David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim

[Stephanie]

How this became a topic about my ego I have no Idea. 

However I would like to point out that first off I made this discovery around three weeks ago now and patiently kept quiet about it other than sharing the information with three other people.

Secondly My Dad recommended I take my findings to the press as I could get money for it, However Andrew told me it would harm the legal process if I did that. Since I have turned down monetary gain for the sake of JBs next appeal bid I don't see how I can be accused of handling this in an egotistical fashion at all.

If Stephanie wants to spend her time reading through my previous forum posts looking for bad examples of my character then that's her problem, Not exactly the most exiting way to spend your afternoon but what ever floats your boat 

Hi David, thanks for your post!

I can assure you I haven't got the time to read through all your posts on the forum, especially at the moment. I believe my previous post clearly stated I based my opinion on a handful of posts you had made and those which I recalled. My posts are in no way meant as a personal slight, merely an observation..

And I can further assure you I'm not interested in who you are, where you come from or indeed what you have found. In fact my advice with regards your true identity is that you keep it unknown where possible!

You still don't make it clear if you believe Bamber is innocent or guilty or indeed whether or not you are bothered by either? Can you explain please... What is you aim exactly?

...........

ego;
noun
a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.
"he needed a boost to his ego"
synonyms:   self-esteem, self-importance, self-worth, self-respect, self-conceit, self-image, self-confidence; amour propre
"he needed a boost to his ego"
PSYCHOANALYSIS
the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.
PHILOSOPHY
(in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject.

[mike tesko]

Ask yourselves, when and what date do cops, relatives, and lab' experts start referring to the carrier of the uncontaminated blood flake, by the exhibit reference DRB/1?

First mention of parker hale silencer, as DRB/1, as follows:-

David Robert Boutflour , 17th November, 1985 (page 1)
David Robert Boutflour, 17th December, 1985 (page 9)
Malcolm Fletcher, 13th November, 1985, (page 1)
Ronald Walter Cook, 23rd September, 1985, (page 1)
Glynis Howard, 13th November 1985, (page 1)

[Stephanie]

How this became a topic about my ego I have no Idea. 

However I would like to point out that first off I made this discovery around three weeks ago now and patiently kept quiet about it other than sharing the information with three other people.

Secondly My Dad recommended I take my findings to the press as I could get money for it, However Andrew told me it would harm the legal process if I did that. Since I have turned down monetary gain for the sake of JBs next appeal bid I don't see how I can be accused of handling this in an egotistical fashion at all.

If Stephanie wants to spend her time reading through my previous forum posts looking for bad examples of my character then that's her problem, Not exactly the most exiting way to spend your afternoon but what ever floats your boat 

But as Adam has clearly pointed out David, a few weeks ago you were also making other claims, in contradiction of your current claims.. Do you understand this?

[Stephanie]

How this became a topic about my ego I have no Idea. 

However I would like to point out that first off I made this discovery around three weeks ago now and patiently kept quiet about it other than sharing the information with three other people.

Secondly My Dad recommended I take my findings to the press as I could get money for it, However Andrew told me it would harm the legal process if I did that. Since I have turned down monetary gain for the sake of JBs next appeal bid I don't see how I can be accused of handling this in an egotistical fashion at all.

If Stephanie wants to spend her time reading through my previous forum posts looking for bad examples of my character then that's her problem, Not exactly the most exiting way to spend your afternoon but what ever floats your boat 

I guess we won't be able to give an opinion re your Dad's advice until your discovery is in the public domain...

[Stephanie]

How this became a topic about my ego I have no Idea. 

However I would like to point out that first off I made this discovery around three weeks ago now and patiently kept quiet about it other than sharing the information with three other people.

Secondly My Dad recommended I take my findings to the press as I could get money for it, However Andrew told me it would harm the legal process if I did that. Since I have turned down monetary gain for the sake of JBs next appeal bid I don't see how I can be accused of handling this in an egotistical fashion at all.

If Stephanie wants to spend her time reading through my previous forum posts looking for bad examples of my character then that's her problem, Not exactly the most exiting way to spend your afternoon but what ever floats your boat 

Have you been offered money for your discovery or are you basing your belief on what your Dad suggested?

And am I right in thinking that you are now publicly backing Bambers claims of innocence, in the hope of what you've found will clear his name?

[sherlock]

The police have better things to do than go around framing criminals.  The White House Farm murders case is no different.

I don't particular think the Police framed Jeremy ...

But i have an open mind ...

I have come to eventually accept there were 2 silencers - Jeremy's and Anthony's ...

Apparently Anthony took his home from the farm the weekend before ...

But here is a question for you John ...

If you were a Police officer

And you knew beyond a doubt (or thought you did ) that a man had murdered 2 children ...

But you could not prove it ...

What would you do ?

Let him get away with it ? ...

Maybe to kill more children ...

Or would you do whatever it took to lock him up ?

Including planting fake evidence ?

Tough one that ain't it John ...

It's called Noble Cause Corruption ...

Very very common in the 1980's including in Essex ...

I always keep an open mind and believe the truth can only be found by so doing ...

And analysing EVERY piece of evidence and unusual occurrences very carefully indeed ...

[Stephanie]

How this became a topic about my ego I have no Idea. 

However I would like to point out that first off I made this discovery around three weeks ago now and patiently kept quiet about it other than sharing the information with three other people.

Secondly My Dad recommended I take my findings to the press as I could get money for it, However Andrew told me it would harm the legal process if I did that. Since I have turned down monetary gain for the sake of JBs next appeal bid I don't see how I can be accused of handling this in an egotistical fashion at all.

If Stephanie wants to spend her time reading through my previous forum posts looking for bad examples of my character then that's her problem, Not exactly the most exiting way to spend your afternoon but what ever floats your boat 

My afternoon is far more grim than what you believe it to be David. I am putting together a document with regards the inquest into SH's death in custody.

But just to be clear David. It is because of statements like the one you have made above that I have come to  the conclusions I have ie; you are ego lead.. 

You ego believes I have spent my afternoon reading through all your posts on the forum. I haven't! And why would you believe that I have? I don't find you that interesting. Again, no slight or disrespect meant, I'm merely telling the truth as I see it.

I know nothing of your character David other than you don't appear to be interested in innocence or guilt?

You appear to have found something that could possibly help a future appeal of Bambers and you have turned down a suggestion of making money in relation to your find in order for his legal team to present it as fresh evidence?

I take it you believe I should commend you for this, as opposed to expressing my belief in Bambers guilt?

[David1819]

But just to be clear David. It is because of statements like the one you have made above that I have come to  the conclusions I have ie; you are ego lead.. 

You believe I am Egotistical however your perceptions and interpretations of my statements does not necessarily reflect me in reality. Its just your opinion.

Same goes for my conclusions about you. I think you are Utterly Butterly Crazy, but still that's my opinion I could be wrong.

[Stephanie]

You believe I am Egotistical however your perceptions and interpretations of my statements does not necessarily reflect me in reality. Its just your opinion.

Same goes for my conclusions about you. I think you are Utterly Butterly Crazy, but still that's my opinion I could be wrong.

Not egotistical (As in superego) based on your posts, emotionally immature would be a better description. In reality I know nothing about you nor you of me.

[susan]

Your post did appear bias Susan.

Steph
if my post seems to be bias it was not meant I can assure you.  What I posted to Adam stands that is how I perceived it and always will.  I made a similar post to another on here this morning.

[John]

The provable facts I am referring to are there for all and everyone to see.  To simplify, one parker hale silencer, SBJ/1 (22), found on 10th August 1985, taken to lab' by Cook for the attention of Howard, who detects human blood. She states there is insufficient blood for testing purposes. Gives SBJ/1 (22) back to Cook, who says he proceeded to carry SBJ/1 (22) around in his coat pocket for the next 17 days. On 15th August 1985, Cook exposes SBJ/1 to the harmful superglue treatment, damaging any prospect of getting any uncontaminated blood group, or much later, uncontaminated DNA results. Still, whilst Cook still retains possession of SBJ/1 (22) he proceeds to strip it down, dismantling it, piece by piece, until he has demonstrated no presence of blood anywhere amongst the separated baffle plates. He photographs all of this. He doesn' t see any blood, he doesn't find any blood. He rebuilds the silencer, and then afixs it directly onto the screw thread on the end of the rifles barrel. What Cook then does is he takes another photograph showing the rebuilt silencer (SBJ/1 - 22) screwed onto the barrel of the gun. What he then purports to do is, he resubmits SBJ/1 (22) back to the lab' on the 30th August, 1985, disguised as DB/1 (23). He already knows there is no blood inside it, because he had stripped it down, examined it with close scrutiny, and took a photograph confirming what he himself had done. Anyway, nobody knows what the lab' did with DB/1 for the next 13 days, until suddenly there is a rush of activity on the 12th September, 1985, with the restripping of DB/1 by Fletcher and Hayward, and the astonishing discovery of the flake of dried blood trapped between baffles 1 and 2. Testing of this flake took place over the next seven days or so. So that by 19th September, 1985, blood expert, Hayward, had obtained 4 distinctive blood groups (A, EAPBA, HP 2-1, and AK1). But, these results were known to be potentially problematic, for example, having been obtained from inside a silencer (DB/1) which had been exposed to the harmful effects of cynoacrylate fumes...

My best guess, is that when 'Ron' Cook dismantled SBJ/1 as mentioned, that he used blood taken from the third blood sample obtained from the neck of Sheila Caffell during autopsy performed on 7th August 1985, and dripped some of this uncontaminated  blood belonging to her, onto the baffles before rebuilding it. The problem he had however, was that he placed uncontaminated blood belonging to Sheila, inside DB/1 (23), which had got contaminated baffle plates, which if the matter had not been addressed would stand out as a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice...

That was why, the second decoy silencer (DRB/1) was sent to the lab' on the 20th September, 1985. It was sent because it was needed to become the carrier of Sheila's blood, in an uncontaminated environment (DRB/1). Police / relatives deliberately used this second decoy silencer (DRB/1) to make fresh scratch marks on the kitchen aga back at the farmhouse, because Cook believed that exposure of SBJ/1 (22), to harmful superglue treatment carried out on 15th August, 1985 may have irreparably damaged paint on SBJ/1. So they made new scratches on the aga surround, and sent DRB/1 off to the lab' on the pretense of it being checked for blood and fibers...

The rest is history...

Quite a tale, if only it were true.   

[John]

How this became a topic about my ego I have no Idea. 

However I would like to point out that first off I made this discovery around three weeks ago now and patiently kept quiet about it other than sharing the information with three other people.

Secondly My Dad recommended I take my findings to the press as I could get money for it, However Andrew told me it would harm the legal process if I did that. Since I have turned down monetary gain for the sake of JBs next appeal bid I don't see how I can be accused of handling this in an egotistical fashion at all.

If Stephanie wants to spend her time reading through my previous forum posts looking for bad examples of my character then that's her problem, Not exactly the most exiting way to spend your afternoon but what ever floats your boat 

I think you have just shot yourself in the foot David and it was all going so well.

[John]

How come, nobody at the lab' acknowledges the receipt of DRB/1 at the lab' on and after the 20th September, 1985? How come nobody examines it, or checks it for blood and fibers? How come we don't have a diagram of it bearing signatures, and dates, or whatever?

Where are the results, and the conclusions, from its inspection?

This is where your tale breaks down, the inability to prove ownership throughout the investigation.  A case of revolving doors I'm afraid.

[John]

I don't particular think the Police framed Jeremy ...

But i have an open mind ...

I have come to eventually accept there were 2 silencers - Jeremy's and Anthony's ...

Apparently Anthony took his home from the farm the weekend before ...

But here is a question for you John ...

If you were a Police officer

And you knew beyond a doubt (or thought you did ) that a man had murdered 2 children ...

But you could not prove it ...

What would you do ?

Let him get away with it ? ...

Maybe to kill more children ...

Or would you do whatever it took to lock him up ?

Including planting fake evidence ?

Tough one that ain't it John ...

It's called Noble Cause Corruption ...

Very very common in the 1980's including in Essex ...

I always keep an open mind and believe the truth can only be found by so doing ...

And analysing EVERY piece of evidence and unusual occurrences very carefully indeed ...

There was more than enough circumstantial evidence to convict Jeremy but Julie's inside information was all that was needed to be sure of it.  She provided the motive when even the police were struggling to make sense of it all.  If the police wanted to frame Bamber they would have to have done so from the very beginning and with the assistance of several forensic science officers if Mike Tesko's wild allegations are to be believed.  That in itself is something I have great difficulty accepting.

There was no need to fabricate evidence in this case, noble cause or otherwise.   There isn't a single piece of evidence which points to Sheila's involvement other than as a victim otherwise I too would still be questioning it.

I have always said, Jeremy is very guilty or very unlucky!

[David1819]

I think you have just shot yourself in the foot David and it was all going so well.

On the contrary, it's only just begun. A new chapter in the Bamber saga is on the Horizon you have my word on that John and I shall not disappoint