What makes Bamber innocent?

[Steve_uk]

Yes, he did, he pointed out that the farmhouse was not fingerprinted until September 1985, the inference to be drawn, therefore, was that if Basil John Cock was present when the silencer was found, then the silencer in question (DRB/1) could not have been found in August 1985, because Basil John Cock, did not go to the farmhouse until September 1985, after cops had fingerprinted the farmhouse...

Mike are you saying that solicitor Basil Cock was involved in the silencer conspiracy or was used by the relatives as a stooge?

[mike tesko]

Yes, he did, he pointed out that the farmhouse was not fingerprinted until September 1985, the inference to be drawn, therefore, was that if Basil John Cock was present when the silencer was found, then the silencer in question (DRB/1) could not have been found in August 1985, because Basil John Cock, did not go to the farmhouse until September 1985, after cops had fingerprinted the farmhouse...

This fits in snugly with the timing of the handing over of the silencer (DRB/1) by Annie Eaton on the 11th September 1985 (to DC Oakey). How amazing that 'she' has possession of a silencer at all, considering that cops had submitted 'it' to the lab' previously on the 30th August, 1985, under exhibit reference DB/1, lab' item no.23? Worse still this silencer that Annie had in her possession 'after' that date, was subsequently fingerprinted by DS Eastwood, and DS Davidson, on the 13th September, 1985, and finally - cops submitted 'this' silencer (DRB/1) to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers, on the 20th September, 1985, which was  8 days after the date the key flake of blood  had supposedly 'already' been found inside 'it' at the lab' where it had been ever since the 30th August 1985. So, how can Annie still be in possession of a silencer on the 11th September 1985, to enable her to hand 'it' over to the cops, so that they can fingerprint 'it' by 13th September, 1985, and later submit 'it' to the same lab' (20th September 1985), to be checked for blood and fibers, despite the 'fact' it was already at the lab' and 'it' had been there three weeks before 'it' got sent there (again). Why check the silencer for blood, when its already been checked for blood?

[mike tesko]

Mike are you saying that solicitor Basil Cock was involved in the silencer conspiracy or was used by the relatives as a stooge?

As a result of interrogating Jeremy about the possible involvement of Basil John Cock at the farmhouse on the occasion when 'the' silencer was found by David Boutflour, he kept saying that Cock mentions white fingerprint dust on everything, and Jeremy told me that cops did not fingerprint whf until after Julie Mugford came forward in September, 1985. So, I checked the facts given to me by Jeremy, (a) when cops had fingerprinted the farmhouse, (b) the purpose of Cocks visit, and the earliest possible occasion there could have been white fingerprint dust at the scene,  and (c) the date Annie handed over the silencer to cops (11th September, 1985), and I realised that, one of the silencers (DRB/1) must have been found in September, irrespective of the claim that 'it' had been found in August. I think that Cock inadvertently got caught up in the silencer exchange orchestrated between cops and relatives, without not knowing what was going down. Cock could not have been present at the farmhouse with white fingerprint dust all over the place any time in August, 1985, so he must have been at the farmhouse in September, when David Boutflour, and Annie Eaton  found the silencer.  Cock was a stooge, in the sense that he was supposed to be an independent witness to the find of the silencer, but his involvement became problematic because of the timing of the hand over of the silencer by Annie Eaton to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985. Especially, since it was not until 'after' the flake of blood had been found (12th September) in a different silencer and analysed (19th September) that the silencer that Basil John Cock witnessed being found, that 'it' got submitted to the lab' (20th September, 1985). By the time the matter came to trial (October, 1986), cops / DPP had edited Cocks witness statement, so that it seemed that Cock had been present at the farmhouse when David Boutflour had found the silencer on the 10th August, but alas, there had been no fingerprinting by that stage...

Fingerprint dust was 'edited out' in the final version of Cocks statement...

[David1819]

As a result of interrogating Jeremy about the possible involvement of Basil John Cock at the farmhouse on the occasion when 'the' silencer was found by David Boutflour, he kept saying that Cock mentions white fingerprint dust on everything, and Jeremy told me that cops did not fingerprint whf until after Julie Mugford came forward in September, 1985. So, I checked the facts given to me by Jeremy, (a) when cops had fingerprinted the farmhouse, (b) the purpose of Cocks visit, and the earliest possible occasion there could have been white fingerprint dust at the scene,  and (c) the date Annie handed over the silencer to cops (11th September, 1985), and I realised that, one of the silencers (DRB/1) must have been found in September, irrespective of the claim that 'it' had been found in August. I think that Cock inadvertently got caught up in the silencer exchange orchestrated between cops and relatives, without not knowing what was going down. Cock could not have been present at the farmhouse with white fingerprint dust all over the place any time in August, 1985, so he must have been at the farmhouse in September, when David Boutflour, and Annie Eaton  found the silencer.  Cock was a stooge, in the sense that he was supposed to be an independent witness to the find of the silencer, but his involvement became problematic because of the timing of the hand over of the silencer by Annie Eaton to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985. Especially, since it was not until 'after' the flake of blood had been found (12th September) in a different silencer and analysed (19th September) that the silencer that Basil John Cock witnessed being found, that 'it' got submitted to the lab' (20th September, 1985). By the time the matter came to trial (October, 1986), cops / DPP had edited Cocks witness statement, so that it seemed that Cock had been present at the farmhouse when David Boutflour had found the silencer on the 10th August, but alas, there had been no fingerprinting by that stage...

Fingerprint dust was 'edited out' in the final version of Cocks statement...

Mike, I found this section of the trail transcript very interesting

Rivlins examination of Boutflour trial transcript

RIVLIN: When was the last time you saw the silencer before it was recovered by the police?
A. The last time i saw the silencer to my recall was in Ann's kitchen in the presence of Ann and my brother-in-law Peter.
 
JUSTICE DRAKE (To the Witness): Was that the occasion when you tried to undo the knurl?
A. I believe that must have been the occasion when I tried to undo the knurl, because that was the occasion when I noticed the spot of red on the end of the nut.

RIVLIN: If I may say so, it is now not too difficult to undo it? A. I notice that.
RIVLIN: Because I am doing it now am I not? A. You are.
RIVLIN: And therefore it is obviously not very tight at the moment? A. It is loose.

[mike tesko]

Mike, I found this section of the trail transcript very interesting

Rivlins examination of Boutflour trial transcript

RIVLIN: When was the last time you saw the silencer before it was recovered by the police?
A. The last time i saw the silencer to my recall was in Ann's kitchen in the presence of Ann and my brother-in-law Peter.
 
JUSTICE DRAKE (To the Witness): Was that the occasion when you tried to undo the knurl?
A. I believe that must have been the occasion when I tried to undo the knurl, because that was the occasion when I noticed the spot of red on the end of the nut.

RIVLIN: If I may say so, it is now not too difficult to undo it? A. I notice that.
RIVLIN: Because I am doing it now am I not? A. You are.
RIVLIN: And therefore it is obviously not very tight at the moment? A. It is loose.

Yet, in various versions of his witness statement, some undated, some not bearing his signature, he claims he saw the blood on the silencer at the time he found it...

And he States that ' later informed the police of the find of the 'telescopic site', and the 'sound moderator'..

[mike tesko]

So, depending upon which version of his witness statement you rely upon, he saw blood on the end of the silencer, at the scene when he found it, or at a later date at his sisters house, or the same day he supposedly found it when he saw it at his sisters house, and he himself (no-one else) informed the police by either the telephone, or verbally, that he had found the telescopic site and the sound moderator at a later date...

He supposedly finds the silencer in the gun cupboard on the 10th August 1985, but waits until the 12th September 1985, before he reports finding it along with a telescopic site?

[mike tesko]

Added to this, his sister Annie Eaton, hands over a silencer to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985...

[mike tesko]

It should be clear to everyone, that David Boutflour informed the police on the 12th September 1985, that he had found the telescopic site and sound moderator that his sister had handed in to DC Oakey on the previous day (11th September 1985)...

[mike tesko]

Ann Eaton would not be handing over the same silencer that her husband Peter Eaton had handed over to DS Jones a month beforehand (12th August 1985) because cops already had that other silencer by the time Ann Eaton gave the telescopic site and the sound moderator to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985. In fact,  cops had already sent 'that' other silencer to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, under an exhibit reference of DB/1 (23), so how could Annie Eaton have possession of 'that' silencer by 11th September, to enable her to be guvinbg it to DC Oakey on that date (Lab' had the other silencer by that stage)...

[mike tesko]

If I may remind you all of the fairy tale the jury and almost everybody else has been spun, that 'other' silencer had been found in the gun cupboard by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985, handed over by Peter Eaton to DS Jones on 12th August 1985, taken by 'Ron' Cook to the lab' where it was examined by Glynis Howard on the 13th August, fingerprinted by 'Ron' Cook on the 15th and 23rd August, sent back to the lab' on 30th August, stripped down by Fletcher and Hayward on 12th September and the key flake of blood found inside it, that was analysed and produced blood group activity (A, EAP BA, AK1, and HP 2-1) between 12th to 19th September, yet Ann Eaton is handing 'it' over to DC Oakey on the 11th September, and her brother David is reporting 'it' to the police on the 12th September that he has found the telescopic site, and the silencer to the gun, and once Annie Eaton had given the silencer to DC Oakey on 11th September, why did DS Eastwood and DS Davidson then fingerprint 'that' silencer on the 13th September, when it had already supposedly been fingerprinted by 'Ron' Cook previously on the 15th and 23rd August, by superglue treatment on the latter occasion? Lo and behold, what we then find is that 'the silencer' Annie Eaton handed over to DC Oakey on 11th September, is retained by cops until 20th September 1985 (day after all blood grouping tests and results have been obtained from the flake found in the other silencer)...

Everything is out of 'sync'...

Cops, relatives, and somebody at the lab' have for 30 years got away with fabricating the silencer, blood and paint evidence, by merging at least two different parker hale silencers into one...

But, judgement day is looming fast...

[mike tesko]

These 'discrepancies' are too serious to be put down as errors or mistakes...

[mike tesko]

These 'discrepancies' are too serious to be put down as errors or mistakes...

On a scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being the most serious, the 'discrepancies' are of a '10' factor, in the same way that in one of my false prosecutions, ' two cops had claimed to be present inside an observation van, at 5.20pm, during a No.3 Regional Crimne Operation, when they declared that they both had identified me as the driver of a stolen car, that they said had parked up outside target premises they were monitoring, only to find five and a half months later, that the DI (Henshaw) who was running the surveillance at the scene, did not send for 'that' observation van to be collected from Barnsley police station compound until 5.55pm, and which wasn't put into position in the road outside the target premises until 6.30pm. So, how could the two bad apple cops have been inside the observation van one hour and 10 minutes beforehand, to enable them to identify the driver of a stolen car , as me?

The same logic that was eventually applied in that case, is 'on a par' to what has happened with these two Silencer's in the Bamber case...

I should know when things don't stack up, because I myself have been a victim of this kind of corruption by bad Apple coos on many occasions. I am an expert in knowing what signs to look for in the evidence, and if there has been any underhand tactics adopted by bad apple cops, then I will be able to tell. And, in this instance, Bamber has been stitched up with these silencers, blood and paint evidence, with 100% certainty...

[mike tesko]

Why were cops 'submitting a silencer to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibers', in view of the 'fact' that cops had already submitted one silencer to the same (Huntingdon) lab 21 days earlier, inside which the key blood evidence had been found, analysed and the results already obtained before 'that' date...

[mike tesko]

And...

You don't phone the cops up, on the 12th September 1985, to tell them you have found the silencer to 'the' rifle, if by that stage, the silencer in question has already been handed over to DS Jones by Peter Eaton on 12th August 1985, has been to the lab' to be examined once by Glynis Howard on the 13th August, and been fingerprinted twice (15th and 23rd August) and resubmitted back to the lab on 30th August 1985, and expect anybody to believe that cops didn't even know a silencer had been found by David Boutflour before 12th September?

[Steve_uk]

There's still something nagging me about this fingerprint dust, a remark Jeremy made to Julie upon returning to the White House with Ann Eaton present about the Police not being thorough, if anyone recalls the chronology?