Ending the SJ/1 nonsense once and for all

[Caroline]

Different people have different descriptions for the same exact thing. One might think it looks nothing like the item someone else compared it to that is why such is subjective. People see colors differently as well mind you.  A dried blob of jam can in fact resemble dried blood in terms of shape and consistency.  The shape and texture of blood will vary by the nature of the location, amount and much more. The color of blood changes over time.  The color of jelly varies greatly from orange shades to brown, burgundy and even deep purple. For Christmas I got a thing with a bunch of tiny bottles of various jellies and cheeses and other crap.  They had all sorts of exotic ones in various colors. Just saying something looks like jelly doesn't mean much unless you nail down things further. 

She didn't say it looked wet people just assumed that because a blob often is wet but not always. If she said it looked wet that would be a different matter.  In the meantime she said she didn't get a good look at it because the men were busy with it.





 

David B said it was sticky. They may simply all be very bad witnesses but the relatives account of the silencer makes it all very far fetched. 

[scipio_usmc]

That's not really the point.   The Elliot Turner case is a good example, He claimed he killed his girlfiend by accident but police obtained evidence of him and his parents in a convosation proving it was no accident.
This evidence was technically obtained illegally therefore should not have been shown to the jury but they did so anyway. corruption can in some cases be good.

The courts held the evidence was not obtained illegally.  The "bugging" of the house was approved by authorities not done by rogue cops. 

On appeal they tried arguing that some privileged information was heard but the court held such evidence was not used at trial so no claim could be made that legally privileged material was used to convict him.

In any event catching someone by illegally spying on them or using listening devices is not akin to intentionally fabricating evidence to frame someone you think could be guilty.  The former involves doing anything it takes to find real evidence.  The latter constitutes making up evidence because none could be found. 

[scipio_usmc]

David B said it was sticky. They may simply all be very bad witnesses but the relatives account of the silencer makes it all very far fetched.

He never said anything about it being sticky on the witness stand or in his statements. In fact he didn't ever indicate he touched it with his bare hands. he made sure no one else touched it with their for instance Ann said he told her not to touch it.

This is not a quote it is a statement from the author:

During the clean-up on August 10, by his own account David Boutflour picked up some ammunition that was lying around and went to return it to the gun cupboard where he found hidden away the sound moderator — we can call it the “silencer” — of the murder weapon. It was sticky as if it had been hurriedly cleaned, and appeared to show spots of blood and flecks of red paint, and a single hair.

Saying it looked sticky from being hurriedly clean could be from Boutflour or could be from someone else. I recall a cop stating such. It could indeed have stuck to the bag that it was in. There is nothing all that unusual about the claim. The only thing of note is he didn't make the claim in his statements or on the stand.

[Caroline]

He never said anything about it being sticky on the witness stand or in his statements. In fact he didn't ever indicate he touched it with his bare hands. EXACTLY! he made sure no one else touched it with their for instance Ann said he told her not to touch it.

This is not a quote it is a statement from the author:

During the clean-up on August 10, by his own account David Boutflour picked up some ammunition that was lying around and went to return it to the gun cupboard where he found hidden away the sound moderator — we can call it the “silencer” — of the murder weapon. It was sticky as if it had been hurriedly cleaned, and appeared to show spots of blood and flecks of red paint, and a single hair.

Saying it looked sticky from being hurriedly clean could be from Boutflour or could be from someone else. I recall a cop stating such. It could indeed have stuck to the bag that it was in. There is nothing all that unusual about the claim. The only thing of note is he didn't make the claim in his statements or on the stand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU

Straight from the horses mouth (David Boutflour), move the progress bar to up to about 20:40 "I picked up the silencer and I noticed it was sticky, sticky to the touch ........."

I know he didn't mention it in his statements or on the stand which is why I have said his (and other relatives) accounts are inconsistent.

[scipio_usmc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU

Straight from the horses mouth (David Boutflour), move the progress bar to up to about 20:40 "I picked up the silencer and I noticed it was sticky, sticky to the touch ........."

I know he didn't mention it in his statements or on the stand which is why I have said his (and other relatives) accounts are inconsistent.

In 2005 he either was remembering things based on having heard from police that it appeared sticky or he failed to mention it at the time he testified.  I tend to believe contemporaneous statements more because people not only forget things after a long period of time, they tend to incorporate things hey read or things said by others.  For instance decades later one cop in another case asserted the ballistics expert identified the caliber of bullet on the scene and detectives thus knew right away what murder weapon they were looking for.  This is in direct conflict with the official account.  It turns out that in a book the ballistics expert said he felt he knew the caliber right off the bat.  The cop took this and reported that the ballistic expert told them the caliber right away.  The fine print though is that the expert said in a different part of the book that he waited until he measured the bullets at the lab to confirm he was right before telling anybody.  He never told the cop in question or any other cops at the scene his suspicions.

It is not intentional revisionism but people tend to incorporate other things into their minds as time goes on.  His claim he could remember the day like yesterday I don't believe one bit.  Reading his statements and those of others will help him be able to recite things but I doubt he remembers every detail with specificity on his own. Back in 1985 he could not remember the exact date he found it- he simply knew it was a weekend and had to consult a calendar and be aided with the exact date from the others who were with him.  That certainly calls his claim of a perfect memory into question 20 years later.   



 

[maggie]

Different people have different descriptions for the same exact thing. One might think it looks nothing like the item someone else compared it to that is why such is subjective. People see colors differently as well mind you.  A dried blob of jam can in fact resemble dried blood in terms of shape and consistency.  The shape and texture of blood will vary by the nature of the location, amount and much more. The color of blood changes over time.  The color of jelly varies greatly from orange shades to brown, burgundy and even deep purple. For Christmas I got a thing with a bunch of tiny bottles of various jellies and cheeses and other crap.  They had all sorts of exotic ones in various colors. Just saying something looks like jelly doesn't mean much unless you nail down things further. 

She didn't say it looked wet people just assumed that because a blob often is wet but not always. If she said it looked wet that would be a different matter.  In the meantime she said she didn't get a good look at it because the men were busy with it.

Hi scipio, as blood dries it cracks and flakes, 'blob of jam' sounds like a description from someone's imagination of what they thought it may look like, all I'm saying.
The statements regarding the whole situation were questionable imo. I am not claiming this proves innocence but questioning this particular event.

[maggie]

1) I don't believe corruption is ever noble.

2) Some people do try to rationalize their corrupt behavior as benevolent but that doesn't make it so

3) That doesn't deal with the precise points at hand regarding the issue of the designation changes. If one is trying to argue the changes were done to enable planting of evidence that one must rational set forth how it is so and then provide evidence.  The suggestion the family planted evidence in multiple moderators or that the police did so is absurd. That is what people try to claim happened and rely upon the multiple designations as proof.  The multiple designations fail to prove the absurd happened though. For Jeremy it is thus a worthless legal issue and that is why it wasn't raised in the 2002 appeal. They lumped in other crap that was really weak but didn't lump in the allegation of the designation changes establishing the moderator evidence was fabricated. They didn't leave it out because of incompetence they left it out because they had no valid argument.

I was not discussing the designation changes, I was agreeing with Caroline as I always have that the statements about the moderator found in the cupboard by the relatives were questionable as they were inconsistent and unconvincing, what about the grey hair supposedly stuck in the blob of dried blood(?) What happened to that, it soon disappeared, sounds like embellishment to me.

[guest154]

I agree, the silencer story seems very flimsy and unconvincing whichever angle you view it from it seems contrived and badly executed. I am not convinced about the silencer.

Jones said he didn't know who found the silencer. Who found it, Maggie?

[maggie]

Jones said he didn't know who found the silencer. Who found it, Maggie?

Dont you know mat? I suggest you read the statements of the extended family. That should answer your question.

[Adam]

I don't know what is unconvincing about the relatives finding the silencer.

Jones gave AE the keys to WHF. PE found the silencer, other relatives, BW & Basil Cock were also at WHF. There was bound to be a silencer at WHF, for the rifle. 

The description of the silencer may have differed slightly by the people over the last 30 years. But if they were trying to frame him, surely they would all say exactly the same thing.

The hair was handed into the police with the silencer. The police lost it. A pity,  I am sure they could have used it to enhance a framing attempt, by saying it was Neville's hair.

[lookout]

How was it that the relatives knew which silencer belonged to the Bambers ?  " The one. "

[Caroline]

How was it that the relatives knew which silencer belonged to the Bambers ?  " The one. "

That part was really quite easy Lookout, there was only one! It's only when reading this forum that we find moderators popping out like rabbits from a magicians hat.

[Caroline]

In 2005 he either was remembering things based on having heard from police that it appeared sticky or he failed to mention it at the time he testified.  I tend to believe contemporaneous statements more because people not only forget things after a long period of time, they tend to incorporate things hey read or things said by others.  For instance decades later one cop in another case asserted the ballistics expert identified the caliber of bullet on the scene and detectives thus knew right away what murder weapon they were looking for.  This is in direct conflict with the official account.  It turns out that in a book the ballistics expert said he felt he knew the caliber right off the bat.  The cop took this and reported that the ballistic expert told them the caliber right away.  The fine print though is that the expert said in a different part of the book that he waited until he measured the bullets at the lab to confirm he was right before telling anybody.  He never told the cop in question or any other cops at the scene his suspicions.

It is not intentional revisionism but people tend to incorporate other things into their minds as time goes on.  His claim he could remember the day like yesterday I don't believe one bit.  Reading his statements and those of others will help him be able to recite things but I doubt he remembers every detail with specificity on his own. Back in 1985 he could not remember the exact date he found it- he simply knew it was a weekend and had to consult a calendar and be aided with the exact date from the others who were with him.  That certainly calls his claim of a perfect memory into question 20 years later.   



 

I studied memory at uni and although much of what you said is true, for big events people tend to remember the details quite well. DB seems to be trying too hard to convince the viewer, not only describing in detail but also using action to support his claim!

There are too many inconsistencies between individual statements and accounts vary between the three main witnesses, who seem unable to remember who was there and who did what. I understand that at the time they weren't supposed to know that the moderator was important, but that's NOT the way they tell it, it's like they knew from the start. RWB was supposed to have stated at the time 'the police better have that, put it in a bag' etc. David said he saw blood and paint at he scene in one statement but not in others and Ann, that it wasn't until they were around the table at the Eaton's farm. Ann said she didn't look at the silencer until they were back at her house but RWB mentions that she and DB had a good look at it at WHF. 

I think if we're going to question Jeremy's inconsistencies, (and there are lots), we should also consider the same of others. I will try and list these examples at some point this week to clarify.

[lookout]

That part was really quite easy Lookout, there was only one! It's only when reading this forum that we find moderators popping out like rabbits from a magicians hat.

So the DB/1 which was found to have blood on it was the same as the DRB/1,which was Bambers and checked for DNA in the 2002 appeal,were the same silencers ? No blood in DRB/1.

No wonder " Taff " Jones was disliked when he ordered blood-tests to be carried out by the relatives after the silencer debacle,as his suspicions grew when the bloodied one ( DB/1 ) was handed in AFTER Jeremy was arrested and kept until the end of September before being sent to the lab for blood,fibres and fingerprints. ?

How strange that RWB had EXACTLY the same blood group,etc,as Sheila. I wonder if he knew that beforehand--------A-EAP-BA-AK1-HP-2-1. 

There HAD to be around half a dozen silencers in that gun cupboard,as one size doesn't fit all.

[Caroline]

So the DB/1 which was found to have blood on it was the same as the DRB/1,which was Bambers and checked for DNA in the 2002 appeal,were the same silencers ? No blood in DRB/1.

No wonder " Taff " Jones was disliked when he ordered blood-tests to be carried out by the relatives after the silencer debacle,as his suspicions grew when the bloodied one ( DB/1 ) was handed in AFTER Jeremy was arrested and kept until the end of September before being sent to the lab for blood,fibres and fingerprints. ?

How strange that RWB had EXACTLY the same blood group,etc,as Sheila. I wonder if he knew that beforehand--------A-EAP-BA-AK1-HP-2-1. 

There HAD to be around half a dozen silencers in that gun cupboard,as one size doesn't fit all.

I'm not talking about the appeal - there was ONLY ONE silencer picked up from WHF! It's only HERE where it's suggested that their were a cast of thousands.

Not sure what you're trying to say Lookout, you appear to be suggesting that RWB used his own blood to contaminate the silencer? I thought you didn't believe there was a conspiracy?