outlandish Theory's

[mike tesko]

Police physically had possession of a silencer bearing the exhibit mark of DRB/1, at the same time they received "it" and the other two items from Ann Eaton, on the 11th September 1985...

[mike tesko]

Sure does look like Ann Eaton handed over the silencer, marked DRB/1, to police on the 11th September 1985...

DRB / 3 (?) AE /

DRB / 2 (?) AE /

DRB / 1

[mike tesko]

Other silencer (DB/1) was sent to lab' on the 30th August 1985. It had allegedly already been checked for blood, on the 13th August 1985 (SBJ/1 - SJ/1), and 12th September 1985, yet this one was handed eventually to DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood, on the 13th September 1985, and eventually sent to the lab' to be checked, on the 20th September 1985, too late for the flake to have been found inside it (DRB/1)...

[mike tesko]

I have not yet come across any witness statement in DS Eastwoods name, in connection with any events of the investigation - seems to me like he could be the key to unravelling all the skullduggery surounding the silencer issue...

[mike tesko]

I must try and find information regarding DS Eastwoods involvement with the silencer (DRB/1) as per the 13th September 1985, Action Report...

[Adam]

All these dates and reference numbers being quoted.

Reminds me of when I was at school and did my sociology essays. I would just mention as many sociologists as possible and throw in a few quotes. Then hope the markers didn't notice I didn't know the answer to the question.

[Caroline]

All these dates and reference numbers being quoted.

Reminds me of when I was at school and did my sociology essays. I would just mention as many sociologists as possible and throw in a few quotes. Then hope the markers didn't notice I didn't know the answer to the question.

Old habits die hard eh Adam? 

[mike tesko]

When DS Davidson was interviewed by COLP, he told them that he had no involvement whatsoever with the silencer, and did not know and had not seen one until now (1991), but he lied:-

[mike tesko]

DS Davidson is also documented as having fingerprinted a silencer on the 9th August 1985...

[mike tesko]

Why has DS Davidson continued to deny having involvement with a silencer, despite it being clearly documented in police records that he did on two separate occasions - 9th December 1985, 13th September 1985...

[David1819]

Other silencer (DB/1) was sent to lab' on the 30th August 1985. It had allegedly already been checked for blood, on the 13th August 1985 (SBJ/1 - SJ/1), and 12th September 1985, yet this one was handed eventually to DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood, on the 13th September 1985, and eventually sent to the lab' to be checked, on the 20th September 1985, too late for the flake to have been found inside it (DRB/1)...

What is rather interesting is that the first study of the moderator did not lead to an arrest. Only after mugford came forward was Bamber then arrested, Then the second examination of the moderator made it a smoking gun. don't add up.

[mike tesko]

...

[Adam]

Mike. You didn't mention you have posted some new Youtube videos.

[lookout]

 " Cuts on Jeremy's hand/s "---------unfounded and previously reported by AP. Infra-red not needed.

[Jan]

Oh god. You obviously haven't read enough threads.

Julie approached the police and completed her WS before they knew anything about hers and SB's minor cheque book fraud. She also told them about Bamber's caravan break in without any pressure from them.

The 25k NOTW offer was made a year after her approach to the police. Because the NOTW got inside information that Bamber was guilty and wouldn't be able to provide an interview. They needed a back up exclusive.

Try not to be so patronising to posters .

The fact is that it is illegal to approach a major witness in a crime and offer money  before or during a trial - and no one ever said it caused her evidence in the first place - work out for your self why it is against the law.

Julies evidence does not actually say Jeremy did it - it involved a hitman  a theory that was completely dismissed ( although funnily enough the police did seem to accept a hitman could have made the call from WHF ( wonder why?

Julie herself after the trial said Jeremy had NEVER told her he had done the murders - don't you find that odd? She also said in 2002 that she stood by her evidence and believed he was guilty but new forensics might shed new light on the case - hmmm ?

Reference the crimes she committed - don't you think the police ask all potential witnesses if there is anything in their background that might "tar" their reputation as a witness? That's when she probably told them about her history . Then she was given immunity in return for being the prime witness.