Author Topic: Defining moments of evidence  (Read 2695 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Defining moments of evidence
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2017, 12:57:PM »
(6) - Why did Robert Boutflour go and see Simpson on the 6th September 1985 and request a fresh investigation, with Jeremy as the suspect, if police were already treating Jeremy as a suspect, and already supposedly already had the silencer in their possession at the Lab' (Supposedly sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, as exhibit DB/1 Lab' item No.23)?

This is a remarkable piece of evidence, since Ann Eaton and the relatives still had possession of the silencer, right up until the 11th September 1985 (5 days after Robert Boutflours appointment with Simpson) which she gave to DC Oakey on that date?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 12:58:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Defining moments of evidence
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2017, 01:02:PM »
(6) - Why did Robert Boutflour go and see Simpson on the 6th September 1985 and request a fresh investigation, with Jeremy as the suspect, if police were already treating Jeremy as a suspect, and already supposedly already had the silencer in their possession at the Lab' (Supposedly sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, as exhibit DB/1 Lab' item No.23)?

This is a remarkable piece of evidence, since Ann Eaton and the relatives still had possession of the silencer, right up until the 11th September 1985 (5 days after Robert Boutflours appointment with Simpson) which she gave to DC Oakey on that date?

How could the same silencer (sound Moderator) have already been at the lab' from 30th August 1985, onwards, and yet still be in the possession of Ann Eaton and the relatives until the 11th September 1985, which she handed to DC Oakey on the 11th Seoptember 1985, which in turn was supposedly retained by Essex police so that DS Eastwood and DS Davidson could fingerprint it on the 14th September 1985, and it being subsequently submitted to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, with a request that it be checked for blood and fibres?

Essex police are sending a  silencer to the lab' on the 20th September 1985 to be checked for blood and fibres, when the silencer was already there at the lab' and had already been checked for blood on and after the 30th August 1985?

Something very sinister been going on here, involving the police, the lab' and the relatives...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Defining moments of evidence
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2017, 01:08:PM »
(7) - the rifle fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle was too long to permit Sheila to have shot herself, and remove the silencer after she had killed herself and take it downstairs to conceal it in the gun cupboard -who could have been responsible for her shooting, (a) Jeremy Bamber, or (b) Sheila Caffell, he said there was no evidence that any third party had been involved!

Well, that might not have been true!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Defining moments of evidence
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2017, 01:14:PM »
(7) - the rifle fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle was too long to permit Sheila to have shot herself, and remove the silencer after she had killed herself and take it downstairs to conceal it in the gun cupboard -who could have been responsible for her shooting, (a) Jeremy Bamber, or (b) Sheila Caffell, he said there was no evidence that any third party had been involved!

Well, that might not have been true!

Firstly, in experiments conducted at Birddwell Armoury 2003 / 2004, it was proven that Sheila could have shot herself with the silencer fitted to the end of the guns barrel, it wasn't necessarily too long as was claimed by the prosecution during the 1986 trial..

Secondly, there now exists clear evidence that there was and must have been a third party involvement in Sheila Caffells death contained in previously 'undisclosed materialistic evidence' which demonstrates in the clearest terms imaginable that the police disturbed Sheila Caffells body and staged her death scene, a death scene which in the light of the juries 10/2 verdict was attributed solely to Jeremy Bamber which in the cold light of day and with the benefit of hindsight must be treated as a glaring inconsistency of the prosecutions case! Bamber has been held accountable for doing that which the police themselves had done at a time when he was on his way to his cottage with two police officers (Clark and Jones), who in turn confirmed to Ann Eaton and the other relatives and Jeremy that they had witnessed June and Sheila Caffells body on top of the bed, not on the bedroom floor...
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 01:16:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Defining moments of evidence
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2017, 01:19:PM »
Firstly, in experiments conducted at Birddwell Armoury 2003 / 2004, it was proven that Sheila could have shot herself with the silencer fitted to the end of the guns barrel, it wasn't necessarily too long as was claimed by the prosecution during the 1986 trial..

Secondly, there now exists clear evidence that there was and must have been a third party involvement in Sheila Caffells death contained in previously 'undisclosed materialistic evidence' which demonstrates in the clearest terms imaginable that the police disturbed Sheila Caffells body and staged her death scene, a death scene which in the light of the juries 10/2 verdict was attributed solely to Jeremy Bamber which in the cold light of day and with the benefit of hindsight must be treated as a glaring inconsistency of the prosecutions case! Bamber has been held accountable for doing that which the police themselves had done at a time when he was on his way to his cottage with two police officers (Clark and Jones), who in turn confirmed to Ann Eaton and the other relatives and Jeremy that they had witnessed June and Sheila Caffells body on top of the bed, not on the bedroom floor...

Sheila Caffells body ended up on the bedroom floor in possesssion of the rifle because police put her body there after lifting it from on top of the bed!

Then later on the court which convicted Jeremy for these murders, relied upon photographs taken later by PC Bird (Witham SOC) showing Sheila's body there, in possession of that rifle, as evidence that Jeremy had staged his sisters body there in that undistrubed location and position! Now, how can that be right in light of what is now known?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 01:20:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Defining moments of evidence
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2017, 01:36:PM »
Sheila Caffells body ended up on the bedroom floor in possesssion of the rifle because police put her body there after lifting it from on top of the bed!

Then later on the court which convicted Jeremy for these murders, relied upon photographs taken later by PC Bird (Witham SOC) showing Sheila's body there, in possession of that rifle, as evidence that Jeremy had staged his sisters body there in that undistrubed location and position! Now, how can that be right in light of what is now known?

There must have clearly been a third party involvement in Sheila caffells death, an involvement which occurred after the armed raid party entered the farmhouse, not necessaruily beforehand (although this possibility cannot be entirely disregarded)...

There was a third party involvement in the death, of at least Sheila Caffell, how on earth can anyone say there wasn't and there isn't?

Lets look and delve into what we now know about the position and location of Sheila's body and the rifle at various key stages of the ongoing police investigation / operation at the scene on that first morning - Her body was present downstairs in the kitchen (7.35am, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am, 7.45am, and 8.10am) this is confirmed by reference to police logs which were made up spontaneously as and when the events were unfolding, and therefore are contemporaneous accounts of what did take place. Next, and by 8.44am, Sheila's body was on the far side of the bed, according to a police surgeon, Dr Craig. For those of you amongst us who interpret what Dr Craig says about the position of Sheila's body being on the floor on the far side of the bed, please try not to ignore what DC Clark and DS Jones saw when they visited the main bedroom scene and viewed the bodies shortly after 9.05am, since the bodies of June and Sheila by that stage were laid alongside one another on top of the bed, the rifle was resting on the bed inbetweeen both bodies and there was a bible on Sheila's chest. Then we have the crime scene photographs taken by the second team of SOCO (from Witham) which shows Sheila's body on the bedroom floor..

I would like to make the following suggestions in pursuit of clarity and truth...

Why would police say there were two bodies downstairs in the kitchen if there was only one body there? Why only three other bodies found upstairs by 8.10am? Secondly, if at 8.44am, Sheila's body had been on the floor on the far side of the bed, then how come her body is on top of the bed by around 9.05am in time for DC Clark and DS Jones to see it there alongside the body of June Bamber, and why by 10am Sheila's body has been moved back onto the bedroom floor in possesssion of the rifle in time for PC Bird (Witham SOC) to photograph the scene showing the last resting place in the grand scheme of things?

Such events as have been recorded could not be put down as errors or mistakes, her body has clearly been moved around from pillar to post and the only people which could be responsible for having done that or witnessed this, are the police themselves, Jeremy Bamber nor anybody else could have had any input to these goings on...

I believe that some of these actions / activities involving the police in the stage managing of Sheila Caffells death scene on the bedroom floor constitutes 'the involvement of a third party' in her death!

What else could it be described as?

In my opinion, the jury were deceived into having to choose culpability between only Sheila and Jeremy, because the police played a significant role in not only the death of Sheila caffell, but in the staging of her death scene, on the bedroom floor, where she was only shot once (the other shot having been sustained downstairs earlier in the kitchen) - the judge misled the jury, therefore, and took away from them an opportunity to find that there had been a third party involvement in the killings (particularly with respect to Sheila's demise)! Had the Judge not taken away that option from the jury and the jury had found that there had been an unknown third party involvement in the matters, Jeremy Bamber would have been entitled to walk free because the prosecutions case was not that he had hired any third party mercenary to carry out the murders on his behalf, their case was that he had enetered the farmhouse and that he had shot and killed everyone includding his sister, and that he had staged the scene thereafter to make it appear as though his sister had taken her own life after she had killed the others...

Involvement of a third party in these deaths, be it all five deaths, or only in Sheila's case, in my view this caused Jeremy Bamber to be the victim of an unfair trial! He was on a hiding to nothing! For all we know, there could be some truth in Neville Bamber and his family being 'a target', the fifth target according to GDS, connected with 'espionage activities' betweeen 1953 and 1973 in the middle east. Since, it does seem odd that all members of that spy ring and their families have died in mysterious circumstances, comparable to the events surounding the whf killings! It might have been Sheila herself all along, and the police, so that overall it was a chaotic event or series of events...

But JJeremy Bamber could not have shot and killed his sister or staged her death scene in various locations around the farmhouse after the armed raid team enetered the farmhouse at 7.30am...

« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 02:03:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48661
Re: Defining moments of evidence
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2017, 01:50:PM »
EP tried to right a wrong and made a muck of it,thus ensuring that they'd done their job by securing a conviction in the process. Their investigations taking them no further than those who were to benefit.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Defining moments of evidence
« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2017, 02:09:PM »
EP tried to right a wrong and made a muck of it,thus ensuring that they'd done their job by securing a conviction in the process. Their investigations taking them no further than those who were to benefit.

Lookout, I strongly believe that there might be an element of truth in GDS's espionage theory, It would be interesting to try and find out more about these other four cases!

I believe that the relatives applied pressure on Essex police threatening to expose them for the role they have played in lying to them about where the bodies of June and Sheila were found, and how many times the victims had been shot. It must have been a form of blackmail that Essex police felt obliged to go along with, at peril of facing prosecution, loss of livelihood and loss of pensions!
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 02:10:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Defining moments of evidence
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2017, 02:13:PM »
(8) - the relatives handing over the same silencer twice to police, once by PPeter Eaton to DS Jones (Witham) on 12th August 1985, and secondly by Ann Eaton, on the 11th September 1985, to DC Oakey (HQ SOC)..
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 02:16:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Defining moments of evidence
« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2017, 02:15:PM »
(8) - the relatives handing over the same silencer twice to police, once by PPeter Eaton to DS Jones (Witham) on 12th August 1985, and secondly by Ann Eaton, on the 11th September 1985, to DC Oakey (HQ SOC)..

If there was only the one silencer, then how did the relatives get the silencer back from Essex police, after 12th August 1985, in order for Ann Eaton and the relatives to still be in possesssion of it until the 11th September 1985?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 02:17:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48661
Re: Defining moments of evidence
« Reply #25 on: December 03, 2017, 02:19:PM »
Lookout, I strongly believe that there might be an element of truth in GDS's espionage theory, It would be interesting to try and find out more about these other four cases!

I believe that the relatives applied pressure on Essex police threatening to expose them for the role they have played in lying to them about where the bodies of June and Sheila were found, and how many times the victims had been shot. It must have been a form of blackmail that Essex police felt obliged to go along with, at peril of facing prosecution, loss of livelihood and loss of pensions!






EP would have been sweating that's for sure. Why did that cop break down giving evidence ?

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Defining moments of evidence
« Reply #26 on: December 03, 2017, 02:21:PM »
If there was only the one silencer, then how did the relatives get the silencer back from Essex police, after 12th August 1985, in order for Ann Eaton and the relatives to still be in possesssion of it until the 11th September 1985?

Some police records show that Ann Eaton handed over several exhibits to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, bearing exhibit references, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4, which were subsequently changed into CAE/2, CAE/3 and CAE/4, then AE/2, AE/3 and AE/4, until finally, they became DC Oakeys exhibits bearing different exhibit references altogether!

The purpose of police doing this was to try and conceal for the fact that Ann Eaton had also handed over to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, the key sound moderator that police kept until the 20th September 1985 before sending it to the lab' on the 20th September 1985 to be checked for blood and fibers...
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 02:23:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Defining moments of evidence
« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2017, 02:27:PM »
Some police records show that Ann Eaton handed over several exhibits to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, bearing exhibit references, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4, which were subsequently changed into CAE/2, CAE/3 and CAE/4, then AE/2, AE/3 and AE/4, until finally, they became DC Oakeys exhibits bearing different exhibit references altogether!

The purpose of police doing this was to try and conceal for the fact that Ann Eaton had also handed over to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, the key sound moderator that police kept until the 20th September 1985 before sending it to the lab' on the 20th September 1985 to be checked for blood and fibers...

In a nutshell, Essex police, the lab' and the relatives merge the two silencers so that in evidence they same one! The purpose of giving exhibits which Ann Eaton handed to DC Oakey (HQ SOC) on 11th September 1985 all those different exhibit references was to try and prevent anyone from finding out that the relatives still had possesssion of one of the silencers a month after the shootings so that no-one could accuise them of ddeliberately contaminating the silencer, with blood and paint or both...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...