what do jeremys demands for further tests on the silencer prove.

[mike tesko]

It's odds on, that the jury were duped over ownership of the key silencer...

What if, the silencer with the blood inside it, and the paint found upon it, belonged not to Ralph Bamber, nor to Anthony Pargeter, but that it belonged to the relatives themselves, what difference if anything would that have made to the juries verdict?

[mike tesko]

It would have been the perfect opportunity, to throw suspicion onto the prospective heir...

[mike tesko]

Cops would have no way of knowing, which silencer was which, or who owned which Silencer, it would be the perfect foil for the group of relatives who were hellbent on blaming Jeremy from the outset. It is deeply disturbing that no-one has raised this matter previously, at the appeal, for example...

[mike tesko]

As I say, during the trial stage, whilst all eyes were focussed on the silencer exhibited bearing the exhibit reference DRB/1, the cops brought two further identical looking parker hale silencers to the court, without alerting the jury, or anybody to the fact that two identical silencers belonging to the group which produced the court exhibit version of the same thing. If the court had been made aware that the relatives had possession and control of three identical parker hale silencers, it would have opened up a can of worms, not only regarding ownership of DRB/1, but mainly regarding its integrity. I can picture it now, there would have been lengthy legal argument regarding the silencers admissibility, because no steps had been taken by police to ensure that the silencer in question (DRB/1) had been the same parker hale silencer recovered from the scene, it could easily have belonged to one of the relatives, hence why behind the scenes, police discreetly brought two further identical parker hale silencers to the court without telling any body about it. On the other hand, the relatives themselves must have known what the police had got in their minds regarding these additional identical silencers, but they too kept a lid on it...

[mike tesko]

For all anybody knows, one of the two identical parker hale silencers that cops brought discreetly to court could have been the one silencer that the inheritance group removed from the scene...

[mike tesko]

Peter Eaton stood most to gain from framing Jeremy for the murders, by introducing one of the parker hale silencers which Eaton could easily have disguised as the one taken from the farmhouse by another of the potential benefactors, and given DS Jones, a parker hale silencer belonging to one of his own kind...

[mike tesko]

So many people were fooled by the silencer deception performed by the relatives, and Essex police during the trial, and the subsequent appeal in 2002. So many clever people, so many of them with legal qualifications, yet none of them fathomed out what had taken place, right in front of their very eyes...

[John]

Lookout I believe there will be a forensic breakthrough in the case soon

Aye, and pigs might fly.  You've been saying the same thing for years but surprise surprise, nothing ever materialises.

I really don't know why you pursue this case Jackie, you are obviously an intelligent woman.  Why do you deny the evidence against Bamber, have you an ultertior motive for what you do?

[John]

Oh dear you've joined the dark side. I've been hearing this for the last 4 years.

Touché.  I doubt very much if the CCRC will entertain any more of this nonsense after firmly rejecting the last submission.  Grasping at straws was never a great way to prove innocence and especially so when the evidence of guilt is so overwhelming.

[Jane]

Aye, and pigs might fly.  You've been saying the same thing for years but surprise surprise, nothing ever materialises.

I really don't know why you pursue this case Jackie, you are obviously an intelligent woman.  Why do you deny the evidence against Bamber, have you an ultertior motive for what you do?

An intelligent woman might have thought twice about doing some of the things Jackie seems to have put others' names to. She must be the only cheer leader Jeremy has that he doesn't want.

[lookout]

I can taste a lot of sour grapes.

[Caroline]

I can taste a lot of sour grapes.

I'm sure you can Lookout 

[mike tesko]

The cynoacrylate fuming of the so called silencer took place on the 23rd August, 1985, by Ron Cook. This was around 21 days before the blood sample (no exhibit reference) was taken from the silencer, on the 12th September, 1985. This is important because,  if there was only one silencer, then it was exposed to superglue fumes, before the blood was removed from it three weeks later. This is very interesting because in a police memo sent by Ron Cook, to DCS Mick Ainsley, Cook draws attention to the fact that it was a scientifically established fact that exposure of blood, and other bodily fluids to cynoacrylate fumes produces harmful/adverse affects in the grouping process. Cook was at pains to mention, however, that this did not apply in this instance, since the key blood group evidence was obtained from the silencer, before its exposure to superglue treatment. But, fact of the matter is that, if there really only was one silencer,  then it was most definitely exposed to superglue fumes beforehand. In which case, it rendered the blood grouping which took place afterwards void because scientists knew that in such circumstances, harmful/adverse affects would result...

Therefore, this raises questions regarding a possible deception carried out by Ron Cook, and DCS Mick Ainsley, as to whether they told the truth regarding at which stage the silencer had been exposed to the harmful superglue fumes...

[mike tesko]

The cynoacrylate fuming of the so called silencer took place on the 23rd August, 1985, by Ron Cook. This was around 21 days before the blood sample (no exhibit reference) was taken from the silencer, on the 12th September, 1985. This is important because,  if there was only one silencer, then it was exposed to superglue fumes, before the blood was removed from it three weeks later. This is very interesting because in a police memo sent by Ron Cook, to DCS Mick Ainsley, Cook draws attention to the fact that it was a scientifically established fact that exposure of blood, and other bodily fluids to cynoacrylate fumes produces harmful/adverse affects in the grouping process. Cook was at pains to mention, however, that this did not apply in this instance, since the key blood group evidence was obtained from the silencer, before its exposure to superglue treatment. But, fact of the matter is that, if there really only was one silencer,  then it was most definitely exposed to superglue fumes beforehand. In which case, it rendered the blood grouping which took place afterwards void because scientists knew that in such circumstances, harmful/adverse affects would result...

Therefore, this raises questions regarding a possible deception carried out by Ron Cook, and DCS Mick Ainsley, as to whether they told the truth to the blood expert regarding at which stage the silencer had been exposed to the harmful superglue fumes...

 

These now known facts, clearly point to a big deception having taken place, since in order for the silencer to have had the key  blood group evidence obtained from the silencer, before the silencer itself was exposed to the harmful cynoacrylate fumes, and such exposure of the same to superglue treatment, would have had to have taken place after the key blood group evidence was taken from the silencer, on the 12th September, 1985...

It just so happens, that DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood, exposed one of the silencers to superglue treatment, on the 13th September, 1985...

Since, Ron Cook also exposed one of the silencers to superglue treatment on the 23rd August, 1985, it indicates, either the exposure to the blood inside or upon the silencer before the date when the key blood was taken from the silencer, or in the other instance, afterwards. In the unlikely event that the same silencer was exposed to the harmful fumes before and after the removal of the key blood from the silencer on 12th September, 1985, to be fathomed out why it was felt necessary to exposed the silencer to two different lots of harmful superglue fumes. Furthermore, if two exposures of the blood from the silencer did occur as spoken about, ask yourself whether or not the cops told the blood expert what they had done. If they had told the blood expert, why did he keep this information all to himself?

[John]

Q.  "what do jeremys demands for further tests on the silencer prove?"

A.  That he has too much time on his hands.
B.  That flogging a dead horse has become a career for some.
C.  Zilch..Nada.. Nuffin!