Author Topic: Did ANN EATON alert Police about scratches on Kitchen Aga RED mantelpiece?  (Read 6959 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Also are Opening Post documents genuine?

thanks
Nige
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Also are Opening Post documents genuine?

thanks
Nige

The ones you posted at the beginning?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9379.msg437329.html#msg437329

Yes. They were produced by the City of London Police in 1991

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
The ones you posted at the beginning?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9379.msg437329.html#msg437329

Yes. They were produced by the City of London Police in 1991

Hi David,

Yes, I was referring to my Opening post docs.

"Yes, They were produced by the City of London Police in 1991"


Holy moley!
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that Essex police seized a sound moderator from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation, that date was 7th August 1985, and that Sound Moderator was given the exhibit reference of SBJ/1. It remains possible that also seized at the same time was a rifle to which the said Sound Moderator (SBJ/1) was attached. In fact, the rifle together with its Sound Moderator could originally have formed exhibit SBJ/1...

This rifle, and possibly it's Sound Moderator (SBJ/1) was arguably the gun belonging to Anthony Pargeter!

No signed exhibit label exists, bearing the identifying mark, SBJ/1..

Now, this is bizarre...

Two signed exhibit labels bearing the signatures of police, the relatives, and Lab' experts do exist, but the exhibit references on these two labels reads that one had the identifying mark of DB/1, whilst the other had the identifying mark, DRB/1...

My painstaking research into this matter spanning over two decades, has established that the sound moderator bearing the exhibit mark DB/1 first got mentioned on the 30th August 1985, and that the exhibit reference DRB/1 was not introduced until after the occasion Ann Eaton handed it over to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985!

No matter which way you look at this feature in the police investigation, the Sound Moderator handed over by Ann Eaton (DRB/1), could not possibly have been the very same Sound Moderator that Essex police submitted to the Lab' on the 30th August 1985, in that respect DB/1 could not have also been referred to as DRB/1 - this is because DB/1 had already been submitted to the Lab' at Huntingdon (30th August 1985), before Ann Eaton handed over DRB/1 to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985! There is no way that these two sound moderators could have been the same item!

I think, that the sound Moderator DB/1 was a separate sound moderator to DRB/1, and SBJ/1...

I believe I am right in saying that SBJ/1 and DRB/1 related to the same Sound Moderator, which at some stage had been returned to the family prior to the occasion that Ann Eaton gave it back to the police on the 11th September 1985! In a nutshell, Essex police were handed one Sound Moderator by the relatives (DRB/1) which the police themselves had already had possession of from the first morning of the police investigation, only at that stage it was being referred to by the exhibit reference of SBJ/1...

This Sound moderator was almost certainly returned back into the farmhouse at the time Jones and Jones returned the keys to the farmhouse, back to Ann Eaton at the scene on the evening of the 9th August 1985! In this respect, this meets the criteria, or the implication that cops handed back 'that' Sound Moderator to the family at 'that' time!

What appears to have happened, on the following day (10th August 1985) is that David Boutflour found the Sound Moderator which Jones and Jones had returned to the scene on the previous evening! The Sound Moderator was the one which Ron Cook took with him to the Lab' on the 13th August 1985, which Glynis Howard provisionally examined on that date! I am satisfied, that this Sound Moderator, was the self same Sound Moderator which Stan Jones had taken possession of at the scene on the first morning of the police investigation, it's exhibit reference originally had been exhibit SBJ/1, but when Cook took it to the lab'' that date, he states that there was no exhibit label attached to the Sound Moderator at that time, so he attached one and earmarked it exhibit SJ/1!

He later explained, that the reason he earmarked the Sound Moderator which Stan Jones had given to him, as exhibit SJ/1, rather than, for example, SBJ/1, was because he was not aware that DS Jones had got a middle Christian name of Brian...

In any event, there can be very little doubt that it was one and the same Sound Moderator!

Now, once that discrepancy was identified as somewhat problematic by Essex police, it was subsequently earmarked the exhibit reference of DB/1. This was the Sound Moderator sent to the Lab' on 30th August 1985, inside which the critical flake of Sheila Caffell's blood group activity was subsequently discovered at the Lab' on the 12th September 1985...

I am 100% sure that this was what did happen - this solitary Sound Moderator, at one time or another had a different exhibit reference, SBJ/1, became SJ/1 and ultimately it became DB/1...

The astonishing revelation which I can now reveal was that Sheila Caffell's unique blood group activity was found inside this Sound Moderator at the Lab' on the 12th September 1985 (quite possibly the Sound Moderator belonging to Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifke,..

However, the ingrained red paint from the kitchen aga was found to be present on the other Sound Moderator (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) which Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, and which her brother later contacted the police to tell them that he had found the actual Sound Moderator to the gun believed to have been the sole murder weapon! What we have here, is the introduction of two different Parker Hale Silencers, one (DB/1) containing Sheila Caffell's unique blood, whilst the other one (DRB/1) contained paint from the kitchen aga mantelshelf...

Between the lot of them, cops, relatives and those at the Lab' dishonestly merged both of these Sound Moderators into a single item! A single item inside which it was being claimed contained the unique exclusive blood group activity which originated from Sheila Caffell, and red paint as a result of the second Sound Moderator having come into contact with the red painted kitchen aga mantelpiece!

What they have done is very serious!

Between themselves, they have all conspired to pervert the course of justice!
« Last Edit: April 18, 2018, 11:06: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
The shooting of Sheila Caffell was a two gun crime, my belief is that  one of the guns used was fitted with its own Sound Moderator, whilst the other gun hadn't got a Sound Moderator attached!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that Essex police seized a sound moderator from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation, that date was 7th August 1985, and that Sound Moderator was given the exhibit reference of SBJ/1. It remains possible that also seized at the same time was a rifle to which the said Sound Moderator (SBJ/1) was attached. In fact, the rifle together with its Sound Moderator could originally have formed exhibit SBJ/1...

This rifle, and possibly it's Sound Moderator (SBJ/1) was arguably the gun belonging to Anthony Pargeter!

No signed exhibit label exists, bearing the identifying mark, SBJ/1..

Now, this is bizarre...

Two signed exhibit labels bearing the signatures of police, the relatives, and Lab' experts do exist, but the exhibit references on these two labels reads that one had the identifying mark of DB/1, whilst the other had the identifying mark, DRB/1...

My painstaking research into this matter spanning over two decades, has established that the sound moderator bearing the exhibit mark DB/1 first got mentioned on the 30th August 1985, and that the exhibit reference DRB/1 was not introduced until after the occasion Ann Eaton handed it over to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985!

No matter which way you look at this feature in the police investigation, the Sound Moderator handed over by Ann Eaton (DRB/1), could not possibly have been the very same Sound Moderator that Essex police submitted to the Lab' on the 30th August 1985, in that respect DB/1 could not have also been referred to as DRB/1 - this is because DB/1 had already been submitted to the Lab' at Huntingdon (30th August 1985), before Ann Eaton handed over DRB/1 to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985! There is no way that these two sound moderators could have been the same item!

I think, that the sound Moderator DB/1 was a separate sound moderator to DRB/1, and SBJ/1...

I believe I am right in saying that SBJ/1 and DRB/1 related to the same Sound Moderator, which at some stage had been returned to the family prior to the occasion that Ann Eaton gave it back to the police on the 11th September 1985! In a nutshell, Essex police were handed one Sound Moderator by the relatives (DRB/1) which the police themselves had already had possession of from the first morning of the police investigation, only at that stage it was being referred to by the exhibit reference of SBJ/1...

This Sound moderator was almost certainly returned back into the farmhouse at the time Jones and Jones returned the keys to the farmhouse, back to Ann Eaton at the scene on the evening of the 9th August 1985! In this respect, this meets the criteria, or the implication that cops handed back 'that' Sound Moderator to the family at 'that' time!

What appears to have happened, on the following day (10th August 1985) is that David Boutflour found the Sound Moderator which Jones and Jones had returned to the scene on the previous evening! The Sound Moderator was the one which Ron Cook took with him to the Lab' on the 13th August 1985, which Glynis Howard provisionally examined on that date! I am satisfied, that this Sound Moderator, was the self same Sound Moderator which Stan Jones had taken possession of at the scene on the first morning of the police investigation, it's exhibit reference originally had been exhibit SBJ/1, but when Cook took it to the lab'' that date, he states that there was no exhibit label attached to the Sound Moderator at that time, so he attached one and earmarked it exhibit SJ/1!

He later explained, that the reason he earmarked the Sound Moderator which Stan Jones had given to him, as exhibit SJ/1, rather than, for example, SBJ/1, was because he was not aware that DS Jones had got a middle Christian name of Brian...

In any event, there can be very little doubt that it was one and the same Sound Moderator!

Now, once that discrepancy was identified as somewhat problematic by Essex police, it was subsequently earmarked the exhibit reference of DB/1. This was the Sound Moderator sent to the Lab' on 30th August 1985, inside which the critical flake of Sheila Caffell's blood group activity was subsequently discovered at the Lab' on the 12th September 1985...

I am 100% sure that this was what did happen - this solitary Sound Moderator, at one time or another had a different exhibit reference, SBJ/1, became SJ/1 and ultimately it became DB/1...

The astonishing revelation which I can now reveal was that Sheila Caffell's unique blood group activity was found inside this Sound Moderator at the Lab' on the 12th September 1985 (quite possibly the Sound Moderator belonging to Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifke,..

However, the ingrained red paint from the kitchen aga was found to be present on the other Sound Moderator (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) which Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, and which her brother later contacted the police to tell them that he had found the actual Sound Moderator to the gun believed to have been the sole murder weapon! What we have here, is the introduction of two different Parker Hale Silencers, one (DB/1) containing Sheila Caffell's unique blood, whilst the other one (DRB/1) contained paint from the kitchen aga mantelshelf...


Between the lot of them, cops, relatives and those at the Lab' dishonestly merged both of these Sound Moderators into a single item! A single item inside which it was being claimed contained the unique exclusive blood group activity which originated from Sheila Caffell, and red paint as a result of the second Sound Moderator having come into contact with the red painted kitchen aga mantelpiece!

What they have done is very serious!

Between themselves, they have all conspired to pervert the course of justice!

Holy moley!

makes three Holy moley!'s

two more Holy moley!'s and you have cracked it.

I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
The ones you posted at the beginning?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9379.msg437329.html#msg437329

Yes. They were produced by the City of London Police in 1991

Saying the report is genuine is is misleading.

The fact that it was produced by City of London Police does not alter the fact that it's a fake document. The fact of the matter is that the information it contains is false. COLP were helping Essex Police cover up what really went on.  The silencer was not handed in by the relatives until after September 11th. Records exist which give the lie to the information it contains. It's notable that you don't try to prove that the authentic reports are mistakes.

You are basically relying on the same routine that you go through on other issues where the position you defend is contradicted by the evidence. You generally rely on saying that the records which are inconsistent with your position are  "mistakes". You do that even when  corroboration exists.

On the telephone calls you have to maintain not only that West mistimed his log, but also that both Jeremy and Susan Battersby gave wrong times for Jeremy's call to Julie Mugford, because they gave times which are perfectly consistent with the time on West's log assuming he called Mugford first. That is three mutually corrobrative pieces of evidence.

You know that Jeremy could not have called London at 03:25 as Jeremy says, because that is the time on Bonnett's log. So what do you do? You just have to say that Jeremy and Susan Battersby also gave a time which just happens to be wrong by about the same number of minutes as West's log. So you say that Jeremy called London at 03:40.

There is no basis for saying that other than the necessity of making things fit.

Two bodies downstairs

Police at the scene reported finding two bodies downstairs not just once but several times. It's not just a matter of counting logs. The different information in separate reports makes it extremely unlikely that Sheila was not originally seen downstairs.

The following separate pieces of information are not repetitions of the same error.

1 "One dead male and one dead female"

2 "One murder and one suicide"

3  Three more bodies upstairs.

All you can do is say that what are basically three reports of finding Sheila downstairs are "mistakes" which just happen to tally.

Dr Craig

Dr Craig saw only one bullet wound and said that the  blood was dry. Saying he was "mistaken" is not an explanation.

When it comes to reports of the relatives handing in the silencer later than september 11th there is repeated corroboration. The evidence is very clear cut. The reason Bamber's lawyers don't use it is best known to them. This report  may give a clue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2381707.stm

 "His legal team says the case against him was built on a series of "deceits" by police and that certain evidence was withheld in order to unfairly bolster the prosecution case.

Slack work

But Mr Temple said that Bamber's counsel, Michael Turner QC, "was seeking to swim in an empty sea".

He said Mr Turner was seeking to base "very serious allegations of impropriety, dishonesty and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" on no more than slack paperwork, double hearsay and strained constructions on documentary evidence.

My guess is that Bamber's lawyers have decided not to risk inviting the same criticism again. But now the evidence is conclusive. The relatives handed in the silencer after September 11th. 


« Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 06:01:AM by Harry »

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
"COLP were helping Essex Police cover up what really went on."

Perhaps COLP were not 'helping Essex Police cover up'? maybe they were just trusting what Essex Police said was true?
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
"COLP were helping Essex Police cover up what really went on."

Perhaps COLP were not 'helping Essex Police cover up'? maybe they were just trusting what Essex Police said was true?

Harry wants us to believe that three sheets of paper (one of them being gossip from a tabloid) renders thousands of documents and witness testimony across three organisations EP, COLP, FSS as forgeries.

A far more plausible scenario is that two silencers were handed over. It is even brought up in COLP investigation the existence of a second silencer. So much for COLP helping EP cover up.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
"COLP were helping Essex Police cover up what really went on."

Perhaps COLP were not 'helping Essex Police cover up'? maybe they were just trusting what Essex Police said was true?

So much for COLP helping EP cover up.

A number of officers from both COLP and the Met attended Stan Jones' retirement booze-up.  His way of saying 'thank-you'.

Contemporary with the period of enquiries, when a police force investigated another force, a certain mutual understanding and an unwritten code of conduct existed.  All of the COLP notes that you see on the forum or elsewhere are in the same handwriting and are transcribed from taped interviews of the various EP officers. 

Prior to any taped interviews, unrecorded and informal discussions took place between the interviewers and interviewees.  The purpose of these discussions was to set the 'parameters' for the coming taped interview and ensure that the interviewees avoided straying 'off-reservation' regarding any disclosures.  During the taped sessions, if it became apparent that the interviewee was in effect slipping-up and dropping a clanger, the interviewers would prompt the officer by changing the course of conversation / subject.  One can imagine the facial expressions of the interviewing officers in such situations.  Imagine the relief all round, when the interviewee has successfully navigated the process and managed to just about stay on-message?

It's been said that COLP knew something didn't add-up and only managed to find out the truth by offering immunity from prosecution for the officers concerned.  COLP were apparently stunned when they found out the sequence of events - because it had never occurred to them during the course of their previous enquiries. 

Most serious revelations and disclosures will have taken place off-tape, with a few slip-ups making it on to the tape (and in to the transcribed notes).   
« Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 10:10:PM by Roch »

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Harry wants us to believe that three sheets of paper (one of them being gossip from a tabloid) renders thousands of documents and witness testimony across three organisations EP, COLP, FSS as forgeries.

A far more plausible scenario is that two silencers were handed over. It is even brought up in COLP investigation the existence of a second silencer. So much for COLP helping EP cover up.

Sometimes just one telling detail gives the game away. But on this issue there are several.

http://jeremybamberinnocent.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/case-of-jeremy-bamber.html

"In addition a statement from Robert Boutflour (Doc P29) states that the accountant Basil Cock was complaining about fingerprint dust when the silencer was found and paid no interest to it.

White House Farm was not fingerprinted until after September 7th. Therefore it must have been found after this date."

The point is that Robert Boutflour was describing what took place when the relatives allegedly found the silencer on August 10th.

And the pattern is repeated. We get the same descriptions made and conversations allegedly occurring on August 10th which are elsewhere recorded as occurring after September 11th.



What is said to have occurred in this statement on August 14th actually did occur a month later. These cops were lying and the COLP investigators would have figured it out because the authentic records of the finding of the silencer on September 11th would have been available to them. Of course COLP didn't start with the intention of helping Essex Police cover up the real truth, but that is what eventually happened. Cops rarely grass on other cops.

The duplication theory would be a good description of your position.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2018, 05:10:AM by Harry »

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
http://jeremybamberinnocent.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/case-of-jeremy-bamber.html

This comment is worth reading carefully. I wonder who leighpurnell is.

leighpurnell18 July 2010 at 13:11

The Finding of the Silencer: August 10th vs. September 11th

The prosecution claim that the silencer was found by Ann Eaton and David Boutflour on the 10th august 1985. But was it? Evidence points to the fact that it was found not in August, but in September.

In their statements (see Docs P5, P20 & P32) Ann Eaton and David Boutflour claim the silencer was found on Saturday 10th August. They say it was taken for safekeeping to Ann’s house Oak Farm where they rang the police to inform them of their find.

In his statement (Doc P4) Robert Boutflour stated that on Monday 12th he went to Maldon Police station to inform them again of the silencer. According to him, Maldon Police then rang Witham Police and arranged a meeting that afternoon at 2.30 pm. At the meeting he informed Witham Police of the silencer and it was collected from Oak Farm that same evening.

If this occurred as claimed, there would be telephone records from both Maldon Police and Witham Police, records of the meeting and of the silencer being picked up. There are no such records.

Despite the prosecutions claims to the contrary, the silencer was actually found around a month later, on September 11th. As proven by the police documents below:

(Doc P31) Telephone Message Log 38, 11th September 1985 reads:
‘David Boutflour has found a silencer with blood on it’

(Doc P35) Action Report 88 reads: ‘Collection of silencer AE (Ann Eaton) 11th September to Wright items obtained by DC Oakey’

(Doc P34) Action Report 181 allocated to DS Davidson, 13th September 1985: “Examine the following for blood fibres and finger prints. 2/ cardboard box containing silencer and ammunition. 3/ Check silencer for fibres”

In addition a statement from Robert Boutflour (Doc P29) states that the accountant Basil Cock was complaining about fingerprint dust when the silencer was found and paid no interest to it.

White House Farm was not fingerprinted until after September 7th. Therefore it must have been found after this date.

(Doc P39) Action 1068 confirms that the Eatons and the Boutflours were at the farm on September 11th the day that the police documents prove the silencer was found.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Sometimes just one telling detail gives the game away. But on this issue there are several.

http://jeremybamberinnocent.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/case-of-jeremy-bamber.html

"In addition a statement from Robert Boutflour (Doc P29) states that the accountant Basil Cock was complaining about fingerprint dust when the silencer was found and paid no interest to it.

White House Farm was not fingerprinted until after September 7th. Therefore it must have been found after this date."

The point is that Robert Boutflour was describing what took place when the relatives allegedly found the silencer on August 10th.

And the pattern is repeated. We get the same descriptions made and conversations allegedly occurring on August 10th which are elsewhere recorded as occurring after September 11th.



What is said to have occurred in this statement on August 14th actually did occur a month later. These cops were lying and the COLP investigators would have figured it out because the authentic records of the finding of the silencer on September 11th would have been available to them. Of course COLP didn't start with the intention of helping Essex Police cover up the real truth, but that is what eventually happened. Cops rarely grass on other cops.

The duplication theory would be a good description of your position.

Robert Boutflour mentioning fingerprint dust does not refute all the testimony from Huntingdon lab and Sandridge lab. Taff Jones mentions a silencer in his handwritten notebook, is that fake also? Please...

Offline Harry

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Robert Boutflour mentioning fingerprint dust does not refute all the testimony from Huntingdon lab and Sandridge lab. Taff Jones mentions a silencer in his handwritten notebook, is that fake also? Please...

How does the testimony of the lab experts support the view that the relatives found the silencer on August 10th?

The police found a silencer on the day of the killings. They were talking about it when interviewing Jeremy on August 9th. ACC Simpson told the press about the silencer which the police had found. Taff Jones would have known about it.

Saying that Simpson must have either been mistaken or misquoted is a poor response. People who cover themselves by offering alternative explanations show they have no good explanation. For example when it comes to the time West received the phonecall from Jeremy at 03:36, a guilty supporter might say

"Then either the clock was fast or he misread it". When you do that you show that you are just thinking of something to say. Any old thing will do.

Do you have evidence that the silencer Taff Jones was talking about was not the one found by the police on August 8th.

It's notable that you have not given any explanation for Robert Boutflour talking about Basil Cock and the fingerprint dust. The house was not fingerprinted until a month after August 10th.

http://jeremybamberinnocent.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/case-of-jeremy-bamber.html

"In addition a statement from Robert Boutflour (Doc P29) states that the accountant Basil Cock was complaining about fingerprint dust when the silencer was found and paid no interest to it.

White House Farm was not fingerprinted until after September 7th. Therefore it must have been found after this date."
« Last Edit: April 28, 2018, 06:48:AM by Harry »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21087
How does the testimony of the lab experts support the view that the relatives found the silencer on August 10th?

The police found a silencer on the day of the killings. They were talking about it when interviewing Jeremy on August 9th. ACC Simpson told the press about the silencer which the police had found. Taff Jones would have known about it.

Saying that Simpson must have either been mistaken or misquoted is a poor response. People who cover themselves by offering alternative explanations show they have no good explanation. For example when it comes to the time West received the phonecall from Jeremy at 03:36, a guilty supporter might say

"Then either the clock was fast or he misread it". When you do that you show that you are just thinking of something to say. Any old thing will do.

Do you have evidence that the silencer Taff Jones was talking about was not the one found by the police on August 8th.

It's notable that you have not given any explanation for Robert Boutflour talking about Basil Cock and the fingerprint dust. The house was not fingerprinted until a month after August 10th.

http://jeremybamberinnocent.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/case-of-jeremy-bamber.html

"In addition a statement from Robert Boutflour (Doc P29) states that the accountant Basil Cock was complaining about fingerprint dust when the silencer was found and paid no interest to it.

White House Farm was not fingerprinted until after September 7th. Therefore it must have been found after this date."
Didn't Julie mention in her statement that Jeremy had remarked about fingerprint dust? Is there a timeline here?