The Finding of the Silencer by David Boutflour on September 11th 1985

[Adam]

What a pity David still isn't man enough to accept there is sourced forensic evidence.  On a man who was convicted 33 years ago & has failed several appeals.

Not sure what ellse he expects guilters to post on a forum. He posts his own sources & diagrams. Although his diagrams are not sources.

[lookout]

Can't you wait until the experts tell you ? Your theories don't hold water !

[Adam]

Also not sure why David is so keen to promote the relatives fabricating the silencer without police assistance.

The police must have been involved in fabricating all the other evidence that convicted Bamber. So why not the silencer ? 

[lookout]

The team wouldn't even be talking about an appeal if they thought there was no new evidence.

[Adam]

Can't you wait until the experts tell you ? Your theories don't hold water !

It's sourced evidence. Not theories.

It's also a pity David is allowed to post his images, banners, gish gash, diagrams & abuse. I did suggest these should not be allowed. By any posters. But my suggestion was rejected.

[Adam]

The team wouldn't even be talking about an appeal if they thought there was no new evidence.

Maybe it is the 999 call Sheila made at 6am.

[Caroline]

The team wouldn't even be talking about an appeal if they thought there was no new evidence.

They have been talking about an appeal since the last one! 

[lookout]

They have been talking about an appeal since the last one! 

Well we all know how the CCRC and DPP work don't we ? Or don't as the case may be.

[Harry]

No they do not. Police records show that Ann Eaton handed over DRB/2 and DRB/3 in on the 11th of September.

Any reasonable person would realise that DRB/2 and DRB/3 had been at the Eaton residence since David Boutflour brought them there on the 10th of August. Its written in DS Jones pocket book that he collected the silencer (DRB/1) at the Eaton Farm on the 12th of August. No mention of collecting DRB/2 and DRB/3. Which explains why the silencer appears on the early lab records and DRB/2 and DRB/3 do not. Because they remained at the Eaton farm as they were not considered important.

"Its written in DS Jones pocket book that he collected the silencer (DRB/1) at the Eaton Farm on the 12th of August."

What Stan Jones wrote in his pocket book is unreliable evidence.

These reports were made by policemen in a routine sort of way. The officers mentioned clearly acknowledge that a silencer was found by David Boutflour on September 11th 1985

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

Why would the police wait a whole month before refering to a phone call reporting the finding of a silencer by David Boutflour, if the call really had been made on August 10th.

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

How could that have happened if  Stan Jones had already collected it a month earlier. The truth is Jones collected a different silencer SBJ/1 on August 7th.

(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 action report 181 dated September 13th DS Davidson writes "Check silencer for fibres"

Why would Davidson be saying that a whole month after it was found and after it had already been sent to the laboratory. He was clearly referring to an item just obtained: the silencer found by David Boutflour on September 11th. That is basically how the police work. They believe in prompt recording of evidence whenever possible.

[Harry]

From the Statement of Ann Eaton, September 8th to 12th. The section below concerning events which allegedly took place on August 10th was recorded on September 12th, according to DS Davis who interviewed Ann Eaton.

 "Mr. COCK decided that he would need to speak to the farm secretary Barbara WILSON. He telephoned her and she agreed to come to the farm.
On arrival at the farm Barbara WILSON was very emotional and she conferred with Mr. COCK.

My father. David and I started to have a look around the house.

My brother David collected all the guns around the house so that we could take possession of them for safe keeping. This was on the authority of Mr Cock

My brother, DAVID. then went into the downstairs office and I stood in the doorway and saw David open the gun cupboard. He got onto his knees and he then checked the cupboard.

David then took out a silencer and a telescopic sight and a carrier bag of ammunition. David said to me that the silencer and telescopic sight belonged to the rifle which had killed the BAMBERS and the CAFFELL twins.

The items were put into the kitchen with other guns and ammunition ready to be conveyed to my house for safe keeping...."

Both Ann Eaton and David Boutflour are describing in their statements of September 12th events which actual happened only a day earlier, according to police records shown in previous posts.

It is notable that Ann Eaton mentions Basil Cock. According to Robert Boutflour, who was also there, Basil Cock was uninterested in the silencer, but expressed annoyance at the the fingerprint dust which was all around the house. Whitehouse Farm was not fingerprinted until after September 7th when the case became a murder investigation.

It's interesting to read the following in relation to Ann Eaton's Statement of September 12th 1985. There can be no doubt that Robert Boutflour and Basil Cock were there when the silencer was found.

Mike Tesko writes:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,606.msg12826.html?PHPSESSID=sb0e5558549rt0ba24g7uufe13#msg12826

"Boutflour speaks about Basil Cock, complaining about the fingerprint dust, at the time the silencer was found in the gun cupboard at whf - what this means is that the silencer to which he is referring to, could not have been found in the gun cupboard at whf on 10th August 1985, because no fingerprint examination took place at the scene as part of the SC/688/85 investigation, such a fingerprint examination was not undertaken at whf until the investigation changed on 6th September 1985, under SC/786/85..."

The date when the silencer that was found in the gun cupboard has been changed from 11th September 1985, and back dated to 10th August 1985, and confirmed by reference to the fingerprint dust which was all over the place at whf, from 6th September 1985, onwards..."

Roch replies
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,606.msg13180.html?PHPSESSID=sb0e5558549rt0ba24g7uufe13#msg13180

"That's quite a gaffe isn't it?  Still, they've got away with it anyway.  And nobody seems to want to comment on this anomaly."

These posts are from 2011 and yet people are still talking about the relatives finding the silencer on August 10th 1985 

[David1819]

These posts are from 2011 and yet people are still talking about the relatives finding the silencer on August 10th 1985

That's because the theory does not stand up to scrutiny.

You have to argue that thousands of documents across Essex Police, The Forensic Science Service, Huntingdon Lab and The City of London Police are all backdated forgeries.  Not only that but backdated forgeries that all happen to fit together and all the witnesses whent ahead with it. A conspiracy of this magnitute is not possible to sustain. People involved would sooner or later speak out.

[lookout]

Selective memory now 

[lookout]

Stop ruining Harry's thread ! The man talks sense.

[Harry]

That's because the theory does not stand up to scrutiny.

You have to argue that thousands of documents across Essex Police, The Forensic Science Service, Huntingdon Lab and The City of London Police are all backdated forgeries.  Not only that but backdated forgeries that all happen to fit together and all the witnesses whent ahead with it. A conspiracy of this magnitute is not possible to sustain. People involved would sooner or later speak out.

I have just had a post deleted. I would like to draw the attention of Mike Tesko to this, assuming Mike wasn't responsible. It quotes an important post of his and a reply from Roch.

Interference like this is intolerable. Moderators should not be allowed to delete posts to try to manipulate the debate.

It was a post which in my view contains important information, although it has been in the public domain for sometime. I have noticed that in a reply to this post by David1819, the quote which would have contained the deleted post has also been edited.

I don't know whether David himself edited the post or whether the same administrator who deleted the original post has also edited David's reply.

Ordinarily when a Moderator deletes a post, any replies to it are also deleted. What's going on in this case is that the reply has been allowed to stand while the post it was a reply to has been carefully edited, allowing a person opposed to to my position to merely dismiss the subject without addressing the point at issue.

David's reply merely avoids the main point in the now deleted post which was that the fingerprint dust basically proves that the visit to the farm must have taken place later than September 7th 1985.

Details can prove things. Sloppy generalizations cannot.

[maggie]

I have just had a post deleted. I would like to draw the attention of Mike Tesko to this, assuming Mike wasn't responsible. It quotes an important post of his and a reply from Roch.

Interference like this is intolerable. Moderators should not be allowed to delete posts to try to manipulate the debate.

It was a post which in my view contains important information, although it has been in the public domain for sometime. I have noticed that in a reply to this post by David1819, the quote which would have contained the deleted post has also been edited.

I don't know whether David himself edited the post or whether the same administrator who deleted the original post has also edited David's reply.

Ordinarily when a Moderator deletes a post, any replies to it are also deleted. What's going on in this case is that the reply has been allowed to stand while the post it was a reply to has been carefully edited, allowing a person hostile to to my position to merely dismiss the subject without addressing the point at issue.

David's reply merely avoids the main point in the now deleted post which was that the fingerprint dust basically proves that the visit to the farm must have taken place later than September 7th 1985.

Details can prove things. Sloppy generalizations cannot.

Sorry Harry was using my mobile removing some posts  and your post was deleted by mistake.  I have put it back onto the thread as it was never my intention to interfere with your o p onion. Hope this is acceptable to you.