What makes Bamber innocent?

[mike tesko]

Same logic applies to his father, Robert Boutflour, who writes notes involving the possible use of the silencer, without knowing that Ralph Bamber had even purchased a .22 aqnshuzt rifle with a silencer...

The relatives know about the silencer (in my opinion) before they were entitled to know about it. Not only that, but they appear to have known about its possible use in the crime long before they knew that such a silencer belonged with the anshuzt rifle...

[mike tesko]

Same logic applies to his father, Robert Boutflour, who writes notes involving the possible use of the silencer, without knowing that Ralph Bamber had even purchased a .22 aqnshuzt rifle with a silencer...

The relatives know about the silencer (in my opinion) before they were entitled to know about it. Not only that, but they appear to have known about its possible use in the crime long before they knew that such a silencer belonged with the anshuzt rifle...

I have narrowed it down to them being told about the anshuzt rifle, and its silencer, by them coming into contact with Anthony Pargeter, at a time when the relatives thought that the silencer that David had got his hands on belonged to Anthony Pargters .22 (Bruno) bolt action rifle. Yes, they thought it belonged to Anthony, and that first silencer got handed to cops by Peter Eaton on the evening of the 12th August 1985, before relatives got time to speak to Anthony Pargeter about it. It was only later, on the following month, when cops went to speak to Anthony Pargeter about his bolt action rifle, and he made a witness statement to Essex cops that he always had kept his rifle at whf but had the habit of removing the bolt and taking 'it' home to Buckinghamshire, so that no-one could fire it in his absence, that Anthony became aware that cops had got his silencer (the one Peter Eaton handed over to DS Jones). It was immediately after this visit to see his bruno rifle, that Anthony Pargeter went to see the other relatives to try to find out whether or not, cops had been given his silencer, or the one belonging to Ralph Bambers anshuzt rifle...

This is what caused David Boutflour to return to the scene to search for the second silencer (September, 1985)...

When he found it, he must have showed it to Anthony Pargeter, only to have it confirmed to him, that cops had got the wrong parker hale silencer. They had been given Anthony Pargeters silencer, not the Bamber owned one...

[mike tesko]

I have narrowed it down to them being told about the anshuzt rifle, and its silencer, by them coming into contact with Anthony Pargeter, at a time when the relatives thought that the silencer that David had got his hands on belonged to Anthony Pargters .22 (Bruno) bolt action rifle. Yes, they thought it belonged to Anthony, and that first silencer got handed to cops by Peter Eaton on the evening of the 12th August 1985, before relatives got time to speak to Anthony Pargeter about it. It was only later, on the following month, when cops went to speak to Anthony Pargeter about his bolt action rifle, and he made a witness statement to Essex cops that he always had kept his rifle at whf but had the habit of removing the bolt and taking 'it' home to Buckinghamshire, so that no-one could fire it in his absence, that Anthony became aware that cops had got his silencer (the one Peter Eaton handed over to DS Jones). It was immediately after this visit to see his bruno rifle, that Anthony Pargeter went to see the other relatives to try to find out whether or not, cops had been given his silencer, or the one belonging to Ralph Bambers anshuzt rifle...

This is what caused David Boutflour to return to the scene to search for the second silencer (September, 1985)...

When he found it, he must have showed it to Anthony Pargeter, only to have it confirmed to him, that cops had got the wrong parker hale silencer. They had been given Anthony Pargeters silencer, not the Bamber owned one...

I suspect, that this is where the folklore regarding David Boutflour telling Anthony Pargeter that cops had given the silencer back to the family. I think that when David Boutflour eventually got his hands on the second silencer, that he showed it to Anthony because he wanted to know which silencer the cops had got possession of, and with Jeremy then in custody I think David Boutflour and his sister felt that it would bolster up the case against Jeremy, if cops had possession of the Bamber owned silencer, rather than the Pargeter owned one...

At that point, David Boutflour got his sister to hand over the second silencer to DC Oakey (11th September, 1985). At that stage, the lab' already had possession of the first silencer (DB/1), whilst cops had possession of the second silencer (DRB/1)...

[mike tesko]

The key flake of blood trick, which David Boutflour sought to introduce found its way to the lab' by 12th September, 1985, at the latest, but could have been given to cops by Ann Eaton the day before..

[mike tesko]

John Hayward and his assistants analyse the flake for blood grouping results between the 12th an 19th September 1985, (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1). The flake was not recovered from inside the Pargeter owned silencer (DB/1) or the Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1). All the cops and the experts at the lab' had to go on was the fact that David Boutflour claimed he had scraped the small flake from the end of the silencers end cap (not inside it). But, David Boutflour had had opportunity to get his hands on some of Sheila's menstrual blood. This was because his sister had removed the heavily bloodstained panties belonging to Sheila, in a bucket from the scene, to her home (what a very strange thing for Ann Eaton to want to have to do)?

[mike tesko]

John Hayward and his assistants analyse the flake for blood grouping results between the 12th an 19th September 1985, (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1). The flake was not recovered from inside the Pargeter owned silencer (DB/1) or the Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1). All the cops and the experts at the lab' had to go on was the fact that David Boutflour claimed he had scraped the small flake from the end of the silencers end cap (not inside it). But, David Boutflour had had opportunity to get his hands on some of Sheila's menstrual blood. This was because his sister had removed the heavily bloodstained panties belonging to Sheila, in a bucket from the scene, to her home (what a very strange thing for Ann Eaton to want to have to do)?

Since, the results obtained from the examination of the 'Boutflour flake' matched the same four blood groups 'belonging to Sheila', and Boutflour had removed 'it' from a silencer the cops had got back in Essex, they sent for it (DRB/1) because they wanted to see if there was any matching blood (same as from the flake) on any of the internal baffle plates, of 'that' particular silencer, so cops submitted it to the lab' on the 20th September 1985...

[mike tesko]

Can it simply be an error that David Boutflour never 'uttered a word' in any of his Essex police witness statements, to the effect that 'he had used a razor blade to scrape a small dried flake of blood from the end of the silencer'? Nobody during the 1986 trial knew David Boutflours 'dark secret', other than the cops, and the lab' experts...

[mike tesko]

Can it simply be an error that David Boutflour never 'uttered a word' in any of his Essex police witness statements, to the effect that 'he had used a razor blade to scrape a small dried flake of blood from the end of the silencer'? Nobody during the 1986 trial knew David Boutflours 'dark secret', other than the cops, and the lab' experts...

Based upon what David Boutflour tells the COLP investigators about this flake, him removing it from the silencer, using a razor blade, him saying Essex cops knew what he had done, but why did Boutflour himself, and the cops from Essex not mention anything about these matters, either in witness statement format, pocketbook entries, reports, or whilst testifying during the trial? Didn't the scientists who were charged with examining the silencers and the flake itself have a right to know the truth regarding what David Boutflour had done, to arguable the most important exhibit in the entire case?

[mike tesko]

What if...

the flake of blood that Boutflour scraped from the silencer had 'not' been the flake that was analysed, instead what if it had been retrieved from Boutflour, and it had turned out to be one of the other victims bloods, or an intimate mixtures of the other victims bloods, excluding Sheila's? Doesn't it matter, that somebody like David Boutflour who stood to gain financially by helping to get Jeremy Bamber convicted for the murders, that such a person deliberately admitted to 'tampering' with the silencer evidence?

[mike tesko]

What if...

the flake of blood that Boutflour scraped from the silencer had 'not' been the flake that was analysed, instead what if it had been retrieved from Boutflour, and it had turned out to be one of the other victims bloods, or an intimate mixtures of the other victims bloods, excluding Sheila's? Doesn't it matter, that somebody like David Boutflour who stood to gain financially by helping to get Jeremy Bamber convicted for the murders, that such a person deliberately admitted to 'tampering' with the silencer evidence?

If I were Bamber, I would be wanting to know:-

(1) - On what date did David Boutflour scrape the flake of blood from the end of the silencer?
(2) - Which Essex police officers did he tell of him scraping the flake off the silencer?
(3) - What did he do with the flake, and how long was it in his possession?

[mike tesko]

Surely, we are not going to end up with egg on our faces again, Oh please, not another trick, surely not 'a trick of blood'...

[mike tesko]

A trick of light
A trick of the camera
A trick of the pen
A trick of memory
A trick of blood...

What ever, next?

[lookout]

A trick up his sleeve ?

[sami]

If I were Bamber, I would be wanting to know:-

(1) - On what date did David Boutflour scrape the flake of blood from the end of the silencer?
(2) - Which Essex police officers did he tell of him scraping the flake off the silencer?
(3) - What did he do with the flake, and how long was it in his possession?

i hink if jb asked the above from ep,he will be told where to go

[mike tesko]

i hink if jb asked the above from ep,he will be told where to go

Well, I am being absolutely serious when I say there ought to be an independent police investigation  into this matter. One that delves into which police officers knew the truth, which officers decided to either, (a) inform the scientists at the lab', or (b) withhold this key information from the DPP, or (c) its representative?

You simply can't have dodgy coppers practicing dishonesty at this level, when an innocent mans liberty for the rest of his life is at stake. What David Boutflour did was 'dishonest' to say the least. Any copper who knew what David Boutflour had done, and kept quiet about it, needed to be sacked, and prosecuted. If they are now retired, their police pensions taken off them, and they should be made to pay back every penny they have defrauded from the police pensions scheme, and prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment...