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

[Caroline]

Any way, as I have consistently been mataining, the DJones composite witness statement, dated, 8th September 1985, is genuine to the best   knowledge and belief! It's not my fault that there are those amongst us that the contents of the same, find to be upsetting and distressing!

Oh, and my own IP address remains the same at all times for whichever device I might be using...

No it doesn't.

[Caroline]

But that's exactly what you are trying to do now. And I say trying because your path of crumbs that you portray as the truth has less commuters than Blake Hall tube station.

Except I know it's a fake - you WANT it to be real. Put your money where your mouth is and send it to one of your 'in the know' errrrrr contacts. Let them all have a laugh!

[David1819]

For those who believe the document a forgery need to explain the signature on the statement.

Furthermore those who insinuate that Mike created it need to explain why he did not point out such a detail in his own forgery and have the authenticity of the statement concealed. 

[Caroline]

For those who believe the document a forgery need to explain the signature on the statement.

Furthermore those who insinuate that Mike created it need to explain why he did not point out such a detail in his own forgery and have the authenticity of the statement concealed. 

No we don't - this is just YOU claiming it's his signature - search the forum for the word 'aforementioned' 

[mike tesko]

The sound moderator / silencer / suppressor which Cook took to the lab' on 13th August 1985, did not have an exhibit label attached to it when Jones handed it over to Cook and Cook handed it over at the lab' to Glynis Howard - so when Cook arrived at the lab' he attached his own exhibit label labelling it 'SJ/1', not 'SBJ/1', not 'DB/1' and not 'DRB/1'...

It is important that everyone knows this, and understands it...

'SJ/1'

[mike tesko]

The sound moderator / silencer / suppressor which Cook took to the lab' on 13th August 1985, did not have an exhibit label attached to it when Jones handed it over to Cook and Cook handed it over at the lab' to Glynis Howard - so when Cook arrived at the lab' he attached his own exhibit label labelling it 'SJ/1', not 'SBJ/1', not 'DB/1' and not 'DRB/1'...

It is important that everyone knows this, and understands it...

'SJ/1'

Here is the relevant extract from Ron Cooks notebook entry, dated, 13th August 1985:-

[mike tesko]

That sound moderator / silencer / suppressor ('SJ/1') has led a charmed life according to the lab' documentation and the contents of genuinely faked composite witness statements which have sought to alter its unique exhibit reference No. on numerous occasions...

Here, lets take a closer look:-

[mike tesko]

We need to pay particular attention to the genuinely faked composite witness statement created by some cop or other, or a force solicitor or other, or a rogue CPS person or other, because whoever produced this forgery refers to the Sound Moderator, not a  silencer, or a gun suppressor...

And whoever, or whichever cop, or solicitor or \CPS person that faked this evidence, didn't even bother to put the date the forgery was created...

[lookout]

It would have been a good idea to have got the name of the rifle right for starters.

[mike tesko]

Then there's this:-

This version of this genuinely fake composite witness statement in David Boutflours name, was to all intents and purposes taken by a DC 494 Benton on the 12th September 1985

But...

Why are there two versions of the same composite witness statement created using two different typesets?

How come, nobody gets to see the hand written version which DC 494 Benton must have recorded in his own hand writing bearing his signature, and the signature of David Boutflour?

[mike tesko]

Was DC 494 Benton one of the crooked police officers who has been creating these genuinely fake composite witness statements that are everywhere?

Why no witness statement from DC Benton saying that on a particular date that he took a witness statement from David Boutflour?

[mike tesko]

Was DC 494 Benton one of the crooked police officers who has been creating these genuinely fake composite witness statements that are everywhere?

Why no witness statement from DC Benton saying that on a particular date that he took a witness statement from David Boutflour?

We know that on the 12th September 1985, that David Boutflour contacted the police to report that he had found the sound moderator to the gun because there is a document stating this (unless that too is a genuinely fake police record too..

[mike tesko]

We know that on the 12th September 1985, that David Boutflour contacted the police to report that he had found the sound moderator to the gun because there is a document stating this (unless that too is a genuinely fake police record too..

The sound moderator that Stan Jones took from Peter Eaton on the 12th August 1985, was the same sound moderator which Ron Cook took to the lab' the very next day (SJ/1), to be examined by Glynis Howard. We have seen the notes which Ron Cook recorded in his notebook which says that this / that sound moderator was given the exhibit mark of SJ/1. We also know that there was insufficient blood on the silencer at the time of that examination by Howard and that the sound moderator was handed back to Ron Cook, who says (elsewhere) that he retained that sound moderator in his jacket pocket and carried it around everywhere with him for the next 17 days and nights, until that sound moderator was eventually sent back to the lab' under a different disguise, by then it supposedly being referred to by the exhibit mark of DB/1..

In any event, the sound moderator is finally at the lab' again from 30th August 1985, onwards, where it remained until it was produced at court as court exhibit No.9 but was it?

And, if it was, how come that Ann Eaton and the relatives still had the sound moderator until the day before David Boutflour telephoned Essex police up on the 12th September, 1985, to tell the police that he had found the sound moderator to the gun (Ann Eaton had handed it over to DC Oakey 11th September 1985)?

Why is Boutflour telling police via the telephone on the 12th September 1985, that he has found the sound moderator to the gun, if the cops already knew he found the sound moderator that Stan Jones recovered from Peter Eaton on the 12th August 1985, and by then they also had the sound moderator that Ann Eaton had given to DC Oakey the previous day (11th September 1985)?

Stan Jones, and DC Oakey, dodgy coppers...

[mike tesko]

The role that DC Oakey played at the scene on that first morning of the police investigation, accompanying senior officers to create Sheila Caffells death scene on the main bedroom floor, should not be overlooked easily, because officially he was never at whf that morning, neither was DC Henderson - both were ghosted out of the investigation, in the same way that Stan Jones seized four exhibits from the farmhouse that same morning (7th August 1985)...

Funny how Stan Jones and DC Oakey should both be linked to one of the two sound moderators which Essex police introduced into evidence with the help of consenting relatives and lab' experts, in order to get Jeremy Bamber convicted of killing his sister and of staging her death scene, when it was the cops who are responsible for doing these things. There has clearly been a conspiracy involving cops, relatives and experts in this matter, and documents have been forged and faked by somebody and everybody who was called upon to do so by the corrupt criminal justice system...

[Caroline]

For those who believe the document a forgery need to explain the signature on the statement.

Furthermore those who insinuate that Mike created it need to explain why he did not point out such a detail in his own forgery and have the authenticity of the statement concealed. 

How is that even a signature?