David Boutflour makes statement same day as marks appear on aga surround?

[mike tesko]

Reason why David Boutflour did not make a witness statement before 12th September 1985, mentioning the find of the silencer a month previously was/is because until that point police did not intend to use it until they marked the left hand panels of the aga surround by use of it on 12 th September. It had been laid dormant for a month on top of DCI Jones desk...

David Boutflours signature does not appear on any exhibit label bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1, yet according to 'Ron' Cook, he attached a brown exhibit label to the silencer which he took to the lab' on 13th August 1985, which he wrote the exhibit reference SBJ/1 upon because he thought DS Jones found it. He got Glynis Howard to sign this label, and he signed it as well, in positions two and three, leaving a space at position one for the finder of it to sign it there later. Since he already said he thought DS Jones found it, you would think it would be DS Jones signature at position one on the label? Funny thing is, that the original exhibit labell which bears the identifying mark SBJ/1 is missing so we will never know who signed it at position one?

But Cook and Howard signed another exhibit label at positions two and three, and the gun dealer Radcliffe signed the same label at position one - no-one as far as I know is suggesting that the gun dealer found one of the silencers, but since Cook had possession of this silencer (SBJ/1) for 17 days between 13th August and 30th August 1985, he had ample opportunity to get DS 'Stan' Jones to sign the exhibit label (SBJ1) at position one like he said he intended to do? So why did `Ron` and Glynis resign a different exhibit label, and when did the do this? More importantly, where is the original signed exhibit label, what has happened to it?

[mike tesko]

Since 12th September 1985 was the very first occasion that David Boutflour made a statement  in connection with the finding of one of the silencers, it must follow that any silencer which got sent to the lab' before that date (for example, on 13th and 30th August 1985, respectively) could not have attached to it, or accompanying it which bore David Boutflours signature, therefore, it has not been proven that any silencer submitted to the lab' before 12th September was the same one found by Boutflour in the gun cupboard?

[mike tesko]

Since 12th September 1985 was the very first occasion that David Boutflour made a statement  in connection with the finding of one of the silencers, it must follow that any silencer which got sent to the lab' before that date (for example, on 13th and 30th August 1985, respectively) could not have attached to it, or accompanying it which bore David Boutflours signature, therefore, it has not been proven that any silencer submitted to the lab' before 12th September was the same one found by Boutflour in the gun cupboard?

In none of the witness statements made by David Boutflour in connection with this matter, or in any witness statements made on his behalf by others, does it mention that he signed an exhibit label bearing the exhibit mark of SBJ/1, or DB/1, or DRB/1?

[mike tesko]

In none of the witness statements made by David Boutflour in connection with this matter, or in any witness statements made on his behalf by others, does it mention that he signed an exhibit label bearing the exhibit mark of SBJ/1, or DB/1, or DRB/1?

Yet the silencer, blood and paint evidence was presented in the case against Jeremy as though no big question marks hang over the integrity of it...

[mike tesko]

DS Jones Signed the same exhibit label as David Boutflour, Ann Eaton and Peter Eaton, but not the same label as 'Ron` Cook. The reason why 'Ron' Cooks and `Stan` Jones signature does not appear on the same exhibit labels is because `Stan` Jones handed the silencer given to him by Peter Eaton, to DCI 'Taff` Jones who kept it on his desk at Witham police station for about a month. This explains why the original exhibit label bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1 is missing? It is missing because DS jones handed the silencer (SBJ/1) he found at the scene on 7th August 1985, to 'Ron' Cook on 7th August, Jones did not hand the silencer handed to him by Peter Eaton (on evening of 12th August) to `Ron` on 13th August 1985...

Police had to tamper withe the exhibit references for the two silencers and they had to tamper with the exhibit labels, otherwise there would have been two exhibit labels containing DS `Stan` Jones signature, one signature on SBj/1, and the other on the label signed by the relatives...

[mike tesko]

DS Jones Signed the same exhibit label as David Boutflour, Ann Eaton and Peter Eaton, but not the same label as 'Ron` Cook. The reason why 'Ron' Cooks and `Stan` Jones signature does not appear on the same exhibit labels is because `Stan` Jones handed the silencer given to him by Peter Eaton, to DCI 'Taff` Jones who kept it on his desk at Witham police station for about a month. This explains why the original exhibit label bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1 is missing? It is missing because DS jones handed the silencer (SBJ/1) he found at the scene on 7th August 1985, to 'Ron' Cook on 7th August, Jones did not hand the silencer handed to him by Peter Eaton (on evening of 12th August) to `Ron` on 13th August 1985...

Police had to tamper withe the exhibit references for the two silencers and they had to tamper with the exhibit labels, otherwise there would have been two exhibit labels containing DS `Stan` Jones signature, one signature on SBj/1, and the other on the label signed by the relatives...

Cook and Howard had to resign the replacement exhibit label, and DS Jones resigned the other label signed by all the relatives...

Consequences of having to tamper with the exhibit labels, is/was that signatures of witnesses are grouped together on different yet separate exhibit labels, with little if any continuity...

[mike tesko]

Exhibit labels:.

(1) - original SBJ/1 signed by 'Ron` Cook, Glynis Howard and DS 'Stan` Jones (which has gone missing)

(2) - DB/1 (crossed out) - DRB/1

(3) - DRB/1

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

I must admit I haven't read all of this thread. I gave up around page 3 when people started argueing again. So if this point has already been made after that then I apologize. But I ask you to please take a look at post #16 on this thread by Mike. In particular the black and white photograph of Neville infront of the aga. Now there can be no question that this picture was taken on 7th August 1985 for obvious reasons. Has anybody else noticed the HUGE calendar hanging on the mantle shelf at exactly the place where the scratches are supposed to have been made. If they had been present on that day two questions spring to mind. How can the mantle have been scratched if there was a calender in the way? If the scratches were present at the time could they have been overlooked because they were hidden behind the calender?

[Alias]

I must admit I haven't read all of this thread. I gave up around page 3 when people started argueing again. So if this point has already been made after that then I apologize. But I ask you to please take a look at post #16 on this thread by Mike. In particular the black and white photograph of Neville infront of the aga. Now there can be no question that this picture was taken on 7th August 1985 for obvious reasons. Has anybody else noticed the HUGE calendar hanging on the mantle shelf at exactly the place where the scratches are supposed to have been made. If they had been present on that day two questions spring to mind. How can the mantle have been scratched if there was a calender in the way? If the scratches were present at the time could they have been overlooked because they were hidden behind the calender?

Good observation, Janet!

[grahameb]

I must admit I haven't read all of this thread. I gave up around page 3 when people started argueing again. So if this point has already been made after that then I apologize. But I ask you to please take a look at post #16 on this thread by Mike. In particular the black and white photograph of Neville infront of the aga. Now there can be no question that this picture was taken on 7th August 1985 for obvious reasons. Has anybody else noticed the HUGE calendar hanging on the mantle shelf at exactly the place where the scratches are supposed to have been made. If they had been present on that day two questions spring to mind. How can the mantle have been scratched if there was a calender in the way? If the scratches were present at the time could they have been overlooked because they were hidden behind the calender?

Well at first glance I would go alone with that and congratulate you on your observation. But do you really think that the police or anyone else for that matter (for the house had not been released yet) would be bothered about changing the calendar? That date could have been up there from day one? And I suggest that it possibly was? But full marks on your great observation.

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

Well at first glance I would go alone with that and congratulate you on your observation. But do you really think that the police or anyone else for that matter (for the house had not been released yet) would be bothered about changing the calendar? That date could have been up there from day one? And I suggest that it possibly was? But full marks on your great observation.

Now there are photos on this thread where the calendar is missing. Also the body of Neville has been removed. When were these taken? Were they later the same day? month? year?

[mike tesko]

 In particular the black and white photograph of Neville infront of the aga. Now there can be no question that this picture was taken on 7th August 1985 for obvious reasons. Has anybody else noticed the HUGE calendar hanging on the mantle shelf at exactly the place where the scratches are supposed to have been made. If they had been present on that day two questions spring to mind. How can the mantle have been scratched if there was a calender in the way? If the scratches were present at the time could they have been overlooked because they were hidden behind the calender?

Calender would have been damaged in order for the panel behind it to be damaged, at the time of the alleged altercation involving a supposed struggle between Ralph and his killer. But no such damage was noticed on the said calender when police seized it. Similarly no damage to the aga surround behind the calender was present when the calendar was removed. This can be verified by reference to other crime scene photographs taken that date (7th August 1985), and by reference to other photographs taken when the house cleaner (Jean Boutell) re-staged the furniture in the kitchen so that the police could see where the furniture and everything else was normally positioned, and also by reference to photographs taken on 12th September 1985 by PC Bird (SOC) which all show there is/was no damage to that part of the aga surround...

Then...

Another photograph taken by PC Bird that same day (12th September 1985) shows the damage in that area...

This damage appeared on that part of the aga surround whilst police were present at the scene on 12th September 1985, whilst police were in attendance there. This was also about the time that David Boutflour was making waves to the police saying that he wanted to make a statement to the police about the gun, and police documents exist which confirm that police were requested to meet up with David Boutflour at the scene ( I will try to gather all the evidence relating to these documentary references and post them here at some point/stage over this week-end)...

The upshot of all of this, is that the marks to that side of the aga surround were made whilst the police were present at the scene on 12th September 1985, at a time when they still had possession of the second silencer (DRB/1), and that this coincided with David Boutflour making his first statement about finding one of these silencers at whf a month earlier - albeit, Boutflour appears not to have been aware that the police had already sent a silencer (SBJ/1) to the lab'(30th August 1985) beforehand by that/this stage? Unless of course, he did know, which would make what took place all the more sinister...

[Roch]

Fact is, that he was encouraged by senior officers to rewrite the contents of his pocketbook to exclude any reference to the find of the silencer (SBJ/1) or any of the other three exhibits (SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4) which  he took possession of at the scene on 7th August 1985, and he was aided in this task by PI Bob Miller, which coincided with the date and occasion when Robert Boutflour had persuaded ACC Pter Simpson to start a fresh investigation designed to look into the possibility that Jeremy carried out the shootings not Sheila...

Mike - the attachment you have here - it must refer to Kenneally's review?

[Roch]

Yes, it was...

Good old 'Dusty' Miller.  A popular character by all accounts.  When I found out he apparently had an interest in 'Human Rights' - I immediately wondered whether this was penance for his role in the case.