Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on February 03, 2020, 01:08:PM
-
It is incorrect to say that the reason why Jeremy Bamber was arrested was due to a ballistic expert saying that Sheila did not shoot herself. Jeremy was arrested due to the persistent demands from Robert Boutflour and Ann Eaton for the police to accuse Jeremy of the murders and it was ultimately the allegations made by Julie Mugford that caused Jeremy to be arrested.
Hayward:
What the ‘expert’ did was to conduct a limited experiment with his colleague Glynis Hayward whereby she said that she could not reach the trigger of the rifle with the silencer attached to it, therefore suggesting that it was impossible for Sheila to have shot herself, if as alleged, the silencer was fitted to the rifle. The only validity of the statement made by Hayward depended on the assumption that the silencer was fitted to the rifle. However, it was demonstrated well after the trial by a model, that it was possible to operate the trigger using the toes rather than the fingers, rendering the testimony of Fletcher and Hayward somewhat redundant.
Ballistic expertise:
The so-called ballistic expert was Malcolm Fletcher, who actually was not expert in firearms or ballistics, as he demonstrated in his testimony at Jeremy’s trial.
Giving evidence at the Trial, he said that he had 13 years’ experience of work in the Firearms Department. He did not say how long he had actually been involved in forensic evaluation of the type he carried out in relation to the WHF murders; according to the defence expert, Major Freddy Mead, Fletcher was an ignoramus and gave scientifically misleading evidence.
In fact, Fletcher seems to have been a novice when it came to knowledge and experience of firearms. In relation to the two most important aspects of forensic evidence, the issues of ‘backspatter’ and firearms residue, he was grossly ignorant, despite giving evidence that suggested he was ‘expert’ in these areas. In relation to residue, he said that there should be “a very good chance” of there being residue on the person who fired the rifle. However, this is totally incorrect. Richard Saferstein, PH.D., author of many textbooks on forensic examination of crime scenes wrote, in relation to gunshot residue from .22 calibre rim-fire ammunition, “Unfortunately…there has been a low rate of positive findings. The major difficulty appears to be the short time that primer residues remain on the hands. These residues are readily removed by intentional or unintentional washing, rubbing or wiping of the hands. In fact, one study demonstrated that it is very difficult to detect primer residues on cotton hand swabs taken just two hours after firing a weapon. Hand swabbing cannot be used to detect firing of most .22-calibre rim-fire ammunition. Such ammunition’s primer may contain only barium or neither barium nor antimony”
The ammunition used at WHF was .22-calibre rim-fire. Thus, the absence of gunshot residue on Sheila Caffell was to be expected. Unfortunately, Mr Rivlin did not seek to secure any expert witness testimony on this issue. It appears that the defence accepted at face value the evidence of Fletcher as a supposed ‘expert witness’ when he was nothing of the sort.
Loading the Magazine:
Fletcher was a hostile witness in relation to Jeremy’s defence, prepared to indulge in exaggeration and obfuscation in order to help secure a conviction. For example upon giving evidence about the loading of the magazine with bullets, the following exchange took place between Fletcher and Mr Arlidge (prosecutor):
Q) Is it easy to get all ten (bullets) in or not?
A) It gets progressively harder round about seven, eight, nine and ten.
Q) Dealing specifically, let us say, with nine and ten, how easy or difficult is it to get those two in?
A) Quite difficult.
In his witness statement of 13th November 1985 Fletcher said, “loading the tenth cartridge is exceptionally difficult”. Thus, although Fletcher had moderated his testimony from “exceptionally difficult” to “quite difficult”, it was still in an effort to suggest to the Jury that Sheila would have struggled, or been incapable of reloading the magazine. According to Jeremy it was not difficult to load ten bullets into the magazine. The expert opinion of Major Mead, ballistics expert for the Defence, who had considerably more experience of firearms than did Fletcher, said, “I didn’t think that loading the tenth round was “exceptionally difficult”. Cross-examined by Mr Lawson, Fletcher was forced reluctantly to concede that a female colleague, Miss Woodruff, (presumably with no previous experience of loading a .22 Anschutz magazine as she was a biologist) “Got the nine rounds in fairly well”. Of course there is no evidence to prove the full capacity of ten rounds was ever loaded into the magazine. It is possible Sheila loaded less than the full 10 rounds capacity.
Therefore, we can see that rather than volunteer the information that a female colleague experienced little difficulty in loading nine bullets into the magazine; Fletcher remained mute on the experiment while giving evidence for the prosecution and continued to claim that loading the magazine was “quite difficult”. Had he not been cross-examined, the Court would never have known that Fletcher’s colleague, Miss Woodruff, actually experienced no difficulty in loading nine bullets into the magazine. The truth had to be dragged out of Fletcher under cross-examination; so, we can perceive clear evidence that Fletcher was biased towards giving evidence that could be exploited by the prosecution.
Back-Spatter:
For the defence, Mr Lawson was clearly most concerned in his cross-examination to expose Fletcher’s inexperience in relation to the phenomenon of ‘back-spatter’. In what progressed to become quite a bad-tempered exchange of words, Fletcher in effect admitted that he had no experience himself of the phenomena of ‘back-spatter’; he admitted under cross-examination that he had given evidence based on the very limited amount that he had read about the subject. Of particular note, Fletcher could offer no explanation as to why Sheila’s blood would be inside a sound moderator when blood from her son Daniel was completely absent anywhere on the rifle barrel or inside the sound moderator. Daniel had been shot from virtually point-blank range or contact with the skin, certainly as close as the two shots that Sheila had suffered. This is a very significant indication that the blood was introduced inside the sound moderator at a later stage. Fletcher agreed, with reluctance, that he had said in evidence that “the likelihood of getting the blood inside the moderator, from a contact shot, is certainly high.” This was not good enough for Lawson who reminded Fletcher that he had said that it was “a virtual certainty”. Fletcher reluctantly had to agree that it was “highly likely”.
Lawson then caused Fletcher to admit that back-spatter involving a .22 rifle was in any event highly unlikely. Fletcher admitted that his opinion regarding back spatter had not been gained through experience, in fact he lied when he informed the Court: “I have seen the effect of .22 back-spattering occasionally; I would say occasionally and not very often.” Asked when he had last seen the effects of back-spatter, Fletcher said: “I cannot remember” to which the question was put more specifically: “A .22 back-spattering with a moderator, when have you seen that?” Astoundingly, Fletcher replied: “I can’t recall having seen one before today.” He was not admonished for his blatant lie.
So there we have it; Fletcher had waffled around the subject of back-spatter and presented himself to the Jury as knowledgeable when in fact he had never before seen a case of back-spatter involving a .22 rifle fitted with a sound moderator. Fletcher would later admit that the only knowledge he possessed about back-spatter, he had gleaned from an article he had read in a journal. In layman’s terms Fletcher had by that point in cross-examination admitted that to all intents and purposes he had no idea what he was talking about in relation to back-spatter and to make matters worse he had not conducted any experiments to see whether blood would back-spatter into a sound moderator fitted to a .22 calibre rifle. His evidence and his credibility was effectively destroyed.
Gunshot Residue:
Fletcher then gave totally misleading testimony about the subject of gunshot residue. Lawson asked: “If someone had fired that weapon 25 times, would you in your experience, expect to find residue of the propellant or oil, or both, on their clothing or body?” to which Fletcher answered: “After 25 shots I would think there would be a good chance of some being on the person firing, a very good chance.” Fletcher admitted he had examined Sheila’s nightdress and stated that he found no traces of oil or residue on it. An honest witness with an interest in justice being done would have volunteered the information that he only looked at the nightdress and the substances being referred to were invisible to the naked eye. Fletcher failed to do this, and by not clarifying what was implied by the word ‘examine’ he was being dishonest.
-
A letter sent to Mike from Jeremy at Full Sutton in 2003 describes the above point. It's on thread ,
" Tesko files-forensic " merry go round " of Sheila's blood and backspatter. It explains how Jeremy himself viewed the findings.
-
David's reason for changing stance from hardcore guilter is because he found an alternative source to Malcolm Fletcher.
Regarding that there would have been back splatter on the rifle barrel if the silencer was not used.
He considers his source more reliable than Malcolm Fletcher.
The problem is the courts & COA preferred Fletcher.
-
It is incorrect to say that the reason why Jeremy Bamber was arrested was due to a ballistic expert saying that Sheila did not shoot herself. Jeremy was arrested due to the persistent demands from Robert Boutflour and Ann Eaton for the police to accuse Jeremy of the murders and it was ultimately the allegations made by Julie Mugford that caused Jeremy to be arrested.
Which is why Jeremy was released and allowed to go off on Holiday after Julies accusations. Only after Fletcher's reports got given to Simpson and Ainsley at a later date, did he get charged with 5x murders.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-rolling-eyes_1f644.png)
Where did you get this baloney from Roch?
-
David's reason for changing stance from hardcore guilter is because he found an alternative source to Malcolm Fletcher.
Regarding that there would have been back splatter on the rifle barrel if the silencer was not used.
He considers his source more reliable than Malcolm Fletcher.
The problem is the courts & COA preferred Fletcher.
If the courts and COA prefer police testimony, then so be it. For myself, what matters is understanding the truth of what took place; whether that be during the night in question or subsequent events.
I've always expressed that the memories of those who died are not best served by a version of events built upon lies, however accepted that version is.
-
It was up to the defence at the time to challenge Mr Fletcher, and to conduct their own experiments.
-
Which is why Jeremy was released and allowed to go off on Holiday after Julies accusations. Only after Fletcher's reports got given to Simpson and Ainsley at a later date, did he get charged with 5x murders.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-rolling-eyes_1f644.png)
Where did you get this baloney from Roch?
One of the three researchers I referred to recently. I suppose there's room for supporters to disagree.
-
It was up to the defence at the time to challenge Mr Fletcher, and to conduct their own experiments.
Yes they seem to have come up short. However, defence failings can't change actual events that occurred previously.
-
Fletcher did not know the dubious origins of the sound moderator.
Fletcher did not know much if anything about back-spatter, nor was he a qualified ballistician at that point in his career.
Fletcher read Vanezis statement stating Sheilas wounds were contact wounds.
Fletcher also read Hayward's statements stating the blood in the silencer was Sheilas blood group.
Fletcher would have undoubtedly heard the rumors on the news about JBs girlfriend implicating Jeremy in the crime. Not knowing it was a pack of lies.
It doesn't take much of the imagination to work out how this numpty got misguided down the wrong path. And having the title of "expert" made some in the police force take him seriously without question.
-
Fletcher did not know the dubious origins of the sound moderator.
Fletcher did not know much if anything about back-spatter, nor was he a qualified ballistician at that point in his career.
Fletcher read Vanezis statement stating Sheilas wounds were contact wounds.
Fletcher also read Hayward's statements stating the blood in the silencer was Sheilas blood group.
Fletcher would have undoubtedly heard the rumors on the news about JBs girlfriend implicating Jeremy in the crime. Not knowing it was a pack of lies.
It doesn't take much of the imagination to work out how this numpty got misguided down the wrong path. And having the title of "expert" made some in the police force take him seriously without question.
In Ainsley's report to the DPP. He even put Fletcher's words in capitals contrary to everything else. Its rather obvious what has convinced the author of this document.
-
The first shot could have been carried out with the moderator on ? Whoever the shooter might have been.
-
One of the three researchers I referred to recently. I suppose there's room for supporters to disagree.
Its not a question of disagreeing. Its correcting a false claim. My conclusions about Fletcher may be debatable. But to say that Julie was the lynchpin despite police letting JB walk free and go on holiday after what she said, is just plain wrong.
-
The first shot could have been carried out with the moderator on ? Whoever the shooter might have been.
Sheila was knocked out after the first shot. Thread recently created. She was still breathing, so a second shot was fired.
Sheila did not shoot herself with the moderator on. Then go downstairs, take it off and put it away at the back of the gun cupboard.
-
Bamber shot Sheila twice with the moderator on.
Then took it off and put it away in a box at the back of the gun cupboard.
-
In Ainsley's report to the DPP. He even put Fletcher's words in capitals contrary to everything else. Its rather obvious what has convinced the author of this document.
This is actually said by Dickinson also. In a post conviction press conference... if i can find it.
-
This is actually said by Dickinson also. In a post conviction press conference... if i can find it.
-
This is actually said by Dickinson also. In a post conviction press conference... if i can find it.
Your stance, is that the sound moderator was a fabricated exhibit instigated by the relatives, yet this fact was unbeknown to the police. I'm not sure I agree.
-
Your stance, is that the sound moderator was a fabricated exhibit instigated by the relatives, yet this fact was unbeknown to the police. I'm not sure I agree.
The police did suspect the relatives contaminated the silencer with their own blood, hence they took blood samples to check. How could the police know it for a fact unless the relatives or relative divulged in what they did to the police?
-
The police did suspect the relatives contaminated the silencer with their own blood, hence they took blood samples to check. How could the police know it for a fact unless the relatives or relative divulged in what they did to the police?
During the second investigation? I favour some type of cooperation being likely.
-
During the second investigation? I favour some type of cooperation being likely.
During the second investigation what?
Blood on and inside silencer, mantle scratches and paint on silencer was reported in the 1st investigation.
Only difference in the second investigation the silencer was unscrewed and the blood flake found and tested.
-
During the second investigation? I favour some type of cooperation being likely.
And yes they suspected it in the second investigation. The tests on the relatives blood was assigned on the 19/9/85.
I doubt they suspected anything in the 1st investigation because the police and lab didn't find it incriminating at that stage.
-
And yes they suspected it in the second investigation. The tests on the relatives blood was assigned on the 19/9/85.
I doubt they suspected anything in the 1st investigation because the police and lab didn't find it incriminating at that stage.
During the second investigation what?
Blood on and inside silencer, mantle scratches and paint on silencer was reported in the 1st investigation.
Only difference in the second investigation the silencer was unscrewed and the blood flake found and tested.
Any comment Roch? :-\
-
What I would really like to see are the original notes about the way the silencer was reported to the police and from the evening it was collected . So the pocket book of jones .
And the reason no statements about the find were taken until September.
-
What I would really like to see are the original notes about the way the silencer was reported to the police and from the evening it was collected . So the pocket book of jones .
And the reason no statements about the find were taken until September.
We have that. Jones said the blood on the moderator looked recent rather than old.
(https://i.ibb.co/WDWgQZg/sbj.jpg)
-
We have that. Jones said the blood on the moderator looked recent rather than old.
(https://i.ibb.co/WDWgQZg/sbj.jpg)
Thanks for that David I had been searching for that . And we are sure that was a contemporary note ?
-
Thanks for that David I had been searching for that . And we are sure that was a contemporary note ?
IIUC It was written in 1991 while going over his notebook and events of 1985.
-
Meaning it was written on the 7th of August ??
-
IIUC It was written in 1991 while going over his notebook and events of 1985.
Ok understood .
-
So I still wonder why he did not take statements straight away about how they found it . But he does not say they thought it was human blood so perhaps he did just assume it was animal blood.
-
So I still wonder why he did not take statements straight away about how they found it . But he does not say they thought it was human blood so perhaps he did just assume it was animal blood.
Beside the point really.
-
AP had admitted to shooting two rabbits when he was at WHF a week before the murders. He didn't mention that he took the silencer with him, only the bolt.
-
Any comment Roch? :-\
Sorry David I don't understand your point. I think police were expecting what they received (from the lab).
-
Sorry David I don't understand your point. I think police were expecting what they received (from the lab).
My point is that the evidence does not show the police manufactured the silencer. The evidence all points to the relatives or a relative being behind it.
-
If JB's legal team can get around the blood in the silencer JB has won his case.
-
My point is that the evidence does not show the police manufactured the silencer. The evidence all points to the relatives or a relative being behind it.
Yes I understand. So in your version, Ainsley goes all out for Bamber because he genuinely believes the silencer evidence. I think he's too shrewd an operator for that. I'm more open to there having been some 'technical' collusion between police and relatives. What happened, in your opinion, between police and Huntingdon? Do you see any wrongdoing in that sphere?
-
Yes I understand. So in your version, Ainsley goes all out for Bamber because he genuinely believes the silencer evidence. I think he's too shrewd an operator for that. I'm more open to there having been some 'technical' collusion between police and relatives. What happened, in your opinion, between police and Huntingdon? Do you see any wrongdoing in that sphere?
The silencer evidence came into existence on August 10th at oak farm and white house farm. Only people present were RWB, DB, AE and PE. The police have no motive and no opportunity to have done anything.
The counter argument to this is a ludicrous crackpot conspiracy theory that requires almost every document in the case to be a forgery. The "evidence" that's used to back this up is nothing but Oakley's action report about collecting an empty box and RWB getting his memory mixed up six years later. I kid you not. Its embarrassing.
-
The silencer evidence came into existence on August 10th at oak farm and white house farm. Only people present were RWB, DB, AE and PE. The police have no motive and no opportunity to have done anything.
The counter argument to this is a ludicrous crackpot conspiracy theory that requires almost every document in the case to be a forgery. The "evidence" that's used to back this up is nothing but Oakley's action report about collecting an empty box and RWB getting his memory mixed up six years later. I kid you not. Its embarrassing.
I'm not trying to challenge your view but there are some anomalies.
DB gave an interview to the press where he expressed that the sound moderator had been found several weeks after the killings. Cant find the link. It's on here somewhere.
Pargeter stated that DB informed him that the police had returned a sound moderator to the family (I know you have your own view on this but I'd like to read it again if anyone can find it).
Finally, let us not forget HorseyDave?
Scene 1. We have 5 dead bodies, and 2 (hear me out) phone calls to 'our' office. We visit the scene, witness somebody moving around inside whilst JB is outside with us. Daughter has a gun on her, history of mental problems - Case solved, its now 4 murders and a suicide.
Scene 2: Cousin who believes he as a farmer should inherit farm "suddenly" discovers a silencer 3 weeks after the police have left. (I know for a FACT because i was there, that the police used the scullery and kitchen as a office) - suddenly after being in the house for 3 weeks we "find a silencer" !!
Scene 3; Girlfriend has recently been dumped, but is heavily involved with JB and his drug dealings etc, so we cannot use her as a witness yet - we arrange for her to come clean at the bank, and the complainant regarding the caravan thefts is dead, so we have a potential witness.
Scene 4 Destroy JB's phonecall record, or deny it was him, and as WE made such a cock up first time round now that "uncle farmer should have the farm mysterially finds a silencer, all we now have to do is put the girlfriend in the box (washed of past history), produce the silencer and Bingo !!!!!! case solved
we the police dont look idiots a 2nd time, farmer uncle gets his farm rather than let a wayward druggy have it and Girlfriend is shown the way to 20k newspaper cash and best if all a new life (have you tried to get a permanent visa for canada with a criminal record ??) in Canada well away from JB's defence team -
This is keystone cops stuff, stop wasting youre time and everyone elses time with rediculas "ideas and theoies" - Look at the FACTS.
Scene 5 - You have all been retired by Essex Police
-
Beside the point really.
well it might have avoided the discrepancies in their later statements .
-
I'm not trying to challenge your view but there are some anomalies.
DB gave an interview to the press where he expressed that the sound moderator had been found several weeks after the killings. Cant find the link. It's on here somewhere.
Pargeter stated that DB informed him that the police had returned a sound moderator to the family (I know you have your own view on this but I'd like to read it again if anyone can find it).
Finally, let us not forget HorseyDave?
Just like what one newspaper got wrong about what ACC Simpson said. The same applies to what they wrote about DB.
The second "anomaly" is explained below by Pargeter.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=505.0;attach=1632;image)
-
Just like what one newspaper got wrong about what ACC Simpson said. The same applies to what they wrote about DB.
The second "anomaly" is explained below by Pargeter.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=505.0;attach=1632;image)
I don't believe it was one newspaper. I think it was in several. It's in the really lengthy document of anomalies produced by JB and the CT from about 2012 - was it called the allegation document? Didn't Reader also put a link up recently to JB's letter - what did you make of that?
Re Pargeter - it sounds plausible, what he is saying - but I don't understand the context. Both the statement you are showing and the statement he is referring back to, have the same date.
-
My point is that the evidence does not show the police manufactured the silencer. The evidence all points to the relatives or a relative being behind it.
Do you think they would have had the know how to get the blood inside the silencer as it was found ? Or even to understand the science of blood groupings?
Dont remember any of the family saying the spoke to AP about the find at the time it was found .
-
I don't believe it was one newspaper. I think it was in several. It's in the really lengthy document of anomalies produced by JB and the CT from about 2012 - was it called the allegation document? Didn't Reader also put a link up recently to JB's letter - what did you make of that?
Re Pargeter - it sounds plausible, what he is saying - but I don't understand the context. Both the statement you are showing and the statement he is referring back to, have the same date.
I have read it before . Its full off errors, misinterpretations and wild conjecture. Its like one of Adams lists but in reverse. From the same people who brought us Sheila's ambulance call and the cake baking. I appreciate their efforts, but they are not cut out for this kind of thing.
They may have lots of material but its no good if you cant research it properly. Its like giving me Junes cake recipes when I don't know how to bake cakes. :)
-
Do you think they would have had the know how to get the blood inside the silencer as it was found ? Or even to understand the science of blood groupings?
No
-
No
So they might think if they put any blood in there it would be enough to implicate jeremy ?
-
I have read it before . Its full off errors, misinterpretations and wild conjecture. Its like one of Adams lists but in reverse. From the same people who brought us Sheila's ambulance call and the cake baking. I appreciate their efforts, but they are not cut out for this kind of thing.
They may have lots of material but its no good if you cant research it properly. Its like giving me Junes cake recipes when I don't know how to bake cakes. :)
Nevertheless, it contains entries about the media reports regarding sound moderator.
-
There is also a news report which said the neighbours heard a shot which was allegedly Sheila shooting herself . :(
-
The silencer evidence came into existence on August 10th at oak farm and white house farm. Only people present were RWB, DB, AE and PE. The police have no motive and no opportunity to have done anything.
Police records confirm that DS Stan Jones took possession of a total of four exhibits at the scene, which included the seizure of a silencer on the morning of 7,the August 1985..
-
Nevertheless, it contains entries about the media reports regarding sound moderator.
What good is that?
-
Whilst I don't doubt David's theory that the relatives were behind the framing, having both the means and the motive, there are aspects that, in my view, required collusion of some sorts. Probably,after the fact, but once set in motion the framing can only work with at least tacit collusion from within the police.
One example being the photographic record. It is a matter of record that since the original trial, negative strips have been cut and some disposed of prior to inspections by photograpic experts. It is known that some of those negatives were of the gun cupboard, where the relatives allegedly "found" the silencer.
This "curating" of the photographic record by EP over the last 30+ years didn't only start post trial. None of the relatives could guarantee that pictures showing the interior of the gun cupboard would not be in the record presented to the court. They have since gone missing and their removal led to the CCRC admitting that they are,"of significance to the safety of the conviction."
Who could make sure that the photographic record presented to the court in 1986 did not include certain pictures of the gun cupboard?
-
Whilst I don't doubt David's theory that the relatives were behind the framing, having both the means and the motive, there are aspects that, in my view, required collusion of some sorts. Probably,after the fact, but once set in motion the framing can only work with at least tacit collusion from within the police.
One example being the photographic record. It is a matter of record that since the original trial, negative strips have been cut and some disposed of prior to inspections by photograpic experts. It is known that some of those negatives were of the gun cupboard, where the relatives allegedly "found" the silencer.
This "curating" of the photographic record by EP over the last 30+ years didn't only start post trial. None of the relatives could guarantee that pictures showing the interior of the gun cupboard would not be in the record presented to the court. They have since gone missing and their removal led to the CCRC admitting that they are,"of significance to the safety of the conviction."
Who could make sure that the photographic record presented to the court in 1986 did not include certain pictures of the gun cupboard?
DS Jones collected the silencer from the relatives. DS Jones then gave it to DI Cook to take to the lab. DI Cook assumed DS Jones found it and thus it was signed in as SBJ/1.
You could argue they colluded with DS Jones. That’s about it.
-
DS Jones collected the silencer from the relatives. DS Jones then gave it to DI Cook to take to the lab. DI Cook assumed DS Jones found it and thus it was signed in as SBJ/1.
You could argue they colluded with DS Jones. That’s about it.
So are you saying the blood was planted because the blood groups and dna tests were in fact ( as shown by documents) inconclusive?
If the silencer had no blood or scratch then there was no other evidence whatsoever to dhow it was on the rifle ?
-
DS Jones collected the silencer from the relatives. DS Jones then gave it to DI Cook to take to the lab. DI Cook assumed DS Jones found it and thus it was signed in as SBJ/1.
You could argue they colluded with DS Jones. That’s about it.
Who was responsible for the photographic record presented to the court in 1986?
Who "curated" the evidence to make certain that no photos were presented that were at odds with the relatives claims?
I am largely in agreement with you. The relatives had a motive to frame Jeremy which is clear. It was they who "found" the silencer. Once the framing attempt was set in motion however, I don't believe that this would or could have been successful without at least some form of help/collusion.
-
Who was responsible for the photographic record presented to the court in 1986?
Who "curated" the evidence to make certain that no photos were presented that were at odds with the relatives claims?
I am largely in agreement with you. The relatives had a motive to frame Jeremy which is clear. It was they who "found" the silencer. Once the framing attempt was set in motion however, I don't believe that this would or could have been successful without at least some form of help/collusion.
The negatives were not destroyed until sometime after 2001. Back in 1986 the photos were developed on sheets smaller than A4. You could not scrutinise the smaller detail unless the photographer focused on them in particular (such as the scratches)
In 2010 JBs defence had redeveloped the photos from the negatives using modern technology. We can now see no debris on the carpet under the mantle shelf.
This is probably why negatives got removed. There are also negatives missing of the windows. It’s very possible that they feared something would show up that preclude entry or exit such as cob webs. Without seeing what went missing we can only speculate as to why it was removed.