Author Topic: Disturbing Evidence, which confirms that cops handed back silencer to the family  (Read 119453 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44307
I don't see what the big deal is about this document.

It seems to me like the police were worried or embarrassed about the fact they looked inside the cupboard and never discovered a sound moderator. So they thought they could create a false chain of custody that makes it appear like they discovered it and also fits in with how the relatives could then have handed it to them at a later date.

Later on they had second thoughts about it and decided to scrap the idea. Scribble stuff out and scrunch this page up. but someone managed to recover it.

That's the impression im getting.

I get it.

The police didn't find the silencer.

The relatives then found and handed in the silencer.

The police then decided to pretend they found the silencer.

The police asked the relatives to keep quiet about finding the silencer.

The police then started creating false documentation showing they found the silencer.

The police then changed their mind about pretending they found the silencer. Deciding the relatives should say they found it. Which was correct.

The police forgot to dispose of the false paperwork they created showing they found the silencer.

The police asked the relatives to keep to their original & true version.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33772
I don't see what the big deal is about this document.

It seems to me like the police were worried or embarrassed about the fact they looked inside the cupboard and never discovered a sound moderator. So they thought they could create a false chain of custody that makes it appear like they discovered it and also fits in with how the relatives could then have handed it to them at a later date.

Later on they had second thoughts about it and decided to scrap the idea. Scribble stuff out and scrunch this page up. but someone managed to recover it.

That's the impression im getting.

Was there any reason for them to be looking for a sound moderator/silencer? Was there any reason for them to think such had been part of the crime? If the answer to those questions is "NO", I find nothing odd in the fact that they didn't find it because they simply weren't looking for it. It seems that, when it was found by the relatives, it hadn't ever right in front of their eyes, but allegedly concealed -in a box?- right at the very back of the wedge which was the understairs cupboard.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
3 silencers.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Just to clarify, the first picture IS SJ's signature and the second isn't - in fact, it isn't a signature AT ALL! Why certain people just can't admit it, is beyond me. Are we really meant to believe that sometimes he writes his signature as per the first picture and other times he goes completely off piste and writes his signature as 3 S B? RUBBISH!

The cartridge cases, are still being compared against test fired rounds, long before the 20th September, 1985...

Or, don't you understand the significance of this fact?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
3 silencers.

And a partridge in a pear tree?  ;D
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
And a partridge in a pear tree?  ;D






 :)) :)) :)) :)). If there'd been 4,I'd have said 4 candles ( fork handles )

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
They Knew that Stan Jones attended the crime scene after 11.30am, on that morning, (7th August 1985) and he had recovered the sound moderator - with little if any room for error and or mistake...

The blaggers, will maintain that Stan Jones could not have recovered  a sound moderator on that (7th August 1985) occasion, but rest assured, that he did..

Exhibit, SBJ/1...
« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 12:54:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Was there any reason for them to be looking for a sound moderator/silencer? Was there any reason for them to think such had been part of the crime? If the answer to those questions is "NO", I find nothing odd in the fact that they didn't find it because they simply weren't looking for it. It seems that, when it was found by the relatives, it hadn't ever right in front of their eyes, but allegedly concealed -in a box?- right at the very back of the wedge which was the understairs cupboard.

Four police had already looked inside that cupboard. That is on record. The fact they never recovered what would be the foundation of the prosecution case despite seaching the cupboard is problemactic for a range of obvious reasons.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Four police had already looked inside that cupboard. That is on record. The fact they never recovered what would be the foundation of the prosecution case despite seaching the cupboard is problemactic for a range of obvious reasons.

Not really, why would they be looking for a silencer? At that point, they had no reason to be searching for it.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 01:44:AM by Caroline »
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33772
Four police had already looked inside that cupboard. That is on record. The fact they never recovered what would be the foundation of the prosecution case despite seaching the cupboard is problemactic for a range of obvious reasons.

Was there any reason for them to be looking for a sound moderator/silencer? Was there any reason for them to think such had been part of the crime? If the answer to those questions is "NO", I find nothing odd in the fact that they didn't find it because they simply weren't looking for it. It seems that, when it was found by the relatives, it hadn't ever right in front of their eyes, but allegedly concealed -in a box?- right at the very back of the wedge which was the understairs cupboard.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33772
Just for a moment -and ONLY a moment- I'm going to allow myself to believe Sheila to have been responsible for the deaths of her children and parents, and that her weapon of choice had been a rifle with an attachment.
 Let's look at why she might have thought an 'attachment' was necessary. If she'd thought it would prevent her children from waking, having once killed them, it would hardly have been a matter of concern about whether or not her parents heard the shots which ended their own lives. Why would she need to remove the 'attachment'? The obvious answer is that with it, it would prove too unwieldy to shoot herself, so she decided to remove it, but WHY the necessity to hide it? WHY, when it would be obvious to all that she'd committed the crime before killing herself, would she have thought it necessary to go to the trouble of getting down on her hands and knees to place the unneeded 'attachment' so far back into the recesses of the understair (gun) cupboard, that it's presence went undetected, despite several searches? -if she'd been SO tidy minded, and evidence suggests otherwise, she could have opened the door and thrown it in randomly- surely SUCH fastidious concealment would only be contemplated by someone who was seeking to hide what they'd done, NOT someone who was going to take their own life?
I weary of the crude attempts to point-score that are going on here. Accusations are becoming more and more outrageous in order to be made to fit whatever is the poster's current take on the crime. No holds barred. Every possible scenario is thrown into the mix in order to incriminate their chosen victims. The motivations and aims of the person they believe to be responsible for the crime, are ignored.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Not really, why would they be looking for a silencer? At that point, they had no reason to be searching for it.

That's beside the point. They looked inside the gun cupboard and inside that gun cupboard was an accessory device to the murder weapon. They failed to notice and take custody of it. This creates a predicament for both police and the prosecution.


Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Four police had already looked inside that cupboard. That is on record. The fact they never recovered what would be the foundation of the prosecution case despite seaching the cupboard is problemactic for a range of obvious reasons.

According to what Ron Cook told the COLP investigators in 1991, he said that the thread on the end of the anshuzt guns barrel was free of blood and that although it did cross his mind that there ought to have been some sort of an attachment of sorts that should fit there. However, he said, that nobody asked him to look for whatever had been or could have been attached there. He then told COLP that there came a time when he himself had looked in a cupboard under the stairs in the den, and that he did not see a silencer, and that if he had done that he would have taken it, for takings sake, not because he thought it might have been used in the shootings! It is apparent that Cook was not merely referring to the silencer which could fit on the end of the barrel, but also its metal end  cap which screwed onto the guns barrel as well...

Everything points to the silencer, a silencer , not being present in the so called gun cupboard in the den, that one wasn't present in that gun cupboard that morning. The sound moderator which Stan Jones seized on that first morning was one that he took from the vicinity of the downstairs toilet where Anthony Pargeters bruno rifle and Parker Hale sound moderator was 'normally' kept...

The other piece that could fit on the end of the anshuzt guns barrel, was its metal end cap - in September 1985, David Boutflour handed this metal end cap to DC Oakey, it was contained inside the same ammunition box that he claimed he had found the sound moderator in on the 10th August 1985...

Neither item was present in the gun cupboard on the first morning of the tragedy, otherwise, as Ron Cook said to the COLP investigators, he would have taken them, for takings sake, because of the clean looking external thread on the end of the anshuzt rifles barrel...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Just for a moment -and ONLY a moment- I'm going to allow myself to believe Sheila to have been responsible for the deaths of her children and parents, and that her weapon of choice had been a rifle with an attachment.
 Let's look at why she might have thought an 'attachment' was necessary. If she'd thought it would prevent her children from waking, having once killed them, it would hardly have been a matter of concern about whether or not her parents heard the shots which ended their own lives. Why would she need to remove the 'attachment'? The obvious answer is that with it, it would prove too unwieldy to shoot herself, so she decided to remove it, but WHY the necessity to hide it? WHY, when it would be obvious to all that she'd committed the crime before killing herself, would she have thought it necessary to go to the trouble of getting down on her hands and knees to place the unneeded 'attachment' so far back into the recesses of the understair (gun) cupboard, that it's presence went undetected, despite several searches? -if she'd been SO tidy minded, and evidence suggests otherwise, she could have opened the door and thrown it in randomly- surely SUCH fastidious concealment would only be contemplated by someone who was seeking to hide what they'd done, NOT someone who was going to take their own life?
I weary of the crude attempts to point-score that are going on here. Accusations are becoming more and more outrageous in order to be made to fit whatever is the poster's current take on the crime. No holds barred. Every possible scenario is thrown into the mix in order to incriminate their chosen victims. The motivations and aims of the person they believe to be responsible for the crime, are ignored.

Jeremy left the rifle with the silencer unattached. The silencer was in cupboard all night along, nobody used it. There is an abundance of evidence to support this.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44307
Jeremy left the rifle with the silencer unattached. The silencer was in cupboard all night along, nobody used it. There is an abundance of evidence to support this.

What evidence is there to support the silencer was not used ?

The silencer had human blood in. Which was from Sheila's contact shot. It also had the aga paint on which got there from the kitchen fight.

The only way this evidence be on the silencer is with Bamber as the killer. Or in you're view,  the police & relatives working together to fabricate the silencer.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.