David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim

[susan]

How can you going to NGB and asking him to post on the forum that you're alleged discovery is well written 'revitalise the board' ? You've said you're not going to say what you're discovery is. So there is nothing to discuss.

How did you make this 'signigicant breakthrough', on you're own on you're computer ? Or have you got documents which are not online or in books ? How did you get these ? You're last discovery you said CAL stole, although it been already been discussed on this board and by Bob Woffinden.

Going public would not effect a CCRC submission because they would have 'more time to prepare'.The CCRC would be given Bamber's application weeks or months beforehand. Then spend weeks or months discussing it. So plenty of time for them. They will not take into account forum chat or media coverage. The CCRC are impartial.

Mike's always bringing up new things and has said he has a photo of a deceased Sheila on the bed, which has been passed to legal advisors. This will surely be included in a new CCRC submission.

Adam

your efforts to discredit David is IMO an insult to NGB

[susan]

I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath.

Steve
it is not like you to be so negative and sarcastic give David a chance please.

[maggie]

I knew full well it would make no impact as so many baseless claims have been made before I don't blame anyone for not thinking much of it until now.

One reason I discussed with NGB was that by him revealing something the board it would somewhat revitalised the forum as all the discussions are stale and repetitive. Everyone now has something new to look forward to and its long overdue.

I know, My Dad knows, NGB knows, Andrew Hunter knows and Jeremy and his legal team probably know by now also.

My first issue was and thought this through carefully. I made this finding almost three weeks ago now. Although at the time I was 90% convinced I made a significant breakthrough and now I have no doubt about it.

At the time my mind was telling me maybe its too good to be true? and by thinking that I then worried that if I did go public and turns out I was wrong the Campaign team would without a doubt use it a propaganda and that I didn't want to happen, that was my initial reason for secrecy.

Then a few days later I was told that going public would harm the legal process because if the Crown got news of it they would have more time to try and prepare for it so the later the better. So that is reason why I have not released anything to date.

Good for you David, I congratulate you on your sensible approach to all this.  I have said on the forum that I have come to the decision that I thought JB was probably guilty but have always had an open mind and a small percentage of not sure and maybe innocent.
I look forward to hearing about your discovery in due time and hope if it does point to innocence JB will be granted his freedom.

[susan]

Good for you David, I congratulate you on your sensible approach to all this.  I have said on the forum that I have come to the decision that I thought JB was probably guilty but have always had an open mind and a small percentage of not sure and maybe innocent.
I look forward to hearing about your discovery in due time and hope if it does point to innocence JB will be granted his freedom.

Maggie
excellent post and my feelings as well about the guilty/innocent I am at the stage of not sure and my wish is if he is innocent he is released but if guilty he stays where he is.

[mike tesko]

In a typed memo addressed to DCS Ainsley, 'Ron' Cook deliberately deceived Ainsley by informing him that although at that time it was scientifically proven that exposure of the known harmful effects of cynoacrylate fumes has on body fluids, including blood, that he said does not apply in this case, because the blood was taken out of the silencer prior to the date when it was treated by superglue method...

Cook lied...

The key flake was presumably still inside the parker hale silencer on the 15th August 1985, when 'Ron' Cook exposed it to the harmful effects of superglue treatment, since it was not until 12th September 1985, that Fletcher and Hayward removed the flake from inside silencer 'DB/1'...

Either, the blood removed on 12th September, was irrevocably contaminated by exposure to the harmful effects of cynoacrylate fumes, in which case, no blood expert worth their own weight in gold, would entertain trying to group it. On the other hand, if the flake that went on to be analysed was not coated by the harmful fumes, does this then throw up the possibility that the flake cannot have been inside the silencer at the time the silencer was exposed to the harmful cynoacrylate fumes, on the 15th August, 1985, but that the flake had got into it by a process of contamination...

Bear in mind also, that by May 1986, experts were still swabbing the silencers end cap, top washer, and its 17 individual metal baffle plates, and still getting positive blood group activity. How could this still have been possible once the silencer ('SBJ/1') had been previously exposed to superglue treatment on 15th August?

One thing which becomes clear to me, having regard to the aforementioned, is that by September 12th,  the need for a replacement uncontaminated parker hale silencer, in which the recovered flake could be allocated into by reference only. This to me seems to be the most likeliest reason for why Ann Eaton handed over the second uncontaminated identical looking parker hale silencer (DRB/1), and adequately explains the key dates when this second silencer came into the fold...

[mike tesko]

In a typed memo addressed to DCS Ainsley, 'Ron' Cook deliberately deceived Ainsley by informing him that although at that time it was scientifically proven that exposure of the known harmful effects of cynoacrylate fumes has on body fluids, including blood, that he said does not apply in this case, because the blood was taken out of the silencer prior to the date when it was treated by superglue method...

Cook lied...

The key flake was presumably still inside the parker hale silencer on the 15th August 1985, when 'Ron' Cook exposed it to the harmful effects of superglue treatment, since it was not until 12th September 1985, that Fletcher and Hayward removed the flake from inside silencer 'DB/1'...

Either, the blood removed on 12th September, was irrevocably contaminated by exposure to the harmful effects of cynoacrylate fumes, in which case, no blood expert worth their own weight in gold, would entertain trying to group it. On the other hand, if the flake that went on to be analysed was not coated by the harmful fumes, does this then throw up the possibility that the flake cannot have been inside the silencer at the time the silencer was exposed to the harmful cynoacrylate fumes, on the 15th August, 1985, but that the flake had got into it by a process of contamination...

Bear in mind also, that by May 1986, experts were still swabbing the silencers end cap, top washer, and its 17 individual metal baffle plates, and still getting positive blood group activity. How could this still have been possible once the silencer ('SBJ/1') had been previously exposed to superglue treatment on 15th August?

One thing which becomes clear to me, having regard to the aforementioned, is that by September 12th,  the need for a replacement uncontaminated parker hale silencer, in which the recovered flake could be allocated into by reference only. This to me seems to be the most likeliest reason for why Ann Eaton handed over the second uncontaminated identical looking parker hale silencer (DRB/1), and adequately explains the key dates when this second silencer came into the fold...

They couldn't suggest that an uncontaminated flake of blood was found inside a contaminated silencer (DB/1), contaminated that is by the harmful cynoacrylate fumes. So they moved it into the second uncontaminated silencer (DRB/1)...

[mike tesko]

We know that just prior to 'Ron' Cook sending the contaminated parker hale silencer (DB/1) to the lab' on the 30th August, 1985, that he took it upon himself to strip it down, by removing the silencers end cap, top washer, and its 17 baffle plates. He separated the end cap, top washer and several baffle plates, before photographing it. At that stage, there was no flake of blood found trapped between baffles 1 and 2, or anywhere else in the separated baffle plates, otherwise, Cook himself would have found it, and declared that he had found it. But he didn't because Fletcher (ballistics) and Hayward ( blood) did, on the 12th September, 1985. How utterly convenient that on the day after Ann Eaton hands over the second uncontaminated silencer (DRB/1) to DC 769 OAKEY, that Fletch' and Hay' should both take the credit for finding this flake, the flake which would become the egg of the golden goose, the key if you like, to prove that Sheila could not have killed herself...

[Adam]

Mike what did the legal advisors say about the picture of Sheila on the bed ?

Is the picture now with Jeremy's lawyers ?

[Stephanie]

Adam

your efforts to discredit David is IMO an insult to NGB

Hi Susan, I don't believe Adam was insulting NGB - he is merely expressing his opinion on the case.

I believe Bamber is a psychopath therefore any new submissions will make no difference to my belief. This isn't an insult to David or NGB - this is my opinion.

Of course the only person who knows what happened on the fateful night is the killer. Maybe some people will suggest I should keep my mind open by a fraction but based on my own experiences with the SH case and other factors (many of which I'm not willing to discuss at this point - related to my discoveries in the SH case over the years) there is no doubt in my mind that Bamber in particular is a con artist.

[mike tesko]

I have already provided the evidence to prove that the parker hale silencer (DRB/1) to which the 'damning' blood group evidence was associated to and with, did not arrive at the lab' until the 20th September, 1985. This of course establishes that 'DRB/1' was not the same parker hale silencer (DB/1) from which Fletcher and Hayward had found and removed the flake of dried blood from, eight days earlier. Furthermore, the flake was made into a solution and produced the same blood group activity, as the blood groups belonging to Sheila Caffell. The tests which produced these results were conducted between the 12th and the 19th September, 1985, again, these results were produced prior to the date when the uncontaminated parker hale silencer (DRB/1) arrived at the lab'...

[mike tesko]

Mike what did the legal advisors say about the picture of Sheila on the bed ?

Is the picture now with Jeremy's lawyers ?

They have confirmation that the photograph exists, and that the negatives which were cut from the photographic strip, was retained by ACC Simpson in his office safe. The COLP investigators recovered these during their investigation, and they made written representations about the fact that Simpson should not have withheld them from the defence lawyers...

[Stephanie]

Good for you David, I congratulate you on your sensible approach to all this. 

I disagree re the 'sensible approach.'

Should I get my tin hat? 

David States, "so many baseless claims have been made before,"

My claim of belief that Bamber is a psychopath is not baseless.

Clearing Bambers name on a technicality does not make him 'innocent!'

[lookout]

Jeremy does NOT wish for a technicality--------which this latest revelation WON'T be. ISN'T !

[mike tesko]

The second parker hale silencer (DRB/1) was a decoy which was falsely and dishonestly introduced as the carrier of the uncontaminated flake of blood...

[Stephanie]

Jeremy does NOT wish for a technicality--------which this latest revelation WON'T be. ISN'T !

Unless you know of what David has submitted and he believes someone other than SC was involved in the murder, you cannot make this sweeping statement IMHO.