them as part of thier ongoing investigation, to the effect that he kept his rifle at whf and had done so ever since he purchased it in 1980. He removed and took the bolt away with him when he left to go home  (bolt from his rifle) when leaving the farmhouse, so that no-one could fire it in his absence, as opposed to the other conflicting version he gave to the COLP investigators, by which time Pargeter was advocating that he had taken his rifle home on the penultimate week-end before the tragedy unfolded...

You have no evidence to prove he lied about taking it home.  If he lied then the family would have found his rifle but they did not.  Nor did the police see it. 

[mike tesko]

You have no evidence to prove he lied about taking it home.  If he lied then the family would have found his rifle but they did not.  Nor did the police see it.

He gave conflicting statements, one to Essex police, the other to COLP, about where his rifle was at the time of the shootings. Furthermore, DS Jones took 4 exhibits from the scene on the 7th August 1985, one of which was a silencer (SBJ/1), and another, a photograph he took of the downstairs tiolet, which showed Pargeters rifle and silencer insitu.  Also, it is documented that the relatives did find Pargeters rifle, and his gun case at the scene on the 10th August 1985, but not his silencer - details of which are noted on one of Ann Eatons cards which she used to write everything down upon from the first day of the police investigation into the shootings. Now, you are at liberty to believe what you want to regarding this, but have you ever wondered why the photograoh taken of the downstairs tiolet by DS Jones, did not form part of PC Birds photographic album schedules, which he produced for the benefit of the trial?  You see, PC Bird was tasked with producing a false photographic schedule, out of 581 photographs taken in connection with the police investigations. This resulred in the creation of what became jniwn as The 'Master Copy Album' (MCA), and it contained 223 photographs.  This gave a false imoression that police had only taken 223 photographs in connection with the police investigation, not the 581 which had in truth been taken.  Using this deliberate deception, the police were successfully able to conceal the existence of a further 358 photographs,  many of the withheld photographs contained evidence which favoured the fact that police moved the bodies of victims, and the guns about, after they took control of the farmhouse. One of these withheld 358 photographs was the photograph of the downstairs tiolet taken by DS Jones on the first morning of the investigation. PC Bird gave false testimony during the trial regarding the sequence with which the 50 photographs contained in the 'Court Album' (CA), had been taken. This deception was successfully carried off because police managed to fool everyone into thinking there had only been 223 photographs in total taken by the police in the form of the 'Master Copy Album' (MCA), when there had in fact been a total if 581 which were retained by ACC Peter Simpson, in his office safe, which became known when eventually referred to, as the 'Senior Investigating Officers Album' (SIOA)...

SIOA - 581 photographs
MCA - 223 photographs (access permitted by viewing at pokice station)
CA - 50 photographs ( disclosed as part of trial orocess)