Disturbing Evidence, which confirms that cops handed back silencer to the family

[mike tesko]

Oh RIGHT!! So there never was a (insert whichever name you want) taken from WHF on Aug 7th and "covertly" returned there on Aug 9th.

Of course there was, 'Stan' Jones seized it, took it back to Witham police station later on that same date (7th August 1985) and gave it to 'Taff' Jones who placed it on his desk, apparently he used it as a paperweight, until PC Whiddon came along picked it up, and took it to see if it would fit onto the end of the rifles barrel. All of this happened between 7th and 9th August 1985, because by the time Jones, Jones and Ann Eaton met up at the farmhouse, 'Stan' took the opportunity to place it back into the custody of the family (nothing could be any clearer). Essex police certainly had possession of one of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors from 7th August 1985 until late on the evening of the 9th August 1985, the police documentation confirms this as being true!

[sami]

Well spotted Jane, in other words it’s Bollony Ha Ha Nearly used Caroline’s Favourite then 

[mike tesko]

Of course there was, 'Stan' Jones seized it, took it back to Witham police station later on that same date (7th August 1985) and gave it to 'Taff' Jones who placed it on his desk, apparently he used it as a paperweight, until PC Whiddon came along picked it up, and took it to see if it would fit onto the end of the rifles barrel. All of this happened between 7th and 9th August 1985, because by the time Jones, Jones and Ann Eaton met up at the farmhouse, 'Stan' took the opportunity to place it back into the custody of the family (nothing could be any clearer). Essex police certainly had possession of one of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors from 7th August 1985 until late on the evening of the 9th August 1985, the police documentation confirms this as being true!

The man himself, PC Whiddon, in possession of the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor he took from 'Taff' Jones office desktop at Witham police station...

[mike tesko]

Somebody is going to have to be held accountable for stitching Jeremy Bamber up with this dodgy evidence - there must have been several different people in on the plot to deceive the court into convicting an innocent man by the introduction of DRB/1 (sent to Lab' on the 20th September 1985)...

[mike tesko]

Somebody is going to have to be held accountable for stitching Jeremy Bamber up with this dodgy evidence - there must have been several different people in on the plot to deceive the court into convicting an innocent man by the introduction of DRB/1 (sent to Lab' on the 20th September 1985)...

Please note below that any reference to a silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, as DB/1, that alternative exhibit references apply, including, SBJ/1 and SJ/1..

I think I'll make a list of all the potential contributors:-

(01) - David Robert Boutflour (yes) found both silencers / sound moderators / suppressors
(02) - Ann Eaton (yes) was present when one (DB/1) was found, and handed over second one (DRB/1)
(03) - Peter Eaton (yes) handed over  first one (DB/1) to 'Stan' Jones
(04) - Robert Woodwis Boutflour (yes) has same blood group as the blood found in first one (DB/1)
(05) - DS 'Stan' Jones (yes) took possession of one (DB/1) at scene on first morning, later returned it
(06) - DI 'Ron' Cook (yes) sent the first one (DB/1) to lab' on 30th August 1985
(07) - DS Davidson (yes) fingerprinted second one (DRB/1) on 14th September 1985
(08) - DC Hammersley (yes) must have known that 'Stan' Jones recovered first one (DB/1) on first day
(09) - PC 'David' Bird (yes) must have known that 'Stan' Jones recovered first one (DB/1) on first day
(10) - DS Eastwood (yes) fingerprinted second one (DRB/1) on 14th September 1985
(11) - DC Oakey (yes) received second one (DRB/1) from Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985
(12) - PI Montgomery (?)
(13) - PS Woodcock (?)
(14) - DCI 'Taff' Jones (yes) kept first one (DB/1) on his office desk, between 7th and 9th August 1985
(15) - CI 'Terry' Gibbons (yes)
(16) - DCI 'George' Harris (yes)
(17) - PI 'Bob' Miller (yes)
(18) - ACC 'Peter' Simpson
(19) - PC Carter (yes) conveyed first one (DB/1) and  second one (DRB/1) to Lab' on two separate dates
(20) - PC Whiddon (yes) took possession of first one (DB/1) from 'Taff' Jones desk at Witham
(21) - Malcolm Fletcher (yes) found flake of blood in first one (DB/1)
(22) - Brian Elliot (yes) Examined second one (DRB/1) and found paint from kitchen aga ingrained
(23) - John Hayward (yes) obtained results from blood taken from first one (DB/1)
(24) - Glynis Howard (yes) examined first one (DB/1) on 13th August 1985

[mike tesko]

Well, at least now we have a clearer picture of how, by whom, and when the kitchen aga surround got scratched?

The relatives had possession and control of DRB/1 all of the time from the first morning of the shootings, all the way up to the 11th September 1985, and they had access to whf from 9th August 1985, onward. Me thinks that relatives deliberately contaminated DRB/1 with the red paint from the kitchen aga, whilst Jeremy was under arrest and in custody and was being interviewed after the first week in September. If they did, they would have needed to scratch the aga surround prior to Ann Eaton handing DRB/1 to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985..

[sami]

Well, at least now we have a clearer picture of how, by whom, and when the kitchen aga surround got scratched?

The relatives had possession and control of DRB/1 all of the time from the first morning of the shootings, all the way up to the 11th September 1985, and they had access to whf from 9th August 1985, onward. Me thinks that relatives deliberately contaminated DRB/1 with the red paint from the kitchen aga, whilst Jeremy was under arrest and in custody and was being interviewed after the first week in September. If they did, they would have needed to scratch the aga surround prior to Ann Eaton handing DRB/1 to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985..

does that means they must also be responsible for the blood in the silencer

[Reader]

. . . it looks more like Ariel Black or Aharoni.

It's not Arial Black or Aharoni. A much clearer image would be needed to identify it.

[mike tesko]

that means they must also be responsible for the blood in the silencer

Sami, I don't truthfully know that for certain, at best it would be a very strong suspicion, since, maybe blood did get inside one of the silencers / sound moderators / suppressors (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) during the shootings, similarly, or alternatively a dried flake of blood taken from the heavily blood contaminated panties belonging to Sheila Caffell, who we know was menstruating at the time of her death, was deliberately inserted into SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, before Peter Eaton handed 'it' over to 'Stan' Jones on evening of 12th August 1985? There is also a possibility that it was Robert Boutflours own blood which the relatives could have contaminated SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 with. Finally, there is yet another possible explanation relating to the blood group evidence supposedly found inside SBJ/1, SJ/1 and DB/1 at the lab' on the 12th September 1985 when the ballistic expert, Fletcher, claims to have dismantled SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and discovered 'it' trapped between baffle plates, and that is this - Maybe, just maybe, Fletcher did not dismantle SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 on that date, maybe he received possession of the flake from Essex police, that David Boutflour had scraped off the outside of SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 or DRB/1 and because of the confusion involving two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors, a deliberate lie was invented suggesting that Fletcher had found it inside SBJ/1, SJ?1, DB/1 when he hadn't, and maybe in the cold light of day this was why it was later attributed to DRB/1 (because nobody could be sure which of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors David Boutflour had scraped the flake of  dried blood from)?

[mike tesko]

Sami, I don't truthfully know that for certain, at best it would be a very strong suspicion, since, maybe blood did get inside one of the silencers / sound moderators / suppressors (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) during the shootings, similarly, or alternatively a dried flake of blood taken from the heavily blood contaminated panties belonging to Sheila Caffell, who we know was menstruating at the time of her death, was deliberately inserted into SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, before Peter Eaton handed 'it' over to 'Stan' Jones on evening of 12th August 1985? There is also a possibility that it was Robert Boutflours own blood which the relatives could have contaminated SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 with. Finally, there is yet another possible explanation relating to the blood group evidence supposedly found inside SBJ/1, SJ/1 and DB/1 at the lab' on the 12th September 1985 when the ballistic expert, Fletcher, claims to have dismantled SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and discovered 'it' trapped between baffle plates, and that is this - Maybe, just maybe, Fletcher did not dismantle SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 on that date, maybe he received possession of the flake from Essex police, that David Boutflour had scraped off the outside of SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 or DRB/1 and because of the confusion involving two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors, a deliberate lie was invented suggesting that Fletcher had found it inside SBJ/1, SJ?1, DB/1 when he hadn't, and maybe in the cold light of day this was why it was later attributed to DRB/1 (because nobody could be sure which of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors David Boutflour had scraped the flake of  dried blood from)?

Assuming that the existence of two identically looking silencers / sound moderators / suppressors (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and or DRB/1) which caused all the mischief I am now talking about, it begs the question does it not, that if there were two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors, as described, why would there have only been one gun used in the shootings?

Was there two guns used in the shootings?

Who owned the first and the second silencers / sound moderators / suppressors?

[sami]

Sami, I don't truthfully know that for certain, at best it would be a very strong suspicion, since, maybe blood did get inside one of the silencers / sound moderators / suppressors (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) during the shootings, similarly, or alternatively a dried flake of blood taken from the heavily blood contaminated panties belonging to Sheila Caffell, who we know was menstruating at the time of her death, was deliberately inserted into SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, before Peter Eaton handed 'it' over to 'Stan' Jones on evening of 12th August 1985? There is also a possibility that it was Robert Boutflours own blood which the relatives could have contaminated SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 with. Finally, there is yet another possible explanation relating to the blood group evidence supposedly found inside SBJ/1, SJ/1 and DB/1 at the lab' on the 12th September 1985 when the ballistic expert, Fletcher, claims to have dismantled SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and discovered 'it' trapped between baffle plates, and that is this - Maybe, just maybe, Fletcher did not dismantle SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 on that date, maybe he received possession of the flake from Essex police, that David Boutflour had scraped off the outside of SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 or DRB/1 and because of the confusion involving two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors, a deliberate lie was invented suggesting that Fletcher had found it inside SBJ/1, SJ?1, DB/1 when he hadn't, and maybe in the cold light of day this was why it was later attributed to DRB/1 (because nobody could be sure which of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors David Boutflour had scraped the flake of  dried blood from)?

its still in interesting thought mike,ive never really understood all that went on with the blood stained panties in the bucket

[mike tesko]

Assuming that the existence of two identically looking silencers / sound moderators / suppressors (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and or DRB/1) which caused all the mischief I am now talking about, it begs the question does it not, that if there were two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors, as described, why would there have only been one gun used in the shootings?

Was there two guns used in the shootings?

Who owned the first and the second silencers / sound moderators / suppressors?

We know that Neville Bamber only purchased one silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, which he purchased in November 1984. This was bought along with the .22 anshuzzt rifle from Radcliffes the gun dealers, in the High Street, at Colchester. The only other silencer / sound moderator / suppressor known to have been kept at the farmhouse was an identically looking Parker Hale belonging to Anthony Pargeter which was normally fixed onto the end of his .22 Bruno bolt action rifle which he kept at whf in a downstairs toilet..

[mike tesko]

We know that Neville Bamber only purchased one silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, which he purchased in November 1984. This was bought along with the .22 anshuzzt rifle from Radcliffes the gun dealers, in the High Street, at Colchester. The only other silencer / sound moderator / suppressor known to have been kept at the farmhouse was an identically looking Parker Hale belonging to Anthony Pargeter which was normally fixed onto the end of his .22 Bruno bolt action rifle which he kept at whf in a downstairs toilet..

But, alas...

We still don't yet know which of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors, belonged with the Bamber owned anshuzt rifle (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, or DRB/1), and which one (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, or DRB/1) or vice versa, belonged to the Pargeter owned Bruno bolt action weapon? What we do know, however, is that although both of these Parker Hales looked identical on the outside, there may have been differences internally with the number of baffle plates in each of them. The Pargeter Parker Hale was purchased in 1980 and according to design features would have had 17 internalised baffle plates..

Here, look at this:-

According to design specifications, the Bamber Parker Hale may only have had 14 internalised baffle plates, and not 17 like the Pargeter owned one...

[mike tesko]

But, alas...

We still don't yet know which of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors, belonged with the Bamber owned anshuzt rifle (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, or DRB/1), and which one (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, or DRB/1) or vice versa, belonged to the Pargeter owned Bruno bolt action weapon? What we do know, however, is that although both of these Parker Hales looked identical on the outside, there may have been differences internally with the number of baffle plates in each of them. The Pargeter Parker Hale was purchased in 1980 and according to design features would have had 17 internalised baffle plates..

Here, look at this:-

According to design specifications, the Bamber Parker Hale may only have had 14 internalised baffle plates, and not 17 like the Pargeter owned one...

Maybe I am being overly suspicious, but it upsets me to think that Essex police and its expert witnesses at the Lab' and elsewhere refuse to say how many internalised baffle plates both of these silencers / sound moderators / suppressors have got? We know one of them had exactly 17 baffles, but if the other one has only got 14 baffles, then the problem could be resolved because the 17 baffled Parker Hale might belong to the Pargeter gun, and the 14 baffled Parker Hale would belong to the Bamber owned gun - however, its still possible that when Neville Bamber purchased his Parker Hale on the last day of November 1984, that it was from old stock, and therefore, it too might have had 17 internalised baffles,  and not the new model which only had 14. But I was assured by Jeremy on many occasions that Neville ordered the latest model when he placed his order with Radcliffes on the 24th November 1984, and that they had to wait for a week before they finally got their hands on the gun, the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, and 500 rounds of .22 ammunition..

I have a sneaky feeling that one of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors at the heart of this complex case, only had 14 internalised baffle plates, and if so that must be the Bamber owned Parker Hale...

[mike tesko]

Maybe I am being overly suspicious, but it upsets me to think that Essex police and its expert witnesses at the Lab' and elsewhere refuse to say how many internalised baffle plates both of these silencers / sound moderators / suppressors have got? We know one of them had exactly 17 baffles, but if the other one has only got 14 baffles, then the problem could be resolved because the 17 baffled Parker Hale might belong to the Pargeter gun, and the 14 baffled Parker Hale would belong to the Bamber owned gun - however, its still possible that when Neville Bamber purchased his Parker Hale on the last day of November 1984, that it was from old stock, and therefore, it too might have had 17 internalised baffles,  and not the new model which only had 14. But I was assured by Jeremy on many occasions that Neville ordered the latest model when he placed his order with Radcliffes on the 24th November 1984, and that they had to wait for a week before they finally got their hands on the gun, the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, and 500 rounds of .22 ammunition..

I have a sneaky feeling that one of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors at the heart of this complex case, only had 14 internalised baffle plates, and if so that must be the Bamber owned Parker Hale...

The existence of these two differently designed Parker Hales at the heart of the police investigation, have the potential to open up a can of worms! Since, on the footing that blood was found inside a 17 baffle Parker Hale, and red paint ingrained into the other and it only had 14 baffle plates, the finger of suspicion must surely focus away from Jeremy Bamber as the killer, and bring another person into the fray - it would be dependant upon who owns the other Parker Hale?