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

[Steve_uk]

I thought it was Jeremy who complained about the fingerprint dust that the Police hadn't been thorough enough?

[Jane]

I thought it was Jeremy who complained about the fingerprint dust that the Police hadn't been thorough enough?

It might be that he thought, that by going through the motions of grieving and bereft young autocratic chip off the old block, making sure the investigation was up to speed, by seeing to it that "i's" were dotted and "t's" crossed, he could prevent it coming back to bite him at a later stage?

[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.

You have made no attempt to explain how the fingerprint dust could have been all around the house on August 10th even though the house not not fingerprinted until later than September 6th 1985 when the case became a murder investigation.

The basic point is that an "anomaly" such as this provides conclusive proof that a whole bunch of witness statements are fraudulent, unless you have evidence that the house was fingerprinted before then.

And apart from that, it is clearly documented that DC Oakey collected a silencer and other items from Ann Eaton on September 11th 1985.

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

Mike Tesko
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..."

[Harry]

From the statement of DC Oakey dated October 25th 1985.

There is slight change in the exhibit references from
DBR to DRB but the items mentioned such as the telescopic sight DBR/2 or DRB/2 show they are equivalent in the statements of David Boutflour and DC Oakey.

"At 1820 hours. on Wednesday, 11th September 1985, I was on duty, when I went to Oak Farm, Loamy Hill Road, Tolleshunt Major. I received from Mrs Ann Eaton one Nikko Stirling Telescopic Sight in box (Exhibit DRB/2 and an ABU carrier bag, containing seven boxes of fifty Eley Subsonic Hollowpoint .22 bullets and one empty .22 bullet box (Exhibit DRB/3)

At 1500 hours. on Saturday. 14th September 1985, I was on duty. at Witham Police Station, when I received from Mr David BOUTFLOUR one Raker cartridges box. containing fourteen smaller boxes. each containing twenty-five rounds of 12 bore ammunition (Exhibit DRB/4).

On top of one of the smaller boxes was a spot of what appeared to be blood. I later caused this smaller box, the Telescopic Sight box from Exhibit DBR/2 and the empty .22 bullet box from Exhibit DRB/3 to be forwarded to the Home Office Forensic science Laboratory. Huntingdon."

It is notable that Oakey has omitted any mention of DRB/1 in this statement. This seems illogical as the other exhibit references imply the existence of a DRB/1. It's a bit like somebody telling us who was second and third in a race, but not telling us who won. Of course there must have been a winner. Similarly, Oakey or someone else must also have collected a DRB/1 at some time otherwise the other exhibit references would not make logical sense.

And we know that Oakey did collect it, because other records indicate that DBR/1 which was the reference for the silencer was in fact collected along with the other exhibits with DRB references by DC Oakey from Ann and Peter Eaton on September 11th 1985.

(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”

The fact that Oakey omits to mention collecting the silencer (which would be DBR/1) in his statement of October 25th only further emphasises the intention to deceive.

By the time DC Oakey made that statement it had become official that the silencer had been found by David Boutflour on August 10th. So Oakey was told to leave it out, or somebody edited it out. But there are several documents refering to the silencer being handed in to the police by Ann Eaton on September 11th 1985 and being collected by DC Oakey.

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

That does not sound as if the silencer had been handed in to the police a month earlier on August 12th or that the other items were collected by Oakey from Ann Eaton, supposedly having been left at her house for a month. It looks as if the things were found at the same time and handed in around the same time.

[David1819]

You have made no attempt to explain how the fingerprint dust could have been all around the house on August 10th even though the house not not fingerprinted until later than September 6th 1985 when the case became a murder investigation.

Several straight forward possibilities.

1. Six years after the even, Robert Boutflour's recollection of the event is wrong.

2. It was brought up at trial that the boxes in the cupboard where dusty. So what Basil Cook was complaining about was ordinary dust and RWB misunderstood him.

3. Basil Cook was actually complaining that the police had not fingerprinted the house yet. And the whole thing is yet another silly misinterpretation.

The basic point is that an "anomaly" such as this provides conclusive proof that a whole bunch of witness statements are fraudulent, unless you have evidence that the house was fingerprinted before then.

Bullshit.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Robert Boutflour's undependable recollection of the events that happened six years prior is negligible evidence.

And apart from that, it is clearly documented that DC Oakey collected a silencer and other items from Ann Eaton on September 11th 1985.

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

No it is clearly document that on September 11th, DC Oakley collected the box that contained the silencer discovered on August 10th.

Action Report 88 also reads "Why Oakley when S Jones collects?". This is because whoever wrote that spreadsheet has misunderstood the documents about the box containing the silencer.

AE/1 and AE/2 is the same item as DRB/2 and DRB/3. This is in Millers notes also.

[Harry]

No it is clearly document that on September 11th, DC Oakley collected the box that contained the silencer discovered on August 10th.

Action Report 88 also reads "Why Oakley when S Jones collects?". This is because whoever wrote that spreadsheet has misunderstood the documents about the box containing the silencer.

AE/1 and AE/2 is the same item as DRB/2 and DRB/3. This is in Millers notes also.

I am going to try to reinterpret the documents in question according to the suggestions you have made

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

This cannot be interpreted as meaning that David Boutflour has found a silencer box on September 11th.  That does not make sense, because the silencer box would have already been at Ann Eaton's house and actually have been there for a whole month, if the silencer and the box had been found on August 10th.

Seriously though, why would the police wait a whole month before refering to a phone call reporting the finding of a silencer by David Boutflour (or a silencer box), 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’

You have said that you think that DC Oakey only collected the silencer box and that the person who wrote the above misunderstood the situation. 

But how do you account for DS Davidson writing "check silencer for fibres" Here is what he writes

(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”

He seems to be saying check the box AND check the silencer for blood fibres and fingerprints.

[Harry]

Several straight forward possibilities.

1. Six years after the even, Robert Boutflour's recollection of the event is wrong.

2. It was brought up at trial that the boxes in the cupboard where dusty. So what Basil Cook was complaining about was ordinary dust and RWB misunderstood him.

3. Basil Cook was actually complaining that the police had not fingerprinted the house yet. And the whole thing is yet another silly misinterpretation.

There is no evidence to support such claims.

https://jeremybamber.org/robert-boutflour/

"Robert Boutflour discusses the afternoon when his son David found the sound moderator in the gun cupboard saying in the exhibit evidence of his diary, that he remembered this occasion well because the late Basil Cock, who was the accountant at the time, had visited the house with them on that day. He took no interest in the moderator, and was busy complaining about the finger printing dust.[21] This was an enormous mistake which the Defence never picked up on because the house had not been fingerprinted on the 10th of August when David found the sound moderator.  The house was fingerprinted after the 8th of September when Jeremy was arrested.  It is clear that Robert Boutflour did not tell the truth in his statements or to the court when asked about the inheritance issue. Sadly Jeremy’s Defence didn’t challenge the chain of evidence for the moderator otherwise many anomalies would have been exposed."

I would like to see the actual pages where Robert Boutflour made notes of those details. It's not enough to dismiss him as a doddery old fool.

[Harry]

Another indication that the statements of the relatives concerning the finding of the silencer are fraudulent is that they all say they saw red paint on the silencer. If you are committed to the view that the silencer wasn't used and also to the view that the scratches to the aga did not occur in a struggle in the kitchen, there are only two alternatives for you to to choose from.

You either believe that the police faked the paint evidence weeks later and got the relatives to sign fraudulent witness statements saying they found the silencer on August 10th and that they saw paint on it which reminded them of the paint on the aga and so on, or you choose the really naive alternative which is to believe that the relatives scratched the aga with a silencer they found on August 10th, and managed to fool the police.

[lookout]

How did EP know that the rifle found on Sheila's body was the killer weapon ?
How did EP know which silencer was which from those which were present ?


However, disregarding the above the main point I maintain to prove innocence beyond doubt is the phone-call from Nevill--------nothing else. Though I'd wonder at Jeremy having lied about it when he must have known that lying would have had him arrested immediately, so why would he have done ?

[Caroline]

How did EP know that the rifle found on Sheila's body was the killer weapon ?
How did EP know which silencer was which from those which were present ?


However, disregarding the above the main point I maintain to prove innocence beyond doubt is the phone-call from Nevill--------nothing else. Though I'd wonder at Jeremy having lied about it when he must have known that lying would have had him arrested immediately, so why would he have done ?

Eh?  - because it was found on her body and the bullets fired were fired from THAT weapon!

Jeremy DID lie about the call from Nevil and he was arreseted! 

[lookout]

Eh?  - because it was found on her body and the bullets fired were fired from THAT weapon!

Jeremy DID lie about the call from Nevil and he was arreseted! 

Because the rifle had been found on her body doesn't mean that it was the one used in the murders-----unless you know differently.
I thought JB was arrested at Dover for something unconnected to the murders ?? On the pretext of nailing him for the murders.

[guest154]

Because the rifle had been found on her body doesn't mean that it was the one used in the murders-----unless you know differently.
I thought JB was arrested at Dover for something unconnected to the murders ?? On the pretext of nailing him for the murders.

  You're a staunch supporter. How can you explain how Sheila killed herself, but theres a possibility that it wasn't with the gun found on her chest.

Have you ever bothered to look at the ballistics evidence?

[lookout]

Have you ever bothered to find out who killed her other than Jeremy ??  Staunch guilter !

[guest154]

Have you ever bothered to find out who killed her other than Jeremy ??  Staunch guilter !

Yes, I have, Lookout. By looking at the case I've reached my opinion. You're clearly still puddled over the weapon used so how you've been able to form an opinion when you don't understand this basic is beyond me.

[Jane]

Have you ever bothered to find out who killed her other than Jeremy ??  Staunch guilter !

Surely, it's only by eliminating ALL other possibilities, that one can reach a reasoned, as opposed to sentimental, conclusion