What makes Bamber innocent?

[sami]

No, I won't because I don't like your tone...

By your scenario, Jeremy would have to be so devious and clever to 'plant' the bullets on the kitchen worktop, with exactly 30 remaining bullets, set against the fact that there are 50 bullets in a newly opened box, and 25 rounds fired during the incident, with five of the corresponding bullet cases bearing double magazine marks indicating that at least 5 of the 25 shots fired came from a different source, and yet the same Jeremy supposedly hid the silencer away in a cupboard in the den containing all the damned blood and paint evidence that was visible to the naked eye. The two scenarios do not sit well together, it couldn't have happened like your suggesting, unless of course that Jeremy had been Sheila's accomplice...

But he wasn't, because 'Ralph Neville' was...

why did jb's team not mention it in court that 5 of the 25 bullets were not fired by that rifle,you would think something like that would be mentioned

[sami]

No, I won't because I don't like your tone...

no its junes tone we are interested in

[sami]

Does anyone know what that packet is? my first guess was a packet of crisps but I think it may be too small

whats your point on the packets

[sami]

I disagree, he didn't get caught as you put it, the relatives, bent cops, and dodgy experts framed him with the silencer, blood and paint evidence. Today, there exists no scientific evidence which proves his culpability in these murders...

and the same goes for sheila,not a hair of evidence against her

[Caroline]

Does anyone know what that packet is? my first guess was a packet of crisps but I think it may be too small

Looks like the packaging says 'Whitworths chopped .......' and the contents look like some kind of nuts (maybe).

[mike tesko]

and the same goes for sheila,not a hair of evidence against her

That's not what the original investigation concluded, in fact all the evidence pointed to her culpability...

Once the investigation changed after the relatives influenced the cops to arrest Jeremy, false photographic records were presented, exhibits tampered with in a variety of different ways, and lies told about the bloodstained feet, and the bloodstained hand of Sheila. Lies told about lead deposit levels found on the hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell which were wrongly portrayed as only meaning that she could not have handled any bullets before she herself had died. Bullets and empty cartridge cases from the crime scene interfered with so as to present the investigation as a one gun crime. The bodies of the victims moved around by cops during a training exercise with the bodies of the victims still insitu...

Freemason involvement changed the course of the police investigation, with Robert Boutflour, Mick Ainsley, Peter Simpson, and Morris Drake (all mason's from the same lodge) at the heart of the conspiracy...

[mike tesko]

What is highly significant is the 'fact' that human blood and animal bloods were found on the outside of the silencer which David Boutflour and the other relatives extricated from the crime scene. We know, for example, that David Boutflour physically handled this silencer without wearing gloves. We know this because other relatives of his witnessed him handling this silencer, along with the Executor of thhe estate, Basil John Cock, and the house cleaner, Jean Boutell. In addition, David Boutflour openly admitted both in all the versions of his witness statements that he made,and whilst testifying during the trial, that he 'handled' that silencer...

A Silencer which had 'blood' of varying sources all over it, as specified in the Lab' diagram, dated, the 13th August 1985...

One paint stain
Four blood stains...

[mike tesko]

So, we have David Boutflour, either handling a silencer which had allready got these key bloodstains, and the paint, or else the blood was on his hands when he picked up the silencer from inside the gun cupboard, and of course, the paint was added to the silencer much later. Boutflour himself has gone on record as stating that 'I tried to unscrew the cap from the end of the silencer to look inside, but it was screwed on too tightly'...

He must have had his hands against parts of the silencer in order to try to 'unscrew' the cap from it (in my opinion). One hand at the top, the other hand at the bottom of the silencer in question. Funny how the silencer was contaminated with blood at both ends where David Boutflours hands must have been when he performed his, 'I must look inside the silencer', trick that he is on record as boasting about...

[mike tesko]

Now, lets look at these four different stained areas that are documented on the outside of the silencer - we need to make sure that what we are talking about is accurately considered. The positioning of these four areas of bloodstaining were not documented as being present upon the silencer until 'Ron' Cook had taken it to the lab' on the 13th August 1985, and Glynis Howard, had examined it, and recorded the positioning of the four bloodstains that we are now interested in, on a diagram...

[Jane]

The relatives knew more than they have let on about June Bambers intention to try to find a care home where Sheila would be looked after, whilst her boys were away with their father in the planned Norway trip. But with Sheila being paranoid she must have believed that that was the last time she would probably ever see her children again. She must have reflected upon the circumstances of her own life, and how she herself had been whisked away to become the adopted child of the Bambers. Everything that Jeremy said he had overheard his parents and Sheila talking about that night at the supper table was absolutely true. Foster carers had in the past been brought in to help Sheila to cope with looking after her two boys. And, Pamela her sister had spoken to June Bamber at around 10pm that night and been told by June that she thought there was 'something wrong' with Sheila. So much so, that between them they had arranged to visit Pamela on the following afternoon for tea and a chat with a view of trying to sort something out...

What you say about the relatives' knowledge of Sheila's illness is quite contrary to what Colin says of it -ALL of which is well documented- and it seems to me that you have no proof of any of the above, OTHER than using Jeremy as your source!!!!! I believe June's words to her sister were more along the lines of her being concerned about Sheila and her lack of interest/involvement than stating that there was "something wrong" with her per se and there was no visit arranged to specifically "sort things out," as you put it, because it's quite plausible that Pam, as with Ann, had known nothing of Sheila's illness and recent hospitalisation.

[mike tesko]

Here are the results of tests on these four stained areas, as analysed by Glynis Howrads assistant, A. BAKER, on the 13th August 1985...

Stain (1) - human / rabbit?
Stain (2) - rabbit?
Stain (3) - dog?
Stain (4) - hen?

The key significance are the result obtained from the examination of the stained (1) area on the flat surface of the silencers (top) end cap, where the blood found there belonged to, or had originated from either a mixture of rabbits and human blood (inclusive of the shared identical AK/1 enzyme), or human blood (containing its own human equivilent of the AK/1 enzyme)...

[mike tesko]

What you say about the relatives' knowledge of Sheila's illness is quite contrary to what Colin says of it -ALL of which is well documented- and it seems to me that you have no proof of any of the above, OTHER than using Jeremy as your source!!!!! I believe June's words to her sister were more along the lines of her being concerned about Sheila and her lack of interest/involvement than stating that there was "something wrong" with her per se and there was no visit arranged to specifically "sort things out," as you put it, because it's quite plausible that Pam, as with Ann, had known nothing of Sheila's illness and recent hospitalisation.

I have all the documentary proof required to support what I am saying, but I won't be posting it up for general reading until I am ready too...

[mike tesko]

This is the stain (1) that I am focussing on:-

Stain (1) - human / rabbits blood?

David Boutflour handled the silencer according to his own evidence using his bear hands on the 10th August 1985, some three days 'before' Glynis Howard found stain (1) there on the end of 'that' silencer. Human / animal blood? In particular, the possibility that 'he' was responsible for contaminating the silencer by way of reference to the analysis of stain (1), and how utterly remarkable, no not remarkable, but 'astonishing', that we find that with the benefit of hindsight, the results obtained from the examination of the flake should bear this very self same 'contradiction' where one of the four blood grouping results (AK/1) from examination of the flake, is conducive in animal and human blood? Rabbit / human?

[mike tesko]

So, we now know something that the jury were never made aware of during the trial. We know that there was human / animal blood (rabbit) on the outside of the silencer, at the exact place where David Boutflour must have handled the silencer without wearing gloves when he attempted to unscrew the cap from the end of the silencer, 'so that he could look inside'...

[mike tesko]

We also know that David Boutflour used a razor blade to 'scrape' a small dried flake of blood from the same flat surface of the same silencer, and that Essex police were aware of what he had done, and what's more, we know that this flake of blood was the size of a match head, and that David Boutflour had removed it from the end of the silencer because he said, it 'fascinated' him...

So, he handles the silencer and afterwards human / animal blood is found to be present on the outside of it, in the exact location where he would have needed to place one of his hands whilst attempting to 'unscrew' it. He then, supposedly uses a razor blade to remove a small flake of blood from the end cap of the same silencer, which he says he 'retained' because it fascinated him. He adds that Essex cops knew about all of this, and we have 'Ron' Cook taking this silencer to the lab' to be examined by Glynis Howard on the 13th August 1985, minus the small flake that Boutflour has removed from it. At the Lab', on that date (13th August 1985) we have Howards lab' assistant, 'A BAKER' confirming that the blood from stain (1) originated from an intimate mixture human / animal (rabbit) bloods...

(A) - Human / animals (rabbit) blood at stain (1) by 13th August 1985...

(B) - Human / animals (rabbit) blood in flake (AK/1) examined at lab' between 12th to 19th September, 1985...

The flake which David Boutflour had scraped from the extreme end of the silencer, could only have originated from the same area as stain (1) as depicted in the diagram, dated, 13th August 1985, so therefore, it would be fair to assume that 'the flake' Boutflour took from the outside of the silencer must have also contained the same human / animal (AK/1) bloods, found in stain (1) by 'A. BAKER', on the 13th August, 1985, and which were also present in the flake...

This raises a serious question which requires rigorous investigation into trying to establish whether or not (a) the flake David Boutflour took from the silencer, and (b) the flake results relied upon during the trial, were, one and the same?