What makes Bamber innocent?

[mike tesko]

Lets go the whole hog, red paint from the aga surround, upon silencer SBJ/1, red paint from the aga surround on the silencer marked, SJ/1, red paint from the aga surround on the silencer marked, DB/1, and finally, red paint from the aga surround on the silencer marked, DRB/1?

That's an awful lot of different silencers (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1) fitted to the only weapon used in the shootings...

You forgot to take into account that whilst one, or more of these different silencers had already been submitted to the Lab' at Huntingdon Forensic Science Laboratory (30th August, 1985), that 'THE RELATIVES' (11th September, 1985) and 'ESSEX POLICE' still had possession of at least a second silencer (until the 20th September, 1985)...

Don't try to fuck with me, or anybody else, by making up utter nonsense...

The bad apple cops, and the bad apple relatives, could not possibly still have had possession or access to a silencer, which had already been recieved by the cops, and already submitted to the lab' for examination by the 30th August, 1985, by the 11th September, 1985, onward...

DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood, could not possibly have been tasked with 'fingerprinting' a silencer that the cops never had possession of by the 13th September, 1985. This is because cops had supposedly already submitted a silencer to Huntingdon Lab' by the 30th August, 1985, so prey tell, enlighten me please, try to educate someone of my experience, how DS Eastwood and DS Davidson, were able to 'fingerprint' a silencer on the 13th September, 1985, when if there had only been just the one silencer, and 'it' had already been fingerprinted by DI 'Ron' Cook, on the 15th and the 23rd August, 1985, and submitted to the lab' on the 30th August 1985,how Essex police could submit 'that very same silencer' to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 20th September, 1985, to be checked for blood and fibers, if the lab' at Huntingdon, already had examined a silencer sent to them by Essex police on the 30th August 1985, and inside which had already been found the key flake of blood which produced the key blood group activity (A, EAP BA, AK/1 and HP 2-1)?

You can't possibly submit the only silencer (DRB/1) in the police investigation, to the lab' on the 20th September, 1985, and request that it be checked for blood and fibers, if blood has already been found in a different silencer (DB/1), and then attribute the discovery of 'that' blood in the other silencer (DB/1), by claiming when the matter came to trial that the flake in question had been found inside a different silencer (DRB/1) not sent to the lab' at Huntingdon, to be checked for blood and fibers on the 20th September, 1985, after the blood in the form of the flake (12th September, 1985) had already been found in the other silencer (DB/1) and which had already been analysed and producing the results, A, EAP BA, AK/1 and HP 2-1, (between the 12th andd 19th September, 1985) before the silencer bearing the identifying mark, DRB/1 was even submitted to the lab,' on the 20th September, 1985?

Please do not try to insult my intelligence...

[mike tesko]

Here is an interesting document:-

[mike tesko]

Doesn't suprise me that DS 'Stan' Jones had involvement with the taking of these blood samples...

[mike tesko]

DS 'Stan' Jones, had his hands into 'everything' that was 'dishonest' about this case...

[mike tesko]

DS 'Stan' Jones, was literally, nothing more, nothing less, than a common crook, in this matter..

[mike tesko]

DS 'Stan' Jones, was literally, nothing more, nothing less, than a common crook, in this matter..

Nothing, could be any clearer...

[mike tesko]

His notebook, that was issued to him on the 5th November, 1984, purportedly contained the details of his involvement in the case, from 7th August, 1985, onwards...

'Sorry', pal, you are a 'pathological liar'...

[mike tesko]

Lets recap the facts - The pathologist, Peter Venezis, has not said a silencer was used in the shootings, the eight members of the raid team have not leaned toward a silencer being used in the shootings. This 'baby' of a silencer argument, is the brainchild of the wealth hungry relatives, SOCO, and dodgy Lab' experts. Without the silencer, the case would have been treated as four murders and a suicide, and put to be a long long time ago...

All the relatives were gun enthusiasts, target shooters, Game shooters, or gun dealers - only somebody from this background could come up with introducing a silencer into the case, to put the cat amongst the pigeons. Relatives gambled on introducing the silencer, blood and paint evidence associated with it, to secure their prize. But 'they fucked up', big time. Two silencers which between them the relatives handed over to dodgy cops at different times, were merged into one silencer, but the one bearing the identifying mark of DRB/1 arrived at the lab't at Huntingdon too late (20th September, 1985) for the crucial flake of blood matching Sheila's blood to have been found inside 'it'...

There will have to be an independant police inquiry into how cops, relatives, and lab' experts, attributed a key flake of dried blood, to a silencer that was not even submitted to the lab' in order for the said flake to be inside it, and found inside it, in time for individual blood group activity to obtained from examination of the flake, on the 12th, 13th, 18th, and 19th September, 1985. Somebody has got a hell of a lot of questions to answer for. Heads will roll, somebody will have to be made into the scapegoat. You can't find a flake by the 12th September, 1985, in order to enable it to be analysed from then until the 19th September, 1985, considering that the silencer Annie Eaton handed over to cops on the 11th September, 1985 did not get sent to the lab' to be checked for blood until the 20th September, 1985...

Game Over!!!

[mike tesko]

Don't shoot me, 'I'm only the messenger'...

[mike tesko]

Reliance on the silencer, blood, and paint confirmation, was akin to the prosecution putting the cart before the horse. They claimed Sheila's blood had been found inside a silencer (DRB/1) that wasn't even present at the lab' until eight days after the alleged 'find' date of the flake. Nobody on the defence side, nor the court itself had to concern itself with any other exhibit reference belonging to a silencer other than, DRB/1, court exhibit No.9. Supposedly found by Davy Boutflour on the 10th August, 1985, retained by the relatives, until dodgy 'Stan' Jones collected it on evening of 12th August, who in turn showed it to PI 'Bob' Miller on the following morning. Miller had advised 'Stan' to give the silencer to 'Ronny' Cook who would take 'it' along to Huntingdon lab' later that same day, for Glynis Howard to work her magic, before she returned 'it' to 'Ronny' to fill his jacket pocket for 17 days with its covert presence there...

[mike tesko]

Reliance on the silencer, blood, and paint confirmation, was akin to the prosecution putting the cart before the horse. They claimed Sheila's blood had been found inside a silencer (DRB/1) that wasn't even present at the lab' until eight days after the alleged 'find' date of the flake. Nobody on the defence side, nor the court itself had to concern itself with any other exhibit reference belonging to a silencer other than, DRB/1, court exhibit No.9. Supposedly found by Davy Boutflour on the 10th August, 1985, retained by the relatives, until dodgy 'Stan' Jones collected it on evening of 12th August, who in turn showed it to PI 'Bob' Miller on the following morning. Miller had advised 'Stan' to give the silencer to 'Ronny' Cook who would take 'it' along to Huntingdon lab' later that same day, for Glynis Howard to work her magic, before she returned 'it' to 'Ronny' to fill his jacket pocket for 17 days with its covert presence there...

It was 'Bob' Miller, himself who was tasked with creating a false paper trail, where he attempted to merge different silencer references (SBI/1, SJ/1, DB/1, and DRB/1) as relating to a solitary silencer. However, the plot does not stand up to scrutiny, for a number of fundamental reasons - for example, (a) Annie Eaton handing over all the DRB exhibits including a silencer (DRB/1) to the cops on 11th September, 1985, despite the fact that her husband, Peter Eaton had already handed a silencer (SJ/1) to 'dodgy Stan' Jones, on the 12th August, (b) cops submitted a silencer (DB/1) to the lab' on 30th August, 1985, yet still had possession of a silencer to enable cops to submit it to the lab' on the 20th September, to be checked for blood, (c) found a flake of blood inside silencer DB/1, yet made out a false case for the flake being found in a different silencer (DRB/1), (d) wrongly attributed blood group activity obtained from examination of the flake as being unique and exclusive to Sheila Carrell, when the experts knew that one of the blood groups (AK/1) could have originated from animal blood...

'Johnny' Hayward, the blood expert, went a step too far, by claiming that if the blood from the silencer had been an intimate mixture of the Bamber parents blood, he would have expected to find June Bambers AK 2/1 rather than AK/1 having been detected, on the basis that it was considered to be a more stable enzyme. He deliberately withheld significant information about the fact that at least two samples of animal blood had been found in the silencer when it was tested, opening up the case for the strong likelihood that the 'AK/1' part of the result had originated from an animal, and 'not' from Sheila Carrell, or any other human...

[mike tesko]

It was 'Bob' Miller, himself who was tasked with creating a false paper trail, where he attempted to merge different silencer references (SBI/1, SJ/1, DB/1, and DRB/1) as relating to a solitary silencer. However, the plot does not stand up to scrutiny, for a number of fundamental reasons - for example, (a) Annie Eaton handing over all the DRB exhibits including a silencer (DRB/1) to the cops on 11th September, 1985, despite the fact that her husband, Peter Eaton had already handed a silencer (SJ/1) to 'dodgy Stan' Jones, on the 12th August, (b) cops submitted a silencer (DB/1) to the lab' on 30th August, 1985, yet still had possession of a silencer to enable cops to submit it to the lab' on the 20th September, to be checked for blood, (c) found a flake of blood inside silencer DB/1, yet made out a false case for the flake being found in a different silencer (DRB/1), (d) wrongly attributed blood group activity obtained from examination of the flake as being unique and exclusive to Sheila Carrell, when the experts knew that one of the blood groups (AK/1) could have originated from animal blood...

'Johnny' Hayward, the blood expert, went a step too far, by claiming that if the blood from the silencer had been an intimate mixture of the Bamber parents blood, he would have expected to find June Bambers AK 2/1 rather than AK/1 having been detected, on the basis that it was considered to be a more stable enzyme. He deliberately withheld significant information about the fact that at least two samples of animal blood had been found in the silencer when it was tested, opening up the case for the strong likelihood that the 'AK/1' part of the result had originated from an animal, and 'not' from Sheila Carrell, or any other human...

Once blood group 'AK/1' is isolated on the basis that it may have originated from an animal, this leaves the following three blood groups ( A, EAP BA, and HP-2/1) which are shared by Sheila Carrell and June Bamber, and if the parents bloods had intimately mixed together in keeping with the defence case during trial, then Ralph Bambers 'O' type blood would in any event have become 'masked' by June Bambers 'A' type...

[mike tesko]

Once blood group 'AK/1' is isolated on the basis that it may have originated from an animal, this leaves the following three blood groups ( A, EAP BA, and HP-2/1) which are shared by Sheila Carrell and June Bamber, and if the parents bloods had intimately mixed together in keeping with the defence case during trial, then Ralph Bambers 'O' type blood would in any event have become 'masked' by June Bambers 'A' type...

This being the case...

[mike tesko]

This being the case...

It would allow for the use of a silencer, in the shootings - but not necessarily or uniquely involve the shooting of Sheila Carrell at all...

[mike tesko]

The aga surround in the kitchen could have been scratched with use of or by the knurl of the silencers end cap, coming into direct contact with it during a struggle involving Ralph and Sheila...