-
i have put together some of my ideas, thoughts, views on the Sound Moderator. I will be posting in segments. I cannot lock a thread so would suggest that you keep responses to a minimum to provide a modicum of continuity. but will happily discuss later in the process.
-
THE SILENCER SAGA PART 1
Like many Jeremy supporters I have spent hours pondering the Silencer evidence. When I first started my investigations I took a completely neutral stance. I started with the notion that both the police and Jeremy were telling the truth and that somehow quite by chance in a psychotic episode Sheila had framed Jeremy by her actions in creating the crime scene.
There are three possibilities for the blood inside the SM. It was caused by back spatter (many feel this though possible unlikely with the Anschutz for technical reasons). The other two are contamination either accidental or deliberate.
I considered the accidental contamination in some detail. My most favoured possibility was a nose bleed from an unknown event. Whilst fitting or removing the silencer with the butt on the ground, blood entered as it dripped from her nose. Many other suggestions have been proposed.
Deliberate contamination would require intimate knowledge and access to the silencer as well as blood which matched Sheila’s serologically.
When it was found is also a key issue to be considered. Various suggestions have been made in addition to the Crowns narrative.
Jeremy in his Tumbler article suggests that a silencer was found a month later than that stated (11/09/85) and that another silencer was found on the day.
The relatives say they found a silencer 11/08/85.
What is more, John Hayward received the silencer on (12/09/85) from MF and it was still being referred to as DB1. Despite its enumeration changing over time SJ1, DRB1. There is no chain of custody available to help unravel what actually happened to it. In such circumstances it is possible that it moved between the police and relatives without any paperwork
Examples of this may be as follows.
They collected JB’s SM on the day but upon examination they returned it to the cupboard in its box before returning the keys to the family on 09/07/85. They were sure it was not used.
The family presented the SM to the police as they claim but it was rejected and returned. Only later did they recreate the finding including paperwork when they wanted to frame JB.
We know the police were most interested in it from a finger print perspective. In addition to routine tests it was tested for prints by superglue fuming. We also know that RC dismantled it on 21/08/85 and no blood flake was recorded as being found.
However, I do believe that a silencer was used and most probably discarded sometime during the events. Some damage to the thread of a rifle suggests a possible cross threading. I find its number illuminating DB1 (David Bird?) and the next item DB2 Fire debris. Two key pieces of evidence from the kitchen which must have been in close proximity to share consecutive numbers.
All these facts/issues give rise to a whole host of potential scenarios and many, especially by MT, have been suggested. Back in May 2012 I believed that the silencer was genuine (accidentally contaminated) but was found after Julie had come forward. This would make it a ‘suspicious’ item from a legal angle. I wrote the following.
The silencer could be a complete fabrication but I think not. If the police wanted to get evidence against Jeremy in the first instance there were other easier means that they could have used. They could have found a blood stained casing lodged in a piece of clothing. In any case if Jeremy's info is right they would certainly have ensured that it was logged/booked in on the right date. It needed two blood types and the paint from the mantelpiece and it would have to have been done well after the event. Not impossible but difficult. The same goes for the family, for them it would be even harder and they could not be sure that the police would not see it as a "ringer". I believe they were motivated in the first instance to get justice for their dead loved ones though that may have changed. They wanted closure that the police did not provide with their "theory".
So I think the silencer was genuine though today it is probably worthless as a piece of evidence after all the examinations. The problem was it was found too late but I believe the family pressured the police to use it. They were prepared to lie about all the issues around its discovery and its condition. Given that they probably knew that other evidence had been corrupted they could make Essex Police look like a "right Shower" and as it looked ok as a piece of evidence I'm sure the police decided to use it at trial as per perfect crime scenario.
For the record my views on silencer are:
1 It was found late
2 It was recreated because it had lost its potency through one reason or another.
3 It was enhanced in some way
4 It was manufactured to be a killer of an exhibit.
5 It was accidentally created in some way.
The reality is that it could be the work of just one individual, be it a policeman or a relative. It might just involve one of each. As long as they remain silent we may never know the whole truth about it. On the other hand, it could be genuine, though it is looking less so. More of the police pieces of the jigsaw are required.
It is clear I was far from certain at that time as to what the real truth of the silencer actually was.
My supposition was/is that the silencer was denuded of its visual and technical characteristics. Probably GH had removed most of if not all of the paint, if indeed there was any in the first instance. She had also tested the external and visible blood. It had been covered in fingerprinting dust and the superglue treatment would likely have impacted the appearance.
Could it be exhibited at trial in this state?
What struck me the most was the fact that after all this manipulation and treatment it could still yield a blood evidence result that could identify the basic ABO grouping. Not only that but in this case other elements such as enzymes had also been captured. I was and still am sceptical that this was possible.
I was pleased when posters on red discussed this aspect in detail. HG on red suggested repeating the conditions endured by the SM to see if a full blood reading could be obtained.
Number two above was looking a stronger candidate.
I decided to look at other aspects of the case since like so much of this case it appeared futile to pursue the SM story without access to more evidential documents.
-
WAS THERE A FLAKE OF BLOOD? PART2
[/size]
The two key factors to the silencer evidence were the paint and the blood flake. The paint was an essential key to proving the silencer was used during the incident and not just any old silencer lying around or one from any source, used purely to create the framing. The paint could have been (a) genuine or (b) applied after the event by the police and or the family to facilitate the frame or to replace paint that had been removed in earlier tests. I wish to consider the flake based on its physical characteristics rather than its serological composition.
It is clear to me, that the family would have known that at least one silencer was missing within the first few days.
1 Anthony Pargeter would have known if his was not present if he kept it there. He would also be likely to know that the family had a silencer that may also be missing, since he claims to have indulged in shooting/target practice with Jeremy the previous weekend
2 It is likely that the police would have told them what they had taken, either when questioned or at the beginning of the investigation to stop them hunting for missing items.
3 Of course even if they were not told officially any officer could have notified them if they wished to add further ammunition to the family’s suspicions and protestations.
From the chronology of the case it is unlikely that Taff Jones would have entertained any attempts to frame Jeremy. His task seems to have been to keep the family at bay while he was in charge and any item presented to the police by the family would have been treated with the utmost suspicion and seen as yet another example of their mendacity. Their attempts to sway Taff would have increased overtime but it is I think unlikely but not impossible that by the 10/08/85 they had reached the point of working out how to frame him.
Irrespective of this had he known or suspected that the TFG had used a silencer in any cover-up of what actually happened, he would have ensured that any silencer was fully inspected both internally and externally before it was returned to the family or sent to the lab. Was this the reason that Ron Cook dismantled a silencer? I have seen pictures and claims that he performed just such a function at the end of August. (21/08/85)
Did Taff deliberately destroy the evidential value of the silencer?
Answer to come in part 3
Thus it can be argued that whilst the silencer may have been seen and discussed by some as a method of incrimination no attempt to use it would have been made prior to the change of command to Ainsley. As I have suggested in my narrative Taff had plenty of evidence that JB was innocent. He even took the ‘Hitman story’ with some seriousness, pursuing it to a dead end. He could, not until he had done this, rule out the possibility that the so called hitman/perpetrator had left June for dead.
Sources for the flake
The following are all potential sources for the flake.
1 Blood from Robert Boutflour
2 Blood from autopsy
3 Blood from bullet bag (Taylor notes blood that could have contained a flake. Together with PV20). The human tissue could have dried to a flake. We do not know the location from which the tissue emanated but tissue types may have different characteristics when dried.
4 Blood from clothing in bucket
5 David Boutflour’s ‘blob’
I would suggest that 4 and 5 can be ruled out since they would need to be kept in a suitable container at the correct temperature in the early stages of the investigation in order for the serological integrity of the sample to be maintained so as to provide the full spectrum analysis which was achieved later in the investigation.
As far as 3 above is concerned it might be a possible candidate, dependent on storage and container suitability, for this to yield a viable specimen since there would be less chance of factors such as oxidisation to degrade it.
Would the silencer be a good vehicle to get the flake to the laboratory?
The flake was described as being loose but trapped between the baffles. For this to be true it would mean that it could not move beyond the baffles between which it was said to have been located but nevertheless was mobile within the space in which it was contained.
At the bottom of this rant is shown a dried blood flake. It is clear that it is starting to disintegrate. I would argue that given this any flake would be denuded perhaps to a fine dust over time as it continued to dry and came into contact with the hard surfaces of the silencer and baffle plates every time the silencer was handled or manipulated. I would also suggest that its thickness could only be measured in microns.
I would therefore further argue that the silencer was not a suitable means of transportation. Additionally, if it was used in any of the test firings it would be likely that further damage was inflicted on the flake.
Treatment at the Laboratory
I have argued that Malcolm Fletcher swapped PV20 and that this shows he could be corrupt. If I am correct it would mean that he could be given a blood sample from any of the viable sources above by anyone intent on framing Jeremy. It is possible he created a viable flake (PV20 Tissue?) that never saw the inside of the silencer. It would not be necessary to enter the sample as an exhibit since it was said to be inside an existing exhibit. He could be given a sample and then taken it into work in say his pocket or briefcase. The Autopsy sample was at the lab in any case and the bullet bag was presented to him as part of his normal duties. I believe he was given the bag on or around the day the flake was said to be found. (12/09/85)
There is also one other possibility and it is that there never was a flake. Given all the scientific issues and aside from any manipulation of silencer related documentation it is possible that John Hayward was pressurised into producing test results of experiments that were never conducted.
An example might be the wealth of so called circumstantial evidence including Julie’s statements and the fact that a silencer had been dismantled by Cook. He could have been presented with this information and also told of dust that had been found but unfortunately destroyed by Cook. Since the entire flake was apparently used in his test, no further tests could be conducted, therefore he could not be found out or challenged as long as the test(s) was/were deemed appropriate and scientifically sound even though the method he used could be challenged. (I believe it was)
Of course he could have been invited to join the local Masonic Lodge if he was not already a member. He may have had skeletons in his cupboard which could be used to pressurise him. Their tentacles have reach because their power is based on knowledge and contacts. I’m sure they would be pleased to have a blood expert as a member and as a result he would gain access to favours, as many are said to, as a member of ‘The Craft’.
If there was never a flake or if it was created outside the SM, this may be one plausible explanation as to why Sheila’s DNA was not found during subsequent tests of the silencer.
Finally, I do not believe that the relatives played no part in the framing. If I’m correct and the family were blackmailing or pressurising the police, they would not wish to act alone and expose themselves further. They would certainly want to ensure that the family were culpable in some way, even if it was just lying about the date of the silencer discovery.
If Jeremy was acquitted and/or their deception was ever exposed the family would then have two sticks with which to ‘beat up on the police’ and from a legal standpoint double jeopardy was still in place. Their exposure would likely be catastrophic for the entire Essex Constabulary. They needed to have partners to protect themselves.
-
The relatives alerted the police to the blood and paint on the silencer and the scratches under the mantle shelf long before the lab even confirmed this was the case. Thus they have guilty knowledge and there are serious discrepancies in their statements and trial testimony regarding the silencer.
Moreover they alerted the police of this "find" the day after Jeremy asked them to buy back their farm land that Nevil payed for. Money they didn't have and would result in most their farm and livelihood being sold off.
IMO only the relatives (Ann Eaton in particular) had the means, motive and opportunity to contaminate it.
-
The relatives alerted the police to the blood and paint on the silencer and the scratches under the mantle shelf long before the lab even confirmed this was the case. Thus they have guilty knowledge and there are serious discrepancies in their statements and trial testimony regarding the silencer.
Moreover they alerted the police of this "find" the day after Jeremy asked them to buy back their farm land that Nevil payed for. Money they didn't have and would result in most their farm and livelihood being sold off.
IMO only the relatives (Ann Eaton in particular) had the means, motive and opportunity to contaminate it.
I do not disagree entirely with what you say. They may well have been the originators of the blood in the silencer ploy. However I believe that a lot of what they say about the blood (not the scratches) before Ainsley took charge is a manipulation of what actually happened about the visible blood. I believe it to be an embellishment of what actually happened, which was used for convenience because the dates suited. Taff would not have accepted their entreaties and they never saw the original silencer DB1. My position may become clearer when you see the rest of my thinking.
-
I do not disagree entirely with what you say. They may well have been the originators of the blood in the silencer ploy. However I believe that a lot of what they say about the blood (not the scratches) before Ainsley took charge is a manipulation of what actually happened about the visible blood. I believe it to be an embellishment of what actually happened, which was used for convenience because the dates suited. Taff would not have accepted their entreaties and they never saw the original silencer DB1. My position may become clearer when you see the rest of my thinking.
DB/1 and DRB/1 are the same exhibit. DB/1 was changed to DRB/1 later because it was being confused with David Bird's exhibits.
-
I know this but DB or someone with those initials found the SM DB1 and the Fire Debris DB2 on the day. How do explain this?
-
The advantages of Bamber using the silencer are not just that people in other rooms won't hear the rifle. But people in the same room are unlikely to hear it.
Daniel, Nicholas, Nevill & June shared rooms. Neither of the twins woke. Bamber was able to fire 5 bullets into June before Nevill started to wake.
There were no disasvantages for him.
-
I know this but DB or someone with those initials found the SM DB1 and the Fire Debris DB2 on the day. How do explain this?
Where are you getting this information from?
-
Only Bamber knows whether he knew in advance the silencer would have to be taken off after the massacre. If not, it waa lucky he noticed on the night!
Only he knows whether he was already aware of back spatter. If not, he soon found out about it!
If he was aware of both beforehand, he was confident the police would not check silencers in boxes which were not part of the crime scene. They didn't!
-
Where are you getting this information from?
Try looking at JH's specimen testing on the red forum. DB1 sound moderator was found in the kitchen if you track the exhibits listed. Did DB? go to the gun cupboard first and then return to the kitchen to obtain the other items associated with the AGA. Seems a bit strange. Don't forget he was relying on the police information as to where items were found.
-
Only Bamber knows whether he knew in advance the silencer would have to be taken off after the massacre. If not, it waa lucky he noticed on the night!
Only he knows whether he was already aware of back spatter. If not, he soon found out about it!
If he was aware of both beforehand, he was confident the police would not check silencers in boxes which were not part of the crime scene. They didn't!
What "Bamber " didn't know were the last spoken words of his father when he rang 999 and told police that his daughter was threatening the family !! Did you know that ?
-
REASONS TO RENDER THE SM UNVIABLE PART 3
[/size]
Police view
In the first instance the police were interested in finger prints and blood stains not back spatter. They would need to know who had handled it and whether the blood was human in origin. It was sent to laboratory 13/08/85. Cook used dusting and fuming techniques to test for prints and GH confirmed human origin for the blood. If there were any internal enquiries as to how the episode unfolded and whether the TFG had ‘messed up’ prints might be useful.
The family view
They would be all over the developing case. It is clear they were trying everything to get the police to check Jeremy out using SJ as a go between. When they knew a silencer was involved they would be thinking blood as more important than prints and could use their firearms knowledge to pressure the police and formulate the frame. They would ponder all the reasons for its removal and what was the reason/significance.
As previously indicated Taff new Jeremy was innocent. He had Nevill’s call. A secured premises and a suicide note. He also knew June was shot by the TFG. However, he could not rule out in the early stages, that Jeremy (or maybe a hitman) had left in haste leaving June alive thinking her dead.
I disagree with MT about the body count and ‘found in kitchen’ conundrum. You know my explanation. However, I agree with almost all his writings and ideas on the silencer.
Where we part company is in relation to SJ replacing the silencer on the evening of 09/08/85. I considered this myself. Given SJ’s animosity towards Jeremy and his conversation with TJ and PV on the 08/08/85 it is possible that they realised that they may have had to frame Jeremy to extricate themselves. It could be a backstop to fall back on at some time in the future if things got tricky.
However, I dismiss this because it would require knowledge SJ did not have and it was generally agreed at that time that it was 4 murders and a suicide. The case had only just begun and routine issues had to be dealt with, interviews, statements, documenting exhibits, etc. Of course if both silencers were collected on the day and by visual inspection alone one was deemed ‘clean’ and therefore could be eliminated. They could have returned the ‘clean’ one on that date or any time before they handed over the keys.
THE REASONS
Reason 1
Taff thought that it might reveal unwanted evidence with regard to the cover up.
Reason 2
As things progressed it is clear the family’s protestations were not going away. PE was a gun dealer/shooter. They could have asked that they open it up and check for back spatter. He is most likely as well as DB to know of this when cleaning their own SM’s perhaps after despatching a wounded animal with a contact shot. In any case it is highly likely that he acquired this information from magazines and conversations. TJ may have also been worried that they may have conspired with others to tamper with the SM.
Reason 3
There was a chance that the SM was accidently contaminated given the amount of blood across the crime scene. The handling of the case had been ‘slipshod’ and his early diagnosis was being called into question. Knowing Jeremy innocent, he would not wish him to be found guilty because of the way things were handled during the chaos and the general course of the investigation.
Reason 4
He had agreed to the early introduction of the backstop and was keen to remove it once he had satisfied himself of innocence and successfully countered the Family’s entreaties. (Part of a flexible strategy or am I crediting him with Poirot type powers)
.
In such circumstances TJ may have asked Cook to dismantle it (21/08/85) before sending it to the lab. (30/08/85)
So it seems that the finger printing may have been part of normal activity but the dismantling might have been for a purpose and possibly the fuming as well.
Of significance is the fuming operation. Cook had to confirm in writing to Ainsley that it did not affect the integrity of the silencer (fuming can cause to damage to items like blood and render exhibits unusable). He says he fumed on 13/09/05 the day after the flake was found. MT says that no record can be found of the fuming test at the laboratory. Cook was an experienced finger print operative (12years) and Roch has shown that the fingerprint officers can perform this themselves. The Essex force had a fingerprint section with a number of qualified operatives who may have been capable to perform this function though these officers probably performed other duties as well.
I leave you to make up your own minds on this issue. Was it normal activity or a deliberate attempt to render the SM useless as an exhibit.
You can also make up your own minds as to whether Hayward was tricked or complicit. His tests started on the day the flake was found and finished on the 19/09/85.
In part 4 I will complete the jigsaw with the end of my proposal on the silencer.
Please feel free to question my assertions. The final part returns us to old territory and our earlier communications on ‘time lines’ dates are crucial.
-
Try looking at JH's specimen testing on the red forum. DB1 sound moderator was found in the kitchen if you track the exhibits listed. Did DB? go to the gun cupboard first and then return to the kitchen to obtain the other items associated with the AGA. Seems a bit strange. Don't forget he was relying on the police information as to where items were found.
I don't have an account on that forum, so I cannot see the document. Can you post it here?
-
http://netk.net.au/UK/Bamber2.asp
-
I don't have an account on that forum, so I cannot see the document. Can you post it here?
As requested relevant pages.
-
Is the above written in Chinese or Arabic: I can't make my mind up which.
-
THE SILENCER WAS RE-CREATED AND WHY PART 4
On the 06/09/85 a meeting was held between RWB and Peter Simpson Jeremy was charged 23 days later. We will never know what they discussed no matter how much we speculate.
The case took a huge turn and a new impetus was injected. On 07/09/85 Simpson asked Keneally to review the case. (he confirmed it was probably Sheila). Ainsley was promoted to SIO and TJ went on gardening leave.
I propose that Ainsley was to co-operate with and listen to the Family.
Coincidently on 07/09/85 Julie comes forward. (Was she spooked as previously outlined). Any case against Jeremy which only involved the SM irrespective of when discovered would be more suspicious. Julies testimony would add weight to the accuracy and soundness of the Crown case.
The plan was devised by the family and or the police. They would use the silencer as the fulcrum of the case.
They set about this by making September statements which detailed the finding of the silencer, the various interpersonal interactions, its various movements and finely detailed descriptions including a hair, paint and a jam type blob. It was placed in a cardboard tube with the ends sealed. Many believe these statements relating to the silencer were constructed at a later date as part of the framing. I do too, the simple answer is that the SM an important case exhibit was not mentioned at the outset.
They did not even say (of course if they had it would be edited out) if the police had taken AP’s SM.
The police had sent the first SM (SM1) to the lab (13/08/85) so they had to have found it before this date. They settled on 10/08/85. This also meant that they could use the original documentation, activities etc. to form that part of the chain of custody.
They had two significant problems. SM1 was at the lab (30/08/85). * and had been rendered useless as an exhibit because of finger printing, superglue fuming and dismantling (21/08/85).
It is possible that TJ saw which way the wind was blowing and sent SM1 to the lab so it was out of reach. After all he had tested it to destruction and found nothing that questioned his case analysis. Further, it is not clear what further tests were planned/intended and MF did nothing with it until 12/09/85.
Is there a confirmatory lab document to prove this and what tests were requested?
A much more serious and bigger problem was that SM1 belonged to AP. (Why would Jeremy shoot Sheila using AP’s SM on the Anschutz). An educated guess would be that he was told that it might be implicated in the tragedy and required a number of vigorous tests to be performed before it could be eliminated. If not implicated it would be returned in due course.
The silencer SM1 had 17 baffle plates. Close scrutiny of the dismantled SM photographs shows this. If you count the plates using the reflected light on each plate you can see that there are 17 plates and the washer. The spring is not shown. MT says that it was not known whether the Bamber SM had 15 or 17 because at the time it was bought there was a mixture of old and new stock in the market.
However, anyone who has taken part in some sports will know that even if an opponent or team mate uses an identical piece of equipment that you can recognise your own because of unique identifiers such as scratches, smears, maybe dents as well as wear and tear. AP’s silencer was quite old and I am sure he could recognise it. They had to swap it somehow. JB would not recognise it as his.
The guiding principle behind this plan was to ensure that there was no way SM2 could have been used to interfere with the finding of the flake and its testing. They needed to coordinate dates to ensure a clean timeline. We know they are good at timelines.
They used SM2 (Bamber) to scratch the mantle to create the ingrained paint on the knurled end. When this was carried out is open to question since it is likely that evidence around this would be doctored to fit. It may have been prepped in August but more likely in September since Eastwood said at trial that he obtained a paint sample from Cook on 14/09/85. Evidence I recall, says AE pointed this out in August thus indicating these marks at this stage were strongly and more likely related to SM1 and not SM2.
It might be useful if David1819 could add his thorough analysis of the scratches to this thread.
They discovered SM2 (so they say) on the 11/09/85 and it was collected the next day. Dating was crucial since the flake discovery 12/09/85 was before it reached the lab and the police did not have SM1 in their custody. I will have more to say on this aspect later as there is no evidence SM1 was at the lab.
It was fingerprinted by Eastwood and Davidson on 13/09/85. It was also fumed on this date and it is this fuming of SM2 that Cook told Ainsley about. Again putting this activity after the flake was found.
On 12/09/85 MF presented Hayward with the flake and SM1. He began testing on the day.
They had by 13/09/85 created a duplicate of SM1 called SM2 both had been treated to the same testing regime apart from the original tests performed by GH.
SM2 was sent to the lab on the 20/09/85 but this would almost break the guiding principle. On one document I have seen an obvious stroke has been added changing it to 26/09/85. If you study MT’s posts you will see he uses these two dates interchangeably.
As a result of all these efforts they had two SM’s at the lab. Police could then collect these. AP’s could be returned on the basis it was not required. It played no part. SM2 could then be used as the major exhibit it was meant to be. However, since it had never contained a flake it would be unlikely to show Sheila’s DNA.
It could be seen by fair minded folk that the silencer submitted on 11/09/85 was not in play and had yielded no evidence of note.
Either Cook or MF could have rebuilt SM1 incorrectly before it was sent to Hayward,
If SM2 had only 15 baffles when scrutinised by the defence and other evidence they had showed 17 baffles they could rumble the switch and the case would be lost.
I doubt the defence had any knowledge about SM2 at the time of the trial and many of the documents could be said to have no bearing on the case and could therefore legally withheld i.e. not disclosed.
At the time of charging AP would most likely have no idea about the evidence that was to be used in the charges Jeremy would face. The relatives could even say we found Jeremy’s SM and handed it in etc., etc.
* It is possible that SM2 was created extremely quickly but 5 days max looks tricky. In this scenario MF presents Hayward with SM2 and the flake. I believe it less likely and how did he get it into the lab?
Jeremey’s Tumbler article is spot on even if he had not at that time connected all the dots.
Once again I invite you to pick this to pieces. Critique is a useful tool in understanding issues of all varieties.
-
Very interesting series of posts.
The question I ask myself is why if JB did the crime did he not just take the moderator off the rifle and leave it beside SC? Also why leave it somewhere where it was bound to be found and prove his quilt? he would at least have given it a clean up, he would not have put it away with hair and paint on it??
That's assuming the moderator was on the gun in the first place? is there any evidence from the wounds support this?
-
I do not believe there is any evidence of victims wounds looking to have been caused by a SM.
I share your views on JB's behaviour in the circumstances. You have to remember that TJ and co had no intention of pursuing JB in the first instance. They were more concerned with (a) getting Taff to support what the TFG were saying as the truth or otherwise for the internal investigation, (b) keeping the family out of the investigation and generally making a nuisance of themselves and (c) doing all the proper routine stuff based on 4 murders and a suicide. They had a mountain of evidence to process, interviews to be documented etc. In the early stages they did not suspect JB because they had evidence that showed him innocent.
-
I do not believe there is any evidence of victims wounds looking to have been caused by a SM.
I share your views on JB's behaviour in the circumstances. You have to remember that TJ and co had no intention of pursuing JB in the first instance. They were more concerned with (a) getting Taff to support what the TFG were saying as the truth or otherwise for the internal investigation, (b) keeping the family out of the investigation and generally making a nuisance of themselves and (c) doing all the proper routine stuff based on 4 murders and a suicide. They had a mountain of evidence to process, interviews to be documented etc. In the early stages they did not suspect JB because they had evidence that showed him innocent.
Nonsense.
-
The relatives would need to know -
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Different positions Sheila could have shot herself with silencer attached. If arms were long enough.
What back splatter is.
Who else received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Did Sheila receive contact shots in a location which produces spatter.
Were there contact shots on everyone.
Was there any spatter in the rifle barrel.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer to create the back spatter effect.
How could they obtain Sheila's blood.
What blood group was Sheila.
What blood group was everyone else.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
Was there a silencer lying next to Sheila.
The chance of this frame attempt getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
----------
This would have to be found out quickly. Once they had the bizarre idea in the first place & agreed to proceed.
-
Obviously the police are ruled out of fabricating the silencer.
They wouldn't have dared ask several relatives to pretend they found it. Also no point doing this.
-
Very interesting series of posts.
The question I ask myself is why if JB did the crime did he not just take the moderator off the rifle and leave it beside SC? Also why leave it somewhere where it was bound to be found and prove his quilt? he would at least have given it a clean up, he would not have put it away with hair and paint on it??
That's assuming the moderator was on the gun in the first place? is there any evidence from the wounds support this?
In the Andrew Hunter Book Draft he mentions two gun enthusiasts in Ewen Smith's office who noticed silencer marks around Sheila's neck. As for your first point I think he panicked at this stage and realized it was nigh on impossible for his sister to shoot herself with the silencer attached. He didn't want to complicate the crime by implying that a mentally-frail woman had used a sound moderator, which would imply premeditation and is why he didn't leave it by her side.
It is possible that the sound moderator wasn't used, but all that means is that the relatives shored up the evidence against him, not that he is an innocent man.
-
The relatives alerted the police to the blood and paint on the silencer and the scratches under the mantle shelf long before the lab even confirmed this was the case. Thus they have guilty knowledge and there are serious discrepancies in their statements and trial testimony regarding the silencer.
Moreover they alerted the police of this "find" the day after Jeremy asked them to buy back their farm land that Nevil payed for. Money they didn't have and would result in most their farm and livelihood being sold off.
IMO only the relatives (Ann Eaton in particular) had the means, motive and opportunity to contaminate it.
Do you believe the relatives would try to frame (at the time) an innocent man of murdering his family. Over some land?
-
In the Andrew Hunter Book Draft he mentions two gun enthusiasts in Ewen Smith's office who noticed silencer marks around Sheila's neck. As for your first point I think he panicked at this stage and realized it was nigh on impossible for his sister to shoot herself with the silencer attached. He didn't want to complicate the crime by implying that a mentally-frail woman had used a sound moderator, which would imply premeditation and is why he didn't leave it by her side.
It is possible that the sound moderator wasn't used, but all that means is that the relatives shored up the evidence against him, not that he is an innocent man.
Sheila would have just grabbed the gun and used it as it was, there would have been no premeditation involved on her part. I know nothing about guns but would have thought it would be easy for the police to establish if a moderator was on the gun? JB would have thought so as well hence more reason to just leave it beside Sheila?
As you say if the moderator evidence was fabricated this does not prove JB innocent but he would never have been convicted without it, also it makes the four murders one suicide much the most likely scenario to me anyway.
-
Sheila would have just grabbed the gun and used it as it was, there would have been no premeditation involved on her part. I know nothing about guns but would have thought it would be easy for the police to establish if a moderator was on the gun? JB would have thought so as well hence more reason to just leave it beside Sheila?
As you say if the moderator evidence was fabricated this does not prove JB innocent but he would never have been convicted without it, also it makes the four murders one suicide much the most likely scenario to me anyway.
That's possible Rob, but she just wasn't coordinated enough to land all shots on target unlike Jeremy, who had used guns from an early age on the Farm and at school.
-
In the Andrew Hunter Book Draft he mentions two gun enthusiasts in Ewen Smith's office who noticed silencer marks around Sheila's neck. As for your first point I think he panicked at this stage and realized it was nigh on impossible for his sister to shoot herself with the silencer attached. He didn't want to complicate the crime by implying that a mentally-frail woman had used a sound moderator, which would imply premeditation and is why he didn't leave it by her side.
It is possible that the sound moderator wasn't used, but all that means is that the relatives shored up the evidence against him, not that he is an innocent man.
Are you serious? You are suggesting that the silencer was a fake. This was the key piece of the Crowns case against JB which helped seal his fate.
-
That's possible Rob, but she just wasn't coordinated enough to land all shots on target unlike Jeremy, who had used guns from an early age on the Farm and at school.
You are both assuming that AP's rifle was not present or usable. That it did not have the silencer already attached from the previous weeks shooting with JB. In my narrative it was at the farm and it could easily have been the weapon that was used in the first instance. This would mean a slower development of the chaos that ensued. She may have tried to use AP's SM but could not manage it or removed it because she found it unwieldy.
-
Nonsense.
Obviously your mind is frozen in a guilty pattern. If Taff had a phone call from Nevill, if there was a large difference in RM between the twins and Nevill as opposed to Sheila and June, if he knew the TFG had shot June by accident or if he knew the TFG had staged the crime scene all these issues and more would prove innocence. I know you were away from the forum but have you not read any of my Narrative?
-
As requested relevant pages.
That mentions DB1 being found in the gun cupboard. Hayward recieved it from Malcom Fletcher on the 12th of September.
-
That mentions DB1 being found in the gun cupboard. Hayward recieved it from Malcom Fletcher on the 12th of September.
Read what I said. MF was told or he told JH it came from the cupboard. When the police send stuff to the lab they have to say where it was found so that positioning can be taken into account during the analysis. Does it not seem strange to you that DB whoever that was went to the gun cupboard to find his/her first exhibit and then went to the kitchen to retrieve other items associated with the AGA like Fire Debris and gauntlets? Having collected those items the socks (I assume from the main bedroom) were collected. Do not forget that according to records it had been examined to death before it reached the lab (30/08/85).
-
Obviously your mind is frozen in a guilty pattern. If Taff had a phone call from Nevill, if there was a large difference in RM between the twins and Nevill as opposed to Sheila and June, if he knew the TFG had shot June by accident or if he knew the TFG had staged the crime scene all these issues and more would prove innocence. I know you were away from the forum but have you not read any of my Narrative?
'If Taff had a phone call from Nevill,'
----------
Was Taff on phone answering duty that night?
-
'If Taff had a phone call from Nevill,'
----------
Was Taff on phone answering duty that night?
Do not make silly arse comments. I was talking about the evidence he had, not that he had received it. No wonder you are a pest to us all. Most readers would have known what I meant. You are just a nuisance poster. It is time you gave up your stupid behaviour.
-
Do not make silly arse comments. I was talking about the evidence he had, not that he had received it. No wonder you are a pest to us all. Most readers would have known what I meant. You are just a nuisance poster. It is time you gave up your stupid behaviour.
You need to be clearer. As your other posts are!
-
That mentions DB1 being found in the gun cupboard. Hayward recieved it from Malcom Fletcher on the 12th of September.
Do you believe the relatives would try to frame (at the time) an innocent man of murdering his own family. Over some land?
-
Read what I said. MF was told or he told JH it came from the cupboard. When the police send stuff to the lab they have to say where it was found so that positioning can be taken into account during the analysis. Does it not seem strange to you that DB whoever that was went to the gun cupboard to find his/her first exhibit and then went to the kitchen to retrieve other items associated with the AGA like Fire Debris and gauntlets? Having collected those items the socks (I assume from the main bedroom) were collected. Do not forget that according to records it had been examined to death before it reached the lab (30/08/85).
You are getting mixed up with David Boutlour and David Bird.
David Bird recovered the items in the kitchen. David Boutflour found the silencer. This is precisely why David Boutflours exhibits were later changed from DB to DRB later on to avoid this confusion.
-
You are getting mixed up with David Boutlour and David Bird.
David Bird recovered the items in the kitchen. David Boutflour found the silencer. This is precisely why David Boutflours exhibits were later changed from DB to DRB later on to avoid this confusion.
You are the one who is mixed up. The David Boutflour David Bird change was made to enable the slight of hand that was used to swap the SM's. Your thinking does not account for the original David Bird exhibit DB1 or do you believe that he started his exhibit numbering at DB2. The lab was still referring to the SM as DB1 as late as 12/09/85. They make no reference to any change such as say formerly numbered DB1. Nothing!
DRB1 was the number given to the second SM which was found/handed to police on 11/09/85. They had to figure out a way and the exhibit number change was conceived and allowed them to get round many document references in the police and lab's records of a SM DB1.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9887.msg450563.html#msg450563
-
You are the one who is mixed up. The David Boutflour David Bird change was made to enable the slight of hand that was used to swap the SM's. Your thinking does not account for the original David Bird exhibit DB1 or do you believe that he started his exhibit numbering at DB2. The lab was still referring to the SM as DB1 as late as 12/09/85. They make no reference to any change such as say formerly numbered DB1. Nothing!
DRB1 was the number given to the second SM which was found/handed to police on 11/09/85. They had to figure out a way and the exhibit number change was conceived and allowed them to get round many document references in the police and lab's records of a SM DB1.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9887.msg450563.html#msg450563
No. This theory of Mike Tesko's has been debunked long ago.
-
Do you believe the relatives would try to frame (at the time) an innocent man of murdering his own family. Over some land?
Do you believe Jeremy would murder five innocent people and frame his own sister. Over some land?
-
Do you believe Jeremy would murder five innocent people and frame his own sister. Over some land?
Some land yes, with caravans attached, worth over £1 million today. A two-bedroom flat in a fashionable area of London worth over £1million today. A combined sum of £436,000 from the estates of Nevill and June, worth over £1 million at today's values. How to finalize the act of bringing this theoretical dream to reality, when markers had already been put down by a sometimes disturbed young woman, who had herself speculated on others' demise? The planning wasn't the hard part, but his tendency for braggadocio and experience of colloquy with the opposite sex, limited as it was. He'd been under June's thumb all his life, meekly accepting her every order until, that is, she disintegrated before his very eyes and was removed for incarceration. Thenceforth there was no obstacle, no mental block, as intelligent Julie served his purpose as doormat acceding to his every command. The other girls weren't even bright enough to understand his plight, but Julie gave a legitimacy to the monstrosity, the diablerie which was necessary to accomplish the mission, and which the justification one of sound mind could never begin to comprehend.
-
No. This theory of Mike Tesko's has been debunked long ago.
OK debunk it again for my benefit and while your at it answer my questions posed in my post..
Remember this?
For goodness sake do not keep misrepresenting what I have posted. I have given reasons why June could still have been alive. Once again it is clear that you are selectively reporting and once again it is clear that you have not read all of what I have said. If you keep on doing this I will treat you like Adam and refuse to enter into any dialogue with you as well. Do not dismiss my arguments in such a crude fashion. Just because you do not wish to accept my analysis does not mean it is unworthy of consideration and I leave it to others to make up their own minds as to the validity of my thinking.
Try answering this for starters. How did June walk around the bed without stepping on the electric blanket? There is no depression in the fabric. Did she jump it?
You are at risk of becoming an object of ridicule because of your lack of dissemination of the detail I have provided, answering in your tit for tat style.
I am still waiting for an answer to a question asked on July 13th
Nothing has changed you are still swatting at posts by others without answering questions. Constant flippant reposts with no intention of countering detailed posts with well argued points.
I trust readers will see you for what you are.
-
Do you believe Jeremy would murder five innocent people and frame his own sister. Over some land?
Bamber is an inheritance killer.
It was more than land. Several properties, land, a caravan business. The farm business.
My answer is 'yes'.
-
That mentions DB1 being found in the gun cupboard. Hayward recieved it from Malcom Fletcher on the 12th of September.
Do you believe the relatives would try to frame (at the time) an innocent man of murdering his own family. Over some land?
-
Do you believe the relatives would try to frame (at the time) an innocent man of murdering his own family. Over some land?
The answer to that Adam---is YES ! You even said in your post of 2015 that their persuasion would help police " change their stance ".
-
Bamber is an inheritance killer.
It was more than land. Several properties, land, a caravan business. The farm business.
My answer is 'yes'.
One of the recent podcasts mentioned what was to be left to the wider relatives. It was paltry. The relatives' judgement was impaired by the spectre of material and financial loss. Jeremy may have added fuel to the fire, with his flippant remarks etc.
-
Bamber is an inheritance killer.
It was more than land. Several properties, land, a caravan business. The farm business.
My answer is 'yes'.
The relatives got exactly the same as what you believe Jeremy murdered five people for. When you factor in the fact they helped themselves to Speakman's estate also, they got even more!
-
The relatives got exactly the same as what you believe Jeremy murdered five people for. When you factor in the fact they helped themselves to Speakman's estate also, they got even more!
You just had to say 'yes' when I first asked the question.
People not involved in a crime successfully framing another man not involved in the crime, who was the victim of the crime. Surely a first.
-
The relatives got exactly the same as what you believe Jeremy murdered five people for. When you factor in the fact they helped themselves to Speakman's estate also, they got even more!
Did the jury know this would be the outcome of a guilty verdict? I thought they were lead to believe the relatives had no interest either way if JB was convicted or not? maybe I am mistaken?
-
Did the jury know this would be the outcome of a guilty verdict? I thought they were lead to believe the relatives had no interest either way if JB was convicted or not? maybe I am mistaken?
It would all on paper go to Pamela. Robert was not a direct beneficiary. https://jeremybamber.org/robert-boutflour/
-
It would all on paper go to Pamela. Robert was not a direct beneficiary. https://jeremybamber.org/robert-boutflour/
Thanks Steve I have not read that before, was interesting.
-
Did the jury know this would be the outcome of a guilty verdict? I thought they were lead to believe the relatives had no interest either way if JB was convicted or not? maybe I am mistaken?
No. Rivlins lousy defence narrative meant that in order to acquit Jeremy, they would need to read between the lines.
-
No. Rivlins lousy defence narrative meant that in order to acquit Jeremy, they would need to read between the lines.
A decent defence really trying to do their best for JB probably would have made a huge difference to the outcome?
-
A decent defence really trying to do their best for JB probably would have made a huge difference to the outcome?
Had the defence pursued a contamination narrative and provided ballistic and photographic evidence to back it up, absolutely.
NGB made a good summary of this a while back.
A reasonable ground can be an inference which may be drawn from the surrounding circumstances. In this case just dealing with the silencer evidence: i) JB denied being responsible for the murders therefore the defence case was that Sheila had to be responsible, ii) the rifle was discovered by police without the silencer fitted, iii) the silencer was subsequently said to have been found by a relative days later in a box in the cupboard under the stairs, iii) the silencer was removed from WHF, examined and handled by several of the relatives and retained by them for several days, iv) the FSS found blood inside the silencer which was either Sheila's or, less likely, a mixture of Nevill's and June's, v) items of Sheila' bloodstained underwear were removed by a relative from WHF, vi) although possible, the suggestion that Shela had used the rifle with the silencer fitted initially then removed it, placed it in the box in the cupboard and then shot herself, was an unlikely scenario, vi) the only other explanation for the presence of the blood inside the silencer was contamination, either accidental or deliberate.
Against that background Rivlin would have been perfectly entitled to raise the suggestion of contamination, even deliberate contamination, because that was an inference which might be drawn from the evidence.
-
Bubo Bubo - According to David Birds pocketbook, DB1 (as in David Bird 1) is a soil sample taken from the scene.
-
Bubo Bubo - Accord to David Birds pocketbook, DB1 (as in David Bird 1) is a soil sample taken from the scene.
I knew that. How come he is recording DB1 on the 10/09/85 but he recorded DB2 - DB6 on the day 07/08/85? There are only two explanations. 1 The DB who sampled the SM, fire debris etc. is someone else with the initials DB or 2 he has had to create a DB1 by adding an entry to the end of a log book page. The entry would be valid without the last line. The soil sample was to check for a match with soil found on the bike tyres I believe.
By the time he made the entry Ainsley was in charge and working with AE and PE on the silencer ploy they needed to to replace the original entry which would be used to replace the one they were going to change to DRB1. They may have chosen David Bird because his initials fitted and this allowed them to keep another operative with initials DB secret. Of course it could just be a clumsy bit of evidence manipulation.
If as I suggest they were in the business of a cover up there may have been assets used who they wished to remain anonymous.
Of course Mr X could have been told to register his finds as DB.
hmm the photographer visits the farm on the 10th of september but it seems only takes photographs that do not include in interior photos of WHF.
The so called finding of a silencer in august claims should have prompted photographs being taken shortly afterwards ..including the so called scratches on the aga surround.
The real case seems to be that the silencer supposedly found in the gun cupboard in september and handed in on the 11th prompted a rapid response to take photographs of the aga surround underside and the gun cupboard on the 12th.
As I see it the photographs being taken as they were on these issues supports the view that no silencer was found by the relatives in august and handed in shortly afterwards but does support a silencer being handed in to the police on the 11th september.
just a theory....
the police photographer visits whf on 10th september...but ONLY takes photographs of things outside the house ...to infer no entry was made by the police into whf on that day...
but how about a police officer enters and plants the silencer after scratching paint with it and leaves it in the gun cupboard for "the relatives" to find....which happens the very next day...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmm the blue socks.... from the main bedroom...
for a suicide investigation...they seem unimportant and can be passed off as possibly neville's..for people are not looking at things too closely as no one is going to be charged are they ?...so without a defence poking its nose it...there is less need to be so picky over fine details that might not tie up with a suicide theory.
the story changes when its murder so little details that dont add up may play a far bigger role...hence the socks are now important ..due to claims about sheila's alleged clean feet which they should not be if she was murdered and had walked over a carpet that had wet blood spots all over it around the time it is alleged she was murdered.
-
I knew that.
If you knew that, then why did you ask me to account for it in the first place?
How come he is recording DB1 on the 10/09/85 but he recorded DB2 - DB6 on the day 07/08/85?
Where are you getting that from? The lab docs show these exhibits were recovered in September.
-
I apologise for the way I used you to settle my mind. I wanted an unbiased view so no prompting. I thought you might have come up with an answer I had not considered.
As far as the note you found this is an attempt to move all these critical items away from the fatal day 07/08/85. They had already worked out a workaround for DB1 by using the initials ploy.
They had to get DB at WHF collecting fire debris. However by this date they had burned carpets and bedding on the previous Wednesday and JB had burnt his parents clothes at the weekend.
I would have expected him to find items such as zips, buttons, brassiere wire etc.
However , he claims he went inside to collect socks. Outside he says he just took photos. Where does he say he collected these other items?
And nothing about a soil sample!
-
I apologise for the way I used you to settle my mind. I wanted an unbiased view so no prompting. I thought you might have come up with an answer I had not considered.
As far as the note you found this is an attempt to move all these critical items away from the fatal day 07/08/85. They had already worked out a workaround for DB1 by using the initials ploy.
They had to get DB at WHF collecting fire debris. However by this date they had burned carpets and bedding on the previous Wednesday and JB had burnt his parents clothes at the weekend.
I would have expected him to find items such as zips, buttons, brassiere wire etc.
However , he claims he went inside to collect socks. Outside he says he just took photos. Where does he say he collected these other items?
And nothing about a soil sample!
Just because its not mentioned in this statement does not mean he never collected it. The soil sample was probably not relevant for the reason the statement was taken.
Moreover the reason the soil sample is never mentioned is JHs list is probably because its not in his area of expertise. The soil sample was collected to try and match it to the soil on the bike at JBs cottage.
-
Birds full trial testimony can be found here -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.msg362355.html#msg362355 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.msg362355.html#msg362355)
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1721.0;attach=8321;image)
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=921.0;attach=18832;image)
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1721.0;attach=8321;image)
What is the source of this document? It appears to be DB being questioned by other police officers. They mention items in a statement. Do we have a copy of this? This statement includes other items which are not in the statement I have referred to. Has he produced another statement? I find his trial testimony very difficult to follow because of quality issues.
-
What is the source of this document?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7461.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7461.0.html)
Read away :))
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7461.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7461.0.html)
Read away :))
David Bird and Essex police misled the COLP enquiry to disguise the fact that DB found DB1.
They created a forged statement dated 24/10/85.
This forgery contained reference to DB1 – DB7 not just DB6 socks as is shown on the statement we have.
He made a key error by recording DB1 in his pocket book TWICE. He calls it a mental aberration.
I have read the whole of the document supplied by David1819. It is a long read but is very interesting.
All of my previous assertions about the find and what was done are correct as shown by this document.
For readers who have little time I summarise some of the key points relating to DB1 since there is a lot of other details which do not relate to DB1. I know it will take time but a full reading will give greater clarity and prove that unlike some I do not do selective evidence presentation, unlike some others. I study it all in detail. David 1819 comes to mind. In these endeavours you have to do the ‘hard yards’
Summary
He freely admits that he collected exhibits when at crime scenes Sheet 971. He also had his own exhibit sheets. On sheet 973 they reference a previous comment which suggests there may have been another taped interview because of the dialogue. It may have been a written submission he presented earlier.
He says he was only responsible for collecting odd exhibits sheet 971.
On sheet 975 they question him with regard to documents called CID6’s. In the following pages they question him more closely about these documents. We do not have these documents but it is clear they suspect these have been rewritten or changed because there is a lack of dates recorded. He says the dates are as shown on the top of documents.
I suggest you read pages 982 – 988. These show he had another statement they were discussing. It is here that we see that he recorded the soil sample twice in his pocket book and that he had added the final line for his 10/09/85 entry. He had to do this so that it could be DB1 his first find but he had already recorded it on another later date. A mental aberration! We do not have the other pages of his pocket book.
The new statement contains all his exhibits DB1 – DB7 which now includes DB7 tampons. On sheet 990 they question him about issues with a Holab3 form which they have issues with regard to who compiled it suggests they thought it had been changed or forged.
On sheet 984 timed at 19.12 of the interview. They talk about the fire debris which came from the fire pit. Unfortunately, they do not ask what and how much of this was taken, unlike the soil sample, where he says he collected about a kilo or bag of sugar. They do not pursue how he selected this sample from a ‘huge’ pit of smouldering waste.
On sheets 1014 – 1016 they return to the CID6’s and the text clearly indicates a different statement dated 24/10/85.
This document confirms all the suggestions that I have made.
He did find DB1 – DB5 on the day collecting the socks DB6 and the Tampons DB7 when he visited the farm on 10/09/85, or it may be that these 2 items were also found on the day but DB7 was not sent to the lab and does not appear on JH’s specimen testing list.
Conclusions
Any full and fair analysis of this taped interview would support my contention that DB found DB1 on the day 07/08/85.
It is also clear that he lied to the enquiry in many instances and sought at times to misrepresent himself as someone low down the pecking order of those working the case and collecting exhibits. He says that on the day he only took photographs and was at the beck and call of others.
As Donald J Trump would say ‘Lock him up’.
Later he made a forged statement for the COLP enquiry. It is clear as I suggested that he made all the finds on the day and they were then all moved back on-bloc to September 10th and 11th after he returned from holiday. They did however have to come up with a replacement DB1 they chose the soil sample. It seems highly likely that EP changed CID6’s and Holab3 forms to back up the forged statement.
I leave it to others to pass judgement on the COLP and their handling of this issue. Should for example they have pressed him further on the Fire Debris and other issues. On the other hand, they had been misled by the forged statement and a pack of lies.
-
David1819 doesn't believe in dishonest or corrupt police practices Bubo. He doesn't believe that our own security services are able to assassinate somebody or make them disappear. Or disguise an operative. Or forge documents. Quite what he believes they can do is a mystery.
-
David Bird and Essex police misled the COLP enquiry to disguise the fact that DB found DB1.
They created a forged statement dated 24/10/85.
This forgery contained reference to DB1 – DB7 not just DB6 socks as is shown on the statement we have.
He made a key error by recording DB1 in his pocket book TWICE. He calls it a mental aberration.
I have read the whole of the document supplied by David1819. It is a long read but is very interesting.
All of my previous assertions about the find and what was done are correct as shown by this document.
For readers who have little time I summarise some of the key points relating to DB1 since there is a lot of other details which do not relate to DB1. I know it will take time but a full reading will give greater clarity and prove that unlike some I do not do selective evidence presentation, unlike some others. I study it all in detail. David 1819 comes to mind. In these endeavours you have to do the ‘hard yards’
Summary
He freely admits that he collected exhibits when at crime scenes Sheet 971. He also had his own exhibit sheets. On sheet 973 they reference a previous comment which suggests there may have been another taped interview because of the dialogue. It may have been a written submission he presented earlier.
He says he was only responsible for collecting odd exhibits sheet 971.
On sheet 975 they question him with regard to documents called CID6’s. In the following pages they question him more closely about these documents. We do not have these documents but it is clear they suspect these have been rewritten or changed because there is a lack of dates recorded. He says the dates are as shown on the top of documents.
I suggest you read pages 982 – 988. These show he had another statement they were discussing. It is here that we see that he recorded the soil sample twice in his pocket book and that he had added the final line for his 10/09/85 entry. He had to do this so that it could be DB1 his first find but he had already recorded it on another later date. A mental aberration! We do not have the other pages of his pocket book.
The new statement contains all his exhibits DB1 – DB7 which now includes DB7 tampons. On sheet 990 they question him about issues with a Holab3 form which they have issues with regard to who compiled it suggests they thought it had been changed or forged.
On sheet 984 timed at 19.12 of the interview. They talk about the fire debris which came from the fire pit. Unfortunately, they do not ask what and how much of this was taken, unlike the soil sample, where he says he collected about a kilo or bag of sugar. They do not pursue how he selected this sample from a ‘huge’ pit of smouldering waste.
On sheets 1014 – 1016 they return to the CID6’s and the text clearly indicates a different statement dated 24/10/85.
This document confirms all the suggestions that I have made.
He did find DB1 – DB5 on the day collecting the socks DB6 and the Tampons DB7 when he visited the farm on 10/09/85, or it may be that these 2 items were also found on the day but DB7 was not sent to the lab and does not appear on JH’s specimen testing list.
Conclusions
Any full and fair analysis of this taped interview would support my contention that DB found DB1 on the day 07/08/85.
It is also clear that he lied to the enquiry in many instances and sought at times to misrepresent himself as a low down the pecking order of those working the case and collecting exhibits. He says that on the day he only took photographs and was at the beck and call of others.
As Donald J Trump would say ‘Lock him up’.
Later he made a forged statement for the COLP enquiry. It is clear as I suggested that he made all the finds on the day and they were then all moved back on-bloc to September 10th and 11th after he returned from holiday. They did however have to come up with a replacement DB1 they chose the soil sample. It seems highly likely that EP changed CID6’s and Holab3 forms to back up the forged statement.
I leave it to others to pass judgement on the COLP and their handling of this issue. Should for example they have pressed him further on the Fire Debris and other issues. On the other hand, they had been misled by the forged statement and a pack of lies.
Now you are just making things up to make your conspiracy theory work. 8)
-
The whole case has been corrupt from start to finish !
-
Now you are just making things up to make your conspiracy theory work. 8)
No I am not. You clearly have not read what is set out in black and white. Read it all and post a considered reply. You are back in your 'Swat the post' behaviour mode. Let others make up their own minds. It is clear that there is another 24/10/ 85 statement which is very different from the one we have.
Do not tell me that he made two, one with just the socks on and another with all the other items on the same day!
Even with the statement we have, we have to believe that he made it without consulting his Note book (one month after the event) since if he had he would have recorded the soil sample.
-
David1819 doesn't believe in dishonest or corrupt police practices Bubo. He doesn't believe that our own security services are able to assassinate somebody or make them disappear. Or disguise an operative. Or forge documents. Quite what he believes they can do is a mystery.
Really?
If you look back at some of my older posts here around 2015, when I first got involved. You will see that I once believed the police could have planted the silencer and I also believed that Nevil rang 999. Because I naively took everything Mike posted at face value. It wasn't until I carried out my own due diligence and looked though all documents (with the intention of proving these theories) did I realise that these theories had no basis in truth and were factually incorrect.
So the idea that I am not prepared to entertain police corruption is extreme ignorance on your part.
-
Really?
If you look back at some of my older posts here around 2015, when I first got involved. You will see that I once believed the police could have planted the silencer and I also believed that Nevil rang 999. Because I naively took everything Mike posted at face value. It wasn't until I carried out my own due diligence and looked though all documents (with the intention of proving these theories) did I realise that these theories had no basis in truth and were factually incorrect.
So the idea that I am not prepared to entertain police corruption is extreme ignorance on your part.
For play to you if you have completed such due diligence on Mike's claims - but that should not result in dismissing out of hand everyone else's research or claims. You go so far, that you practically invent excuses for EP / authorities, in every aspect of the case (and a lot of other incidents).
-
I think the 24/10/85 statement we have was probably given to the defence to account for DB's presence on the day in question. They may have redacted other elements, this is a possibility. They had him just collecting the socks at this early stage. COLP would have requested a copy of his statement to clear up issues surrounding DB1. They gave them a forgery for the same date, possibly with other forged documents which COLP thought were 'dodgy' as indicated by their questioning.
My own view is that they soft peddled a bit particularly over the fire debris.
-
Really?
If you look back at some of my older posts here around 2015, when I first got involved. You will see that I once believed the police could have planted the silencer and I also believed that Nevil rang 999. Because I naively took everything Mike posted at face value. It wasn't until I carried out my own due diligence and looked though all documents (with the intention of proving these theories) did I realise that these theories had no basis in truth and were factually incorrect.
So the idea that I am not prepared to entertain police corruption is extreme ignorance on your part.
Thank goodness for David's 'due diligence'.
Not only did he change his mind about Mike's theories, he also worked out the police did not create the mountain of forensic evidence & found his own 'hush hush' forensic evidence breakthrough'!
This is in contrast to Bubo Bubo who believes the police were staging the crime scene minutes after breaking into WHF.
-
I think the 24/10/85 statement we have was probably given to the defence to account for DB's presence on the day in question. They may have redacted other elements, this is a possibility. They had him just collecting the socks at this early stage. COLP would have requested a copy of his statement to clear up issues surrounding DB1. They gave them a forgery for the same date, possibly with other forged documents which COLP thought were 'dodgy' as indicated by their questioning.
My own view is that they soft peddled a bit particularly over the fire debris.
Again, you have no evidence for this. Its no good claiming things are forgeries simply because they refute your preconceived conspiracy theory.
-
For play to you if you have completed such due diligence on Mike's claims - but that should not result in dismissing out of hand everyone else's research or claims. You go so far, that you practically invent excuses for EP / authorities, in every aspect of the case (and a lot of other incidents).
Such as?
-
Thank goodness for David's 'due diligence'.
Not only did he change his mind about Mike's theories, he also worked out the police did not create the mountain of forensic evidence & found his own 'hush hush' forensic evidence breakthrough'!
This is in contrast to Bubo Bubo who believes the police were staging the crime scene minutes after breaking into WHF.
There is no "mountain of evidence". It is something you have made up.
-
Bubo Bubo - Here is a readable version of Birds trial testimony
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2185.msg67319.html#msg67319 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2185.msg67319.html#msg67319)
-
List of exhibits.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6757.msg310758.html#msg310758 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6757.msg310758.html#msg310758)
-
Again, you have no evidence for this. Its no good claiming things are forgeries simply because they refute your preconceived conspiracy theory.
There are clearly 2 statements both dated the same. However they have different details, they are either both correct in which case why two statements they could be amalgamated or one of them is a forgery. I have set out my argument as to why I think the COLP statement is the forgery. Please stop making 'Swat the post arguments without detailing where they are wrong.
-
According to Birds pocket book. He took two soil samples, one from the scene and the other from a trail to the farm. That explains why its in his pocket book twice.
-
There are clearly 2 statements both dated the same. However they have different details, they are either both correct in which case why two statements they could be amalgamated or one of them is a forgery. I have set out my argument as to why I think the COLP statement is the forgery. Please stop making 'Swat the post arguments without detailing where they are wrong.
I have looked at the statement by Bird that you posted earlier and I have looked at the list of all exhibits presented at Jeremy's trial.
The statement from Bird that we have only seems to mention the exhibits that were later to be presented at trial. So, I would infer from this that a simplified statement was produced only mentioning relevant exhibits to save time. NGB might be able to add to this.
-
There is no "mountain of evidence". It is something you have made up.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10539.msg491837.html#msg491837
Sources in capitals.
-
The police not being in an industrial frame is not possible.
The police staging the crime scene minutes after entering WHF is also not possible.
Maybe Bamber committed the crime & the evidence was correctly collected.
-
According to Birds pocket book. He took two soil samples, one from the scene and the other from a trail to the farm. That explains why its in his pocket book twice.
Total rubbish read sheet 984. Why did he not say this at interview. Publish the second entry please. Do not waste my time with your ill thought out arguments.
-
I have looked at the statement by Bird that you posted earlier and I have looked at the list of all exhibits presented at Jeremy's trial.
The statement from Bird that we have only seems to mention the exhibits that were later to be presented at trial. So, I would infer from this that a simplified statement was produced only mentioning relevant exhibits to save time. NGB might be able to add to this.
Another rubbish argument. They were withholding evidence if that is the case. All items collected should be in the statement and reference made to a particular exhibit when discussed at trial. Although as someone used to producing selective pieces of evidence, I am sure that you would favour this approach. Then why did they not send both statements to the COLP enquiry and explain the reason for this. They were withholding evidence from the enquiry.
-
Another rubbish argument. They were withholding evidence if that is the case. All items collected should be in the statement and reference made to a particular exhibit when discussed at trial. Although as someone used to producing selective pieces of evidence, I am sure that you would favour this approach. Then why did they not send both statements to the COLP enquiry and explain the reason for this. They were withholding evidence from the enquiry.
How can they have been withholding evidence from COLP when COLP have the statement in the first place? (Since it is mentioned in the interview)
-
How can they have been withholding evidence from COLP when COLP have the statement in the first place? (Since it is mentioned in the interview)
You told me there were two statements but they only sent the second one. Another ill thought out rubbish response.
I will not be responding to your posts. You complain about Adam and his Gish Gallops but in your own way you are just as bad. Selectively posting evidence. Posting ill thought out responses. Using one line Swat the post entries. Posting links to large amounts of evidence with no reason as to why they have been posted. In your own way you are just as tiresome. As previously stated you do not answer perfectly valid questions probably because you have no answer. Should you post something of value I will consider a response. In the mean time I'm afraid you are on the naughty step with Adam
-
You told me there were two statements but they only sent the second one. Another ill thought out rubbish response.
I will not be responding to your posts. You complain about Adam and his Gish Gallops but in your own way you are just as bad. Selectively posting evidence. Posting ill thought out responses. Using one line Swat the post entries. Posting links to large amounts of evidence with no reason as to why they have been posted. In your own way you are just as tiresome. As previously stated you do not answer perfectly valid questions probably because you have no answer. Should you post something of value I will consider a response. In the mean time I'm afraid you are on the naughty step with Adam
How do you believe the blood ended up in the silencer?
-
Your wasting my time again. The answer has already been posted. Read my posts.
-
Your wasting my time again. The answer has already been posted. Read my posts.
You have listed many hypothetical ways it could have ended up there. But there is only one way it could have happened.
-
Wasting my time again. It is only possible to list a number of hypotheticals. This is because we cannot say for certain who was responsible especially since much in this case by way of evidence has been manipulated as I have consistently shown throughout my posts as part of my narrative. There are a number of candidates but my best guess is MF.
-
Wasting my time again. It is only possible to list a number of hypotheticals. This is because we cannot say for certain who was responsible especially since much in this case by way of evidence has been manipulated as I have consistently shown throughout my posts as part of my narrative. There are a number of candidates but my best guess is MF.
How can MF have planted the blood when blood was found on and in the moderator before he received it?
The relatives noticed the blood on Saturday evening, four days after the deaths of the family.
"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."
Examination of witness Ann Eaton.
"ARLIDGE: As a result of that being found, were police contacted?
ANN EATON: Yes, Witham Police
ARLIDGE: Do you know the date on which that took place?
ANN EATON: Saturday night.
ARLIDGE: That very evening?
ANN EATON: Yes.
MR. Justice Drake: (To the witness): Q: Who actually contacted them?
ANN EATON: It was probably me, but I cannot remember, but Witham Police were contacted."
Then Gyniss Howard found blood both on and in the moderator on August 13th (two days later)
Cross examination of Gyniss Howard.
"Q: Thank you. Now may I please ask you about the blood you found or saw inside the sound moderator?
A: Yes.
Q: You obviously had to remove it by some means didn't you?
A: Yes I did.
Q: Could you describe the means you used?
A: Yes, with the aid of a low-powered microscope and lenghts of sterile white cotton thread moistened with distilled water, I inserted with fine forceps the damp threads into the bore of the sound moderator. And soaked up the blood that was in there. I allowed the threads to dry before doing further tests.
Q: May I ask you how far into the sound moderator did you go with your threads? How far do you believe?
A: I took some blood which I could actually see. Just on that inner surface approximately 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch. I didn't measure it at the time."
-
How can MF have planted the blood when blood was found on and in the moderator before he received it?
The relatives noticed the blood on Saturday evening, four days after the deaths of the family.
"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."
Examination of witness Ann Eaton.
"ARLIDGE: As a result of that being found, were police contacted?
ANN EATON: Yes, Witham Police
ARLIDGE: Do you know the date on which that took place?
ANN EATON: Saturday night.
ARLIDGE: That very evening?
ANN EATON: Yes.
MR. Justice Drake: (To the witness): Q: Who actually contacted them?
ANN EATON: It was probably me, but I cannot remember, but Witham Police were contacted."
Then Gyniss Howard found blood both on and in the moderator on August 13th (two days later)
Cross examination of Gyniss Howard.
"Q: Thank you. Now may I please ask you about the blood you found or saw inside the sound moderator?
A: Yes.
Q: You obviously had to remove it by some means didn't you?
A: Yes I did.
Q: Could you describe the means you used?
A: Yes, with the aid of a low-powered microscope and lenghts of sterile white cotton thread moistened with distilled water, I inserted with fine forceps the damp threads into the bore of the sound moderator. And soaked up the blood that was in there. I allowed the threads to dry before doing further tests.
Q: May I ask you how far into the sound moderator did you go with your threads? How far do you believe?
A: I took some blood which I could actually see. Just on that inner surface approximately 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch. I didn't measure it at the time."
I have just spent ages explaining that DB found DB1 not the family. Their evidence is all made up a pack of lies. MF found the flake 12/09/85. RC had dismantled DB1 on 21/08/85 and found no flake. It was sent to lab with other firearms gear, magazines etc. 30/08/85 (see MF testimony). Stop wasting my time use your brain and think it through. I do not see why I should do your thinking for you. Last answer today I am afraid
-
I have just spent ages explaining that DB found DB! not the family. Their evidence is all made up a pack of lies. MF found the flake 12/09/85. RC had dismantled DBi on 21/08/85 and found no flake. It was sent to lab with other firearms gear, magazines etc. 30/08/85 (see MF testimony). Stop wasting my time use your brain and think it through. I do not see why I should do your thinking for you. Last answer today I am afraid
That's because he wasn't looking for a blood flake or blood for that matter, he was already told it contained human blood. He took it apart to photograph and that is it.
Had he tested the baffles for blood and found nothing, then you might have a point but that is not at all what happened.
-
Both supporters and guilters will be in agreement that it is possible to produce back spatter after a contact shot on human skin from the murder weapon.
Both supporters and guilters agree Sheila received contact shots in an area of high blood flow.
Guilters believe this is how the blood entered the silencer. Supporters have several different theories although none have been proven.
-
Both supporters and guilters will be in agreement that it is possible to produce back spatter after a contact shot on human skin from the murder weapon.
Both supporters and guilters agree Sheila received contact shots in an area of high blood flow.
Guilters believe this is how the blood entered the silencer. Supporters have several different theories although none have been proven.
Fletcher was humiliated at trial regarding his backspatter claims, yet they seemed to stand. In 2012 when the Guardian article came out, the guilters dismissed it, saying that it provided more questions than answers regarding how the blood got in the silencer. This was in fact, nonsense. The fact of the matter is, Fletcher's testimony is rubbish and the blood got in the silencer by a process of deliberate contamination. For years people have dickie danced around this, instead of just saying it outright. Even the guilters know it's true, even if they can't bring themselves to openly admit it.
-
Fletcher was humiliated at trial regarding his backspatter claims, yet they seemed to stand. In 2012 when the Guardian article came out, the guilters dismissed it, saying that it provided more questions than answers regarding how the blood got in the silencer. This was in fact, nonsense. The fact of the matter is, Fletcher's testimony is rubbish and the blood got in the silence by a process of deliberate contamination. For years people have dickie danced around this, instead of just saying it outright. Even the guilters know it's true, even if they can't bring themselves to openly admit it.
Has the CT ever said it is not possible to produce back spatter with a contact shot in an area of high blood flow with the murder weapon?
I know they are currently running with the two silencers theory.
-
That's because he wasn't looking for a blood flake or blood for that matter, he was already told it contained human blood. He took it apart to photograph and that is it.
Had he tested the baffles for blood and found nothing, then you might have a point but that is not at all what happened.
This is your answer for today. I am fed up with you using the forum as a computer game. With regard to MF and the flake, the answer is in my posts, if you would take the time to read them. Go away read the posts engage your thinking processes and you will have the answer. If you have not worked it out in a week come back to me and I will explain. You will also show your lack of thinking skills and inability to read and retain information. Here is a clue 'loose'
GH only swabbed the outside of the end of the SM (SM1). She told RC that there was blood of human origin on the end and the inner circumference of the end cap. The sample was too small to fully analyse. There is no other evidence that he was told there was blood inside the silencer. She cannot remember how far in she swabbed so that is debateable. At most 1/4 inch. This would not be a thorough enough examination to show blood or no blood inside the silencer. For some reason (see posts) he decided to dismantle it. This is another rubbish post which clearly shows your lack of case knowledge. I will not be responding to any more of your posts today. As I have said, you are on the naughty step.
-
The CT agree that Sheila was shot twice in an area of high blood flow. They also agree this would produce back spatter.
The CT have never disputed the evidence that the rifle barrel had no back spatter.
The CT have never disputed there was a kitchen fight which involved the rifle as a weapon to strike Nevill. The rifle also being wrestled for.
Natural conclusions from this is the silencer would have Sheila's blood & kitchen wall paint on.
Dispite this, the CT say the relatives fabricated the silencer with blood and kitchen wall paint!
-
Why would a shooter leave a " used " silencer in a place where it would easily have been found, pinning the crime on them alone ?
-
This is your answer for today. I am fed up with you using the forum as a computer game. With regard to MF and the flake, the answer is in my posts, if you would take the time to read them. Go away read the posts engage your thinking processes and you will have the answer. If you have not worked it out in a week come back to me and I will explain. You will also show your lack of thinking skills and inability to read and retain information. Here is a clue 'loose'
GH only swabbed the outside of the end of the SM (SM1). She told RC that there was blood of human origin on the end and the inner circumference of the end cap. The sample was too small to fully analyse. There is no other evidence that he was told there was blood inside the silencer. She cannot remember how far in she swabbed so that is debateable. At most 1/4 inch. This would not be a thorough enough examination to show blood or no blood inside the silencer. For some reason (see posts) he decided to dismantle it. This is another rubbish post which clearly shows your lack of case knowledge. I will not be responding to any more of your posts today. As I have said, you are on the naughty step.
At least you acknowledge that blood of human origin was on the moderator and around 1/4 an inch inside the muzzle end when GH examined it on the 13th of August. Thus I look forward to you ideas of who could have contaminated the SM with human blood prior to the 13th of August. 8)
-
At least you acknowledge that blood of human origin was on the moderator and around 1/4 an inch inside the muzzle end when GH examined it on the 13th of August. Thus I look forward to you ideas of who could have contaminated the SM with human blood prior to the 13th of August. 8)
For Christ's sake FO. You are a misleading bastard. She did not know how far in she swabbed. It is widely known that it could also have been rabbit blood. You are an utter disgrace and like many others I would be glad to see the back of you. Go and join the other Troll (Adam) under the rickety rackety bridge.
-
Why would a shooter leave a " used " silencer in a place where it would easily have been found, pinning the crime on them alone ?
It was obviously planted for someone to find, complete with a grey hair and someones blood. Only someone wanting to get caught would put it in the cupboard! Would the police really have missed it when searching the cupboard I don't think so, but then the copper was not trained to spot silencers!
I joined the forum thinking I would find a lot of evidence pointing to guilt, but I am not finding much so far. At the moment if I had been on he jury it would be 9 to 3
-
It was obviously planted for someone to find, complete with a grey hair and someones blood. Only someone wanting to get caught would put it in the cupboard! Would the police really have missed it when searching the cupboard I don't think so, but then the copper was not trained to spot silencers!
I joined the forum thinking I would find a lot of evidence pointing to guilt, but I am not finding much so far. At the moment if I had been on he jury it would be 9 to 3
You haven't read hard enough then.
-
It was obviously planted for someone to find, complete with a grey hair and someones blood. Only someone wanting to get caught would put it in the cupboard! Would the police really have missed it when searching the cupboard I don't think so, but then the copper was not trained to spot silencers!
I joined the forum thinking I would find a lot of evidence pointing to guilt, but I am not finding much so far. At the moment if I had been on he jury it would be 9 to 3
Allow Steve to tutor you. We'll make an Eaton of you yet.
-
Allow Steve to tutor you. We'll make an Eaton of you yet.
Yes maybe Roch? I am reading as much as I can.
When I read the police logs it reminded me of being back as school where everyone would copy someone else's homework!
-
Yes maybe Roch? I am reading as much as I can.
When I read the police logs it reminded me of being back as school where everyone would copy someone else's homework!
Yes, I get the same feel for many of the statements Rob!
-
Why would a shooter leave a " used " silencer in a place where it would easily have been found, pinning the crime on them alone ?
He didn't. He left it in a box at the back of a cupboard. It was not part of the crime scene.
-
It was obviously planted for someone to find, complete with a grey hair and someones blood. Only someone wanting to get caught would put it in the cupboard! Would the police really have missed it when searching the cupboard I don't think so, but then the copper was not trained to spot silencers!
I joined the forum thinking I would find a lot of evidence pointing to guilt, but I am not finding much so far. At the moment if I had been on he jury it would be 9 to 3
You have read my list of 71 pieces of sourced evidence. Most of which has not been disputed by the CT.
Obviously there is too much circumstantial evidence to list.
There is also Julie Mugford with a comprehensive WS & court testimony.
Not sure what else can be supplied.
-
He didn't. He left it in a box at the back of a cupboard. It was not part of the crime scene.
As if !
-
You have read my list of 71 pieces of sourced evidence. Most of which has not been disputed by the CT.
Obviously there is too much circumstantial evidence to list.
There is also Julie Mugford with a comprehensive WS & court testimony.
Not sure what else can be supplied.
Over 100 men in the USA have been convicted and executed on circumstantial evidence and afterwards the conviction found to be unsafe. In most cases a poor defence was the reason for the conviction, and police thinking they have the right man.
Something is very wrong in this case, far too many sloppy mistakes, the main witness had 32 interviews with the police prior to trial, and the main piece of evidence the silencer is a joke.
-
Over 100 men in the USA have been convicted and executed on circumstantial evidence and afterwards the conviction found to be unsafe. In most cases a poor defence was the reason for the conviction, and police thinking they have the right man.
Something is very wrong in this case, far too many sloppy mistakes, the main witness had 32 interviews with the police prior to trial, and the main piece of evidence the silencer is a joke.
Yes but there is also forensic evidence.
-
DB is a magician. According the statement dated 24/10/85, the one we have. He collected the blue socks. How did he manage this 33 days after the event and about 28 days after JB had burnt his parents clothes? I would like to see his pocket book. I would like to see if there are entries on his second, most likely forged statement. I would like to see if he has listed these items in his Pocket book. If he has not then what is so special about the soil sample that he had to record it twice.
-
DB is a magician. According the statement dated 24/10/85, the one we have. He collected the blue socks. How did he manage this 33 days after the event and about 28 days after JB had burnt his parents clothes? I would like to see his pocket book. I would like to see if there are entries on his second, most likely forged statement. I would like to see if he has listed these items in his Pocket book. If he has not then what is so special about the soil sample that he had to record it twice.
I thought police notebooks had to be kept for ten years at least, and in this case indefinitely?
If all the original police notebooks in this case were available it would be very interesting!!
-
Yes but there is also forensic evidence.
While you are talking about forensic evidence Adam can you explain why just when modern DNA technology could probably prove innocence or guilt either way SC's nightdress is destroyed???
-
While you are talking about forensic evidence Adam can you explain why just when modern DNA technology could probably prove innocence or guilt either way SC's nightdress is destroyed???
Really? Have you got a source?
-
The COA had a lot of evidence on the nightdress -
45.
Sheila Caffell was also dressed in her nightwear and bare-footed. She had received two contact or near contact bullet wounds to her throat. The higher of the two wounds would have killed her almost instantaneously.
The lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately and a person having suffered such an injury may have been able to stand up and walk around for a little time.
The lack of heavy blood staining to Sheila Caffell's nightdress suggested that this had not happened here.
--------------
45
There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle.
-------------
51.
Mrs Caffell's nightdress was bloodstained. When tested the blood was consistent with being her own blood.
The garment was also examined for the presence of any firearm discharge residues or oil from the rifle. No such traces were found.
The scientist gave evidence that there would be a strong chance of finding such residues or markings on the clothing of an individual who had fired a rifle twenty-five times.
---------------
517
The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print.
He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands.
Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual. However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
518.
To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give.
From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet.
For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor.
In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force.
Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled.
He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect.
Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.
-
No forensic evidence involving JB !
-
Really? Have you got a source?
Not sure what you mean have I got a source?
Modern DNA techniques would be able to pick up the smallest traces of blood spray from the other victims etc.
No gunshot residue was found on SC's nightdress? 25 shots in the house surely everyone would have had gunshot residue on them? perhaps she changed at some point?
As Lookout says no forensic evidence linking JB to the crime, everything must have been planned to perfection but he leaves the silencer in the cupboard!
-
Not sure what you mean have I got a source?
Modern DNA techniques would be able to pick up the smallest traces of blood spray from the other victims etc.
No gunshot residue was found on SC's nightdress? 25 shots in the house surely everyone would have had gunshot residue on them? perhaps she changed at some point?
As Lookout says no forensic evidence linking JB to the crime, everything must have been planned to perfection but he leaves the silencer in the cupboard!
A source is a link to an internet article backing up what you posted.
Everyone except for Nugs & Lookout supplies sources on here.
Please supply the source for reply 114.
-
Please, 'take into account' , the possibility that police officers partaking in the now 'affirmed' reconstruction, by 'a team of police officers) , who partook in 'a training exercise' (referred to in official 'Essex Police acknowledgement' by reference to the practice of 'informatives', at 'a crucial stage' of the 'crime scene' and 'live police investigations', (layout)..
-
Please, 'take into account' , the possibility that police officers partaking in the now 'affirmed' reconstruction, by 'a team of police officers) , who partook in 'a training exercise' (referred to in official 'Essex Police acknowledgement' by reference to the practice of 'informatives', at 'a crucial stage' of the 'crime scene' and 'live police investigations', (layout)..
The 'presented truth' relied upon 'during trial testimony' , (could easily be, fabricated) - it all depends on the approach being pursued /adopted by the prosecuting authority taking 'a particular approach'). .
The 'CPS' can determine, 'exactly' what 'gathered evidence' by the State, 'shall be disclosed to the opposition' (the defendants account) in which 'a multitude of' unsafe convictions', have been 'incorrectly informed' by and 'imposed' / 'executed' in 'real terms'..
-
A source is a link to an internet article backing up what you posted.
Everyone except for Nugs & Lookout supplies sources on here.
Please supply the source for reply 114.
Well this is the sort of thing that can be done today:
"Using a little over a dozen human cells, police named Darren R. Marchand as Stephanie Isaacson's killer"
So SC's nightdress had it not be destroyed may have provided a wealth of information.
-
Perhaps Adam as you are so keen on sources you can help me with back spatter? I am struggling to find evidence that back spatter from a shot to the neck would contaminate a silencer in the way it did in this case?
-
Perhaps Adam as you are so keen on sources you can help me with back spatter? I am struggling to find evidence that back spatter from a shot to the neck would contaminate a silencer in the way it did in this case?
Sources are an important part of the forum.
If contact shots into an area of high blood flow would not produce back spatter, the defence or CT would have brought it up.
-
COA:
78:
Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert also expressed the opinion to the jury that the sound moderator had been fitted to the gun when Sheila Caffell had been shot. He attributed the presence of blood within the device to the phenomenon of "back-spatter". This occurs when the expansion of gases created by a bullet being discharged creates back pressure which in turn propels blood from the wound back towards the weapon. This effect is only seen when the muzzle of the weapon is in contact with, or very close contact to, the victim.
----------
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwilib3_ocfyAhUQQUEAHXsiCPgQFnoECBUQAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.homepage-link.to%2Fjustice%2Fjudgements%2FBamber%2Findex.html&usg=AOvVaw3_he1NUdt-LIv3JGVUZ6T9&cshid=1629725986817334
-
No blood detected on the following component parts of the silencer, lends itself to a deliberate act of contamination, by someone who had a vested interest in securing a conviction against 'Jeremy Bamber'. The key indicator being 'no presence of blood', on
(3) Metalic flat washer [blood free]
(11) Baffle plate 8 [blood free]
(12) Baffle plate 9 [blood free]
(13) Baffle plate 10 [blood free]
(14) Baffle plate 11 [blood free]
(15) Baffle plate 12 [blood free]
(16) Baffle plate 13 [blood free]
(17) Baffle plate 14 [blood free]
(18) Baffle plate 15 [blood free]
(19) Baffle plate 16 [blood free]
(20) Baffle plate 17 [blood free]
As compared, with / to the following component parts of the same silencer:-
(1) - Metalic outer Casing 'human' / 'animal blood'
(inverted screw thread) at top end of silencer, another (inverted thread) at the bottom end of the silencer') where 'top end inverted thread' accommodates (2) 'Metal End Cap' and the 'inverted screw thread' at the bottom of' the 'metal outer casing(1) can be' attached' or 'detached' , 'to' or 'from' the 'external thread' (21) at 'the top end' of the 'rifles barrel'
(3) Metalic flat washer [blood free]
(4) Baffle plate 1 [blood group activity]
(5) Baffle plate 2 [blood group activity]
(6) Baffle plate 3 [blood group activity]
(7) Baffle plate 4 [blood group activity]
(8) Baffle plate 5 [blood group activity]
(9) Baffle plate 6 [blood group activity]
------------------------------------
(10) Baffle plate 7 ['possible' - blood group activity]
(21[a]) inverted thread [blood group activity] on bottom end of outer casing [1]...
Here, I set out the design features, of the '17 baffled Parker Hale Silencer' [exhibit, DRB/1] for reference purposes
17 Baffled 'Parker Hale Sound Moderator' (23)
(1) - Metalic outer Casing 'human' / 'animal blood'
(inverted screw thread) at top end of silencer, another (inverted thread) at the bottom end of the silencer') where 'top end inverted thread' accommodates (2) 'Metal End Cap' and the 'inverted screw thread' at the bottom of' the 'metal outer casing(1) can be' attached' or 'detached' , 'to' or 'from' the 'external thread' (21) at 'the top end' of the 'rifles barrel'
(2) 'metal end cap [' Blood']?
(with external thread)
(3) Metalic flat washer [blood free]
(4) Baffle plate 1 [blood group activity]
(5) Baffle plate 2 [blood group activity]
(6) Baffle plate 3 [blood group activity]
(7) Baffle plate 4 [blood group activity]
(8) Baffle plate 5 [blood group activity]
(9) Baffle plate 6 [blood group activity]
------------------------------------
(10) Baffle plate 7 ['possible' - blood group activity]
(11) Baffle plate 8 [blood free]
(12) Baffle plate 9 [blood free]
(13) Baffle plate 10 [blood free]
(14) Baffle plate 11 [blood free]
(15) Baffle plate 12 [blood free]
(16) Baffle plate 13 [blood free]
(17) Baffle plate 14 [blood free]
(18) Baffle plate 15 [blood free]
(19) Baffle plate 16 [blood free]
(20) Baffle plate 17 [blood free]
(21[a]) inverted thread [blood group activity] on bottom end of outer casing [1]...
---------------------------------
. 22 semiautomatic [anshuzt] rifle
(21) External screw thread on end of rifles barrel (minus metal end cap) [ absolutely - no 'blood group activity' ]
(22) Metal end cap of rifles barrel [`Unknown']
-
Sources are an important part of the forum.
If contact shots into an area of high blood flow would not produce back spatter, the defence or CT would have brought it up.
Ok apologies I will be more careful in future, I thought I was saying something that was common knowledge.
As regards the silencer I believe it was planted, and deliberately contaminated, and looking at Mike's info it's hard to see how back spatter could cause the distribution of blood seen in the silencer?
Was Mr Fletcher a recognized firearms expert?
-
Curiously, blood was only detected on the top surfaces of each internal baffle plate belonging to the silencer - there was no blood found or detected on the bottom surfaces of the same internal baffle plates, and rather strikingly, no blood was found to be present on the inner surface of the entire length of the silencers outer casing. This suggests that the contaminated top surfaces of baffle plates occurred when they were removed from the silencers outer casing, and blood was dripped deliberately on to the top surfaces of the baffle plates which had been laid out side, by side. Whoever was responsible overlooked the fact that 'an absence of blood' on 'any of the bottom surfaces of the baffle plates' (when stacked together inside the silencers outer casing, and operational) could 'not occur' because of 'the back pressurised combustion of gases' which would 'swirl around' in 'all the voids' and 'spaces', available 'between one baffle plate' , and 'another' . In fact, 'how in the world' could 'blood only land on the top surfaces of 5 or 6 of the 17 baffles' , when 'each top surface of each baffle' sits (rests) on 'top of one another' - example, 'bottom of one baffle plate' , 'sits directly on top of the next baffle' , and inbetween both surfaces ('bottom surface' of one, and the 'top surface' of the other beneath it) exists 'a void'. There are 'a total of 16 such voids' inside which when the conditions for 'backspatter to occur', are achieved, 'highly pressurised gases' will 'swirl viciously', 'throughout' and 'between each of the 17 baffle plates' and 'accompanying voids'[distributing 'tiny particles of blood' on 'each' and 'every flat' or 'curved surface'..
Even more 'disturbing', 'was' / 'is' the fact 'that blood was found' and 'detected', 'inside' and 'upon the inverted screw thread' at 'the bottom end' of 'the silencers metal outer casing', despite tge fact that tgere 'was' / 'is' no traces of blood 'found' or 'discovered upon the external thread' of 'the anshuzt rifles barrel'. Similarly, according to reference of a cloth pull-through, which 'Fletcher' tested the lining of the rifles barrelled [exhibit 'MDF/100'] the was 'a marked absence' of 'any blood found' or 'detected' inside the 'lining of the guns barrel'!
How could the distribution of blood found or detected inside on component parts of the silencer, have got tgere as a result of backspatter, with blood found or detected on the flat surface of the metal end cap of the silencer, there have been no blood on either the top or bottom surfaces of the flat metal washer beneath it, followed by a presence of blood on the top surfices of the following six or seven baffle plates, with no blood whatsoever on the bottom surfaces of those same baffles, and then no blood at all on the next 10 / 11 baffle plates, followed by blood trapped in the inverted screw thread at the bottom end of tge silencers outer casing?
-
Ok apologies I will be more careful in future, I thought I was saying something that was common knowledge.
As regards the silencer I believe it was planted, and deliberately contaminated, and looking at Mike's info it's hard to see how back spatter could cause the distribution of blood seen in the silencer?
Was Mr Fletcher a recognized firearms expert?
Rob, Fletcher was no firearms expert, it was a Mr Mead if I remember rightly.
-
We know, that 'David Boutflour' attempted to unscrew one of the two silencers metal end caps because he says in one of his witness statements, he attempted to do this, but failed because it was screwed on too tightly. The only othe person who unscrewed a silencers metal end cap, and successfully removed the flat metal washer, and all 17 of its metal baffle plates, was 'DI Cook' [an activity that he duly photographed]. He performed this exercise on the 29th August 1985, one day before the silencer in the guise of exhibit reference 'DB/1' which arrived at 'Huntindon Lab' on the 30th August 1985, into the care of 'Malcolm Fletcher' along with copies of the photographs which 'DI Cook' had taken showing that silencer in its dismantled state..
With this in mind, how come that 'DI Cook' did 'not see any blood' anywhere on the five or six metal baffle plates that he had separated from the other 10 / 11 baffles? I would suggest that this was because there was no blood present there at that time. It must be the case, that either the blood which would later be identified at the lab, on the '12th', '13th', '18th' and '19th September 1985' on some baffle plates was 'added dishonestly', or else 'blood was already present' in the 'compacted 10 /11 baffle plates' which / that 'DI Cook' had 'not separated during his dismantling' earlier...
Rather alarmingly, something occurred between the date that 'DI Cook' did his dismantling of the silencer [29th August 1985] and 'May 1986' when the defence ballistic expert ['Major Mead'] attended the Lab to examine the silencer. What had inadvertently happened at some stage was that 'all the metal baffle plates' had been 'replaced inside the metal out casing, in reverse'. This makes it a possibility, that if no-one deliberately contaminated thlle sikencer by dripping blood onto the top surfaces of several of the baffle plates, that those contaminated baffle plates, had originall been set from the bottom end of tge silences outer casing, in keeping with the blood detected in the inverted thread of the same. It would also be indicative of blood having entered the silencer from the barrel of the rifle, and 'not by means of the backspatter phenomena'...
-
Rob, Fletcher was no firearms expert, it was a Mr Mead if I remember rightly.
Thanks Lookout
-
We know, that 'David Boutflour' attempted to unscrew one of the two silencers metal end caps because he says in one of his witness statements, he attempted to do this, but failed because it was screwed on too tightly. The only othe person who unscrewed a silencers metal end cap, and successfully removed the flat metal washer, and all 17 of its metal baffle plates, was 'DI Cook' [an activity that he duly photographed]. He performed this exercise on the 29th August 1985, one day before the silencer in the guise of exhibit reference 'DB/1' which arrived at 'Huntindon Lab' on the 30th August 1985, into the care of 'Malcolm Fletcher' along with copies of the photographs which 'DI Cook' had taken showing that silencer in its dismantled state..
With this in mind, how come that 'DI Cook' did 'not see any blood' anywhere on the five or six metal baffle plates that he had separated from the other 10 / 11 baffles? I would suggest that this was because there was no blood present there at that time. It must be the case, that either the blood which would later be identified at the lab, on the '12th', '13th', '18th' and '19th September 1985' on some baffle plates was 'added dishonestly', or else 'blood was already present' in the 'compacted 10 /11 baffle plates' which / that 'DI Cook' had 'not separated during his dismantling' earlier...
Rather alarmingly, something occurred between the date that 'DI Cook' did his dismantling of the silencer [29th August 1985] and 'May 1986' when the defence ballistic expert ['Major Mead'] attended the Lab to examine the silencer. What had inadvertently happened at some stage was that 'all the metal baffle plates' had been 'replaced inside the metal out casing, in reverse'. This makes it a possibility, that if no-one deliberately contaminated thlle sikencer by dripping blood onto the top surfaces of several of the baffle plates, that those contaminated baffle plates, had originall been set from the bottom end of tge silences outer casing, in keeping with the blood detected in the inverted thread of the same. It would also be indicative of blood having entered the silencer from the barrel of the rifle, and 'not by means of the backspatter phenomena'...
If DI Cook had seen anything on or in the silencer (paint, blood, hair) surely he would have left it alone and let the lab deal with it?
The fact he pulled the whole thing apart to me suggests he never saw anything out of the ordinary?
-
If DI Cook had seen anything on or in the silencer (paint, blood, hair) surely he would have left it alone and let the lab deal with it?
The fact he pulled the whole thing apart to me suggests he never saw anything out of the ordinary?
I agree..
Furthermore, 'DI Cook' submitted a handwritten note, to 'Malcom Fletcher' on the occasion that silencer 'DB/1' arrived at the lab' [Huntingdon] on 30th August 1985 - the contents of which include the following 'this is the silencer I was talking to you about' [accompanying 'that' silencer, and the photographs of that dismantled silencer ('DB/1')] , is the fact, that 'DI Cook' wrote another message to 'DCS Ainsley' which stated that, when an item of evidential value which has blood upon it, or within it [or words to that / this effect] is 'exposed to the side effects of it being exposed to the scientific examination where the said item / blood is exposed to' Superglue treatment ['cynocrylate fumes' ] it was / is scientifically accepted that any blood group results from testing, was / is 'known to be', 'Unreliable'...
'That' / 'this' being so, 'beggars belief' , that blood grouping results obtained from selective surfaces of internal [metal] baffle plates, were presented at trial, without any mention of the 'unreliability' of 'the said results'. Moreover, we are currently 'unaware' of 'DCS Ainsleys' response to 'the highly significant' information which 'DI Cook' brought to 'his attention' , contained in the aforementioned, 'handwritten note', that 'Cook' addressed specifically to 'him'..
-
Surely this counts as non disclosure?
Ainsley knew the blood test results on the silencer were unreliable and turned a blind eye, what else did he get up to!
-
If DI Cook had seen anything on or in the silencer (paint, blood, hair) surely he would have left it alone and let the lab deal with it?
The fact he pulled the whole thing apart to me suggests he never saw anything out of the ordinary?
Please bear in mind, that 'nobody took photographs' of the 'top surfaces' of 'five or six baffle plates' of 'any silencer' [SBJ/1, DB/1, and or, DRB/1],and rather more significantly, none of the blood samples taken from specific baffle plates embedded on to the silencers metal [internalised] baffle plates, on the '12th, 13th, 18th, and 19th September 1985, were' not' given' exhibit reference numbers'. This to me, is 'rather alarming'...
With this in mind, 'should the blood group evidence' have even been 'admissable' as 'reliable evidence' , 'during the trial'?
-
With this in mind, 'should the blood group evidence' have even been 'admissable' as 'reliable evidence' , 'during the trial'?
According to this 'faked evidence' all blood samples that were found or detected on baffle plates, were 'tested to destruction'. This surely has to be 'unacceptable', since, 'the defence experts' were 'unable to carry out their own tests' on any of 'those blood samples'...
In the absence of 'any blood samples' to be 'retested' and 'no blood existing at the time of the trial' the 'prosecution' and 'its ballistic' and or 'blood experts' could simply have 'invented' the 'blood group evidence', with 'no opportunity' for 'the defence' and 'its expert' , to 'investigate' or 'to challenge'. In effect, the alleged 'finding' , 'detection' , of 'blood group evidence' inside 'one of three different silencers'[SBJ/1, DB/1, DRB/1] might 'not have ever existed'..
Additionally, despite the groteque period of time since anyone [someone] initially finding or detecting blood on baffle plates to whichever silencer, it has not been ascertained which key prosecution witness, was the very person [or, perhaps, `people`] who first set eyes, and discovered the blood distributed, as it was on several internal top surfaces of half a dozen [internal] or so, baffle plates...
Why has'nt the identity of the person, or persons, responsible for discovering the blood, and the analysing of it?
-
Gosh you really do your homework!
The blood in / on the silencer is critical to the case as without it JB would not even have been charged in the first place. It was this that turned the investigation on its head and the whole silencer thing is looking extremely unreliable.
I cannot find much info on back spatter, with a .22 looks like back spatter would be minimal (as its related to velocity and size of the bullet), unless a contact shot to the head or a artery was hit?
-
DB is a magician. According the statement dated 24/10/85, the one we have. He collected the blue socks. How did he manage this 33 days after the event and about 28 days after JB had burnt his parents clothes? I would like to see his pocket book. I would like to see if there are entries on his second, most likely forged statement. I would like to see if he has listed these items in his Pocket book. If he has not then what is so special about the soil sample that he had to record it twice.
Well I could post it up here (if nobody else will). But what is the point if this is the kind of feedback I get ?
For Christ's sake FO. You are a misleading bastard. She did not know how far in she swabbed. It is widely known that it could also have been rabbit blood. You are an utter disgrace and like many others I would be glad to see the back of you. Go and join the other Troll (Adam) under the rickety rackety bridge.
-
Well I could post it up here (if nobody else will). But what is the point if this is the kind of feedback I get ?
I have placed you and Adam on ignore.
-
Bubo in your early posts on this thread you said that you believed a silencer was used on the night, I would be interested to know why you think this?
Also do we know the size of the flake of blood? from what I have read about back spatter the blood would be fairly small spray like particles? I would not expect one large flake?
-
When 'the' silencer was first test fired, all 'the live rounds' fired through 'it' were 'damaged excessively' - how could '12 whole crime scene bullets' have been fired 'without getting any damage' at all during 'the shootings of victims' of the 'whitehouse farm tragedy'?
-
Bubo in your early posts on this thread you said that you believed a silencer was used on the night, I would be interested to know why you think this?
If they shot June as per my narrative they would have had to shoot her at least one more time, since she could not have survived the initial between the eyes shot. This was done as a means to disguise the original shot. A lot depends on the bullet wounds not just to June but the other victims. In recreating the crime scene and the story they wished to tell they may have needed to make additional wounds to victims,(see my speculation which urges caution). If it was only one or perhaps more the silencer might help ensure that persons outside the building might not hear the noise. We cannot know this but it would be a plausible explanation.
Then there is the possibility that SC tried to use it either by attaching it or because it was already attached. I am sure she had seen enough films to know how to screw it on. Maybe when she ran out of amo and she thought it was a SM malfunction and removed it. Maybe she found it made the gun more difficult to handle. Maybe she found she could not commit suicide with it on and so removed it and it was found close by.
-
Also do we know the size of the flake of blood? from what I have read about back spatter the blood would be fairly small spray like particles? I would not expect one large flake?
I have no idea of the size though I have seen it described. It might be in JH's statements, testimony, or information from one of the many subsequent enquiries. It was small from memory and 1/8th of an inch rings a bell but I could be wrong.
And do not forget that it may never have existed but was created on paper as part of the framing.
-
Thanks for that I have read all your posts, but I was wondering if you had seen something on the victims
wounds that supported a silencer was being used?
There was a post a while back saying that there was quite a lot of blood in the silencer? but if true this could only have come from a contact head shot? not back spatter?
-
Thanks for that I have read all your posts, but I was wondering if you had seen something on the victims
wounds that supported a silencer was being used?
There was a post a while back saying that there was quite a lot of blood in the silencer? but if true this could only have come from a contact head shot? not back spatter?
Please read the paragraph beginning: Silencer mark around non fatal neck wound (from the Andrew Hunter Book Draft).
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2441.msg75053/topicseen.html#msg75053
-
Please read the paragraph beginning: Silencer mark around non fatal neck wound (from the Andrew Hunter Book Draft).
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2441.msg75053/topicseen.html#msg75053
Thanks very interesting! especially for me being new on here, lots of info in one place.
-
When 'the' silencer was first test fired, all 'the live rounds' fired through 'it' were 'damaged excessively' - how could '12 whole crime scene bullets' have been fired 'without getting any damage' at all during 'the shootings of victims' of the 'whitehouse farm tragedy'?
During enquiries carried out by 'Smith' and 'Mallinson' they confirmed that there had been contact between the end of a silencer and 'the surface of the skin' around the so called 'non fatal' neck wound. However, it was not possible to determine, whether or not, the 'non fatal' neck wound had been inflicted prior to 'the fatal bullet entry wound' or 'not'...
It begs consideration, for the 'none fatal' shot to have been inflicted downstairs in the main kitchen, with a silencer fitted on to the end of a. 22 rifles barrel.
It must follow, therefore, that 'Sheila' was, shot and killed upstairs on the main bedroom floor, without any involvement of 'Jeremy Bamber'. This is because the bodies of 'one dead femal, and a dead male, had been found upon entry to tge kitchen by firearm officers from 7.37am [onwards]. It is rather compelling, that no police officer questioned, or resolved the graphic content of these / those timed police radio communication logs, for someone [anyone] to clarify, and put right during any further part of tge pokice investion. In particular, timed police radio contact messages, timed at 7.37am, 7.38am and 7.42am, followed by confirmation in a police message [timed at 8.10am] that a further tgree dead bodies had been / were found in bedrooms upstairs!
-
Thanks for that I have read all your posts, but I was wondering if you had seen something on the victims
wounds that supported a silencer was being used?
There was a post a while back saying that there was quite a lot of blood in the silencer? but if true this could only have come from a contact head shot? not back spatter?
Nicholas Caffell suffered two contact shots. Had the silencer been used, one would expect to find bone fragments and "organic debris" (such as brain tissue?) and DNA inside the moderator. Yet there is none.
"Test shots on live pigs destined for slaughter showed that bone particles are a feature of backspatter from close-range shots to heads. Contamination of nearby surfaces by bone fragments and bone-plus-bullet fragments, as well as other organic debris, appears to be quite heavy."
"Detection of Bone and Bone-Plus-Bullet Particles in Backspatter from Close-Range Shots to Heads," Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1991, pp. 1745-1752,
-
Nicholas Caffell suffered two contact shots. Had the silencer been used, one would expect to find bone fragments and "organic debris" (such as brain tissue?) and DNA inside the moderator. Yet there is none.
"Test shots on live pigs destined for slaughter showed that bone particles are a feature of backspatter from close-range shots to heads. Contamination of nearby surfaces by bone fragments and bone-plus-bullet fragments, as well as other organic debris, appears to be quite heavy."
"Detection of Bone and Bone-Plus-Bullet Particles in Backspatter from Close-Range Shots to Heads," Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1991, pp. 1745-1752,
Bone spatter 😃
The rifle was used for shooting rabbits. It was barely powerful enough to produce back spatter from Sheila's two contact shots. Which were in an area of high flow.
-
Nicholas Caffell suffered two contact shots. Had the silencer been used, one would expect to find bone fragments and "organic debris" (such as brain tissue?) and DNA inside the moderator. Yet there is none.
"Test shots on live pigs destined for slaughter showed that bone particles are a feature of backspatter from close-range shots to heads. Contamination of nearby surfaces by bone fragments and bone-plus-bullet fragments, as well as other organic debris, appears to be quite heavy."
"Detection of Bone and Bone-Plus-Bullet Particles in Backspatter from Close-Range Shots to Heads," Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1991, pp. 1745-1752,
Thanks for the info and link Dave, though in a contact head shot is it back spatter or the fact that blood from this part of the body will gush out? Though either way the silencer will get covered in blood.
-
Thanks for the info and link Dave, though in a contact head shot is it back spatter or the fact that blood from this part of the body will gush out? Though either way the silencer will get covered in blood.
The illustration below and the link below might be of interest to you.
(https://images.slideplayer.com/12/3559133/slides/slide_2.jpg)
http://l-a-c.expert/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Backspatter_Simulation_Comparison_of_a_Basic_Sponge_and_a_Complex_Model.pdf (http://l-a-c.expert/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Backspatter_Simulation_Comparison_of_a_Basic_Sponge_and_a_Complex_Model.pdf)
-
The Crowns case against JB was based on the premise, amongst other issues, that there was only one silencer (SM) found by the family on10/08/85
.
The Police did however seize a SM on the 07/08/85. It was found/collected by David Bird (DB) and was labelled DB1. When the decision was taken that JB would be framed all paperwork associated with this find had to be manipulated to make it disappear from the record.
They created a second witness statement for DB showing that he collected his samples on the 10th and 11th of September. In his first statement dated 24/10,85 which was presumably used at trial it shows that he collected only the socks DB6 on the 11/09/85.
We know he found more items because he submitted a second forged statement to the COLP enquiry. In which he describes finding DB1-DB7. However, DB1 is now a soil sample. You can read a fuller account on this thread.
THE SILENCER SAGA (jeremybamberforum.co.uk) reply 64
Both his statements are forgeries. The socks are shown in crime scene photos. On the Wednesday after the tragedy with JB’s approval all carpets and bedding were destroyed. What happened to the socks if they had not been collected and bagged by SOCO?
At the next weekend JB burnt his parent’s clothes. What happened to the socks if they had not been forensically gathered?
They had hidden the finding using the method described.
That was not the only problem. DB passed the buck by suggesting that if he found anything he would hand it to DRH and PC Davidson. Later the COLP questioned DRH who broke down exclaiming ‘I did not find It’. They may well have tampered with CID6 forms and Holab3 forms as the interview with DB suggests.
The DB interview is on the forum but be warned it is long and detailed. It has its own thread.
David Bird COLP Statement 8th Oct 1991 (jeremybamberforum.co.uk)
The Hamersley piece is in the library.
Breakdown of DC Hammersley (SOC) - when seen by COLP... (jeremybamberforum.co.uk)
In the end they went for a simpler fix. They pretended that SJ handed it to RC after returning to the crime scene from JB’s cottage to collect it.
I agree with NGB’s SM count but the two that mattered were the DB1 find and the finding of DRB1 on 10/08/85. I do not dispute that the family passed a SM to the police but have severe reservations as to the date.
If the DB1 find is as I suggest then the Crowns case falls because it calls into question the provenance and validity of the SM found by the family. The case falls if it is proved there were not one but 2 SM’s at the beginning of the case.
-
Thanks for the info and link Dave, though in a contact head shot is it back spatter or the fact that blood from this part of the body will gush out? Though either way the silencer will get covered in blood.
Have you or anyone else any evidence for this?
-
The illustration below and the link below might be of interest to you.
(https://images.slideplayer.com/12/3559133/slides/slide_2.jpg)
http://l-a-c.expert/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Backspatter_Simulation_Comparison_of_a_Basic_Sponge_and_a_Complex_Model.pdf (http://l-a-c.expert/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Backspatter_Simulation_Comparison_of_a_Basic_Sponge_and_a_Complex_Model.pdf)
This doesn't feature a silencer plus its a completely different animal to that used in the Bamber case.
Have you anything that shows a silecer is capable of 'drawback' as described by Malcolm Fletcher at trial?
-
Have you or anyone else any evidence for this?
Well a head shot at close range will not need back spatter to cover the end of the barrel in blood in my view anyway. There used to be a video on YouTube I believe of a guy being shot in the Vietnam war with a revolver, I don't know if it's still there but if you see it you will know what I mean.
I don't want to search for it so don't ask for a link, with a .22 the effect may be less?
-
Well a head shot at close range will not need back spatter to cover the end of the barrel in blood in my view anyway. There used to be a video on YouTube I believe of a guy being shot in the Vietnam war with a revolver, I don't know if it's still there but if you see it you will know what I mean.
I don't want to search for it so don't ask for a link, with a .22 the effect may be less?
I believe the forensic literature shows that when individuals commit suicide by placing firearms in contact with the head a high % do not result in blood in or outside the barrel. But in this case we are not talking about the barrel in contact with any part of the body we are talking about a silencer!
-
The Crowns case against JB was based on the premise, amongst other issues, that there was only one silencer (SM) found by the family on10/07/85
.
The Police did however seize a SM on the 07/08/85. It was found/collected by David Bird (DB) and was labelled DB1. When the decision was taken that JB would be framed all paperwork associated with this find had to be manipulated to make it disappear from the record.
They created a second witness statement for DB showing that he collected his samples on the 10th and 11th of September. In his first statement dated 24/10,85 which was presumably used at trial it shows that he collected only the socks DB6 on the 11/09/85.
We know he found more items because he submitted a second forged statement to the COLP enquiry. In which he describes finding DB1-DB7. However, DB1 is now a soil sample. You can read a fuller account on this thread.
THE SILENCER SAGA (jeremybamberforum.co.uk) reply 64
Both his statements are forgeries. The socks are shown in crime scene photos. On the Wednesday after the tragedy with JB’s approval all carpets and bedding were destroyed. What happened to the socks if they had not been collected and bagged by SOCO?
At the next weekend JB burnt his parent’s clothes. What happened to the socks if they had not been forensically gathered?
They had hidden the finding using the method described.
That was not the only problem. DB passed the buck by suggesting that if he found anything he would hand it to DRH and PC Davidson. Later the COLP questioned DRH who broke down exclaiming ‘I did not find It’. They may well have tampered with CID6 forms and Holab3 forms as the interview with DB suggests.
The DB interview is on the forum but be warned it is long and detailed. It has its own thread.
David Bird COLP Statement 8th Oct 1991 (jeremybamberforum.co.uk)
The Hamersley piece is in the library.
Breakdown of DC Hammersley (SOC) - when seen by COLP... (jeremybamberforum.co.uk)
In the end they went for a simpler fix. They pretended that SJ handed it to RC after returning to the crime scene from JB’s cottage to collect it.
I agree with NGB’s SM count but the two that mattered were the DB1 find and the finding of DRB1 on 10/08/85. I do not dispute that the family passed a SM to the police but have severe reservations as to the date.
If the DB1 find is as I suggest then the Crowns case falls because it calls into question the provenance and validity of the SM found by the family. The case falls if it is proved there were not one but 2 SM’s at the beginning of the case.
John Haywards specimen testing list shows he received DB1 on 12/08/85. However, all the other items collected DB2-DB6 arrived on the 20/08/85. Why is there no DB1 soil sample in the group? DB7 was Tampons and were of no evidential value, so were not sent.
It is pretty obvious that if they wished to claim DB1 should be DRB1 that it had to have been discovered before 12/08/85 in order that it could reach the lab by the date stated. I have seen no reference to a soil sample in my research of the case but we do not have all the paperwork and I may have missed it.
If anyone knows of evidence that shows DB1 soil sample, was sent for testing please post the find.
If there is no record of it being sent to the lab, why was it sampled or was it just a convenient substitute for the silencer DB1.
-
I believe the forensic literature shows that when individuals commit suicide by placing firearms in contact with the head a high % do not result in blood in or outside the barrel. But in this case we are not talking about the barrel in contact with any part of the body we are talking about a silencer!
Yes but I was referring to a killer holding the gun, he would not immediately real back, like in a suicide. I would expect blood over the end of and inside the barrel or silencer if fitted in a contact shot? Not a tiny blob?
I am no expert but as I said I have seen head shots and it's not like in the films.
-
The CT accept it is human blood which matches Sheila's in the silencer.
So they have to explain it. Result - RB put his own blood into the silencer!
-
The CT team accept the paint on the silencer is from the aga. Assume they are saying the relatives scratched it.
The crime scene photos are inconclusive although the CT paid Sutherst to say the right things. If they did show an unscratched aga, Bamber would have been released.
-
The DNA from within silencer DB1 was not that of Sheila. This was a letter sent from Dr. Clayton senior forensic scientist to the CCRC in 2001.
The test was taken from Sheila's natural mother, Christine Jay and in reply, Dr. Clayton had said " in my opinion, the DNA cannot be from Sheila Bamber ".
-
So whose, if any, did the DNA come from ? Another answer we don't know and probably won't get to know.
-
The DNA from within silencer DB1 was not that of Sheila. This was a letter sent from Dr. Clayton senior forensic scientist to the CCRC in 2001.
The test was taken from Sheila's natural mother, Christine Jay and in reply, Dr. Clayton had said " in my opinion, the DNA cannot be from Sheila Bamber ".
Thanks Lookout I never knew this.
-
The CT have not disputed any of the other evidence.
Some consulation for RB.
-
Yes but I was referring to a killer holding the gun, he would not immediately real back, like in a suicide. I would expect blood over the end of and inside the barrel or silencer if fitted in a contact shot? Not a tiny blob?
I am no expert but as I said I have seen head shots and it's not like in the films.
As I said the forensic literature shows that a high % of gunshot wounds, contact and non-contact, do not result in any blood whatsover depositing in/on barrels. Obviously in this case we're interested in silencers.
-
The relatives would need to know -
Does other evidence show Sheila is guilty?
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.
What back splatter is.
Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
Was there a silencer next to Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.
Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Confidence in each other that none would succumb to police pressure.
Sheila's blood group.
The blood group of each other.
Is it too late to introduce new evidence
----------
This had to be found out very quickly. Providing they have the idea & decide to go ahead.
-
David's claim that the relatives took diluted period blood from a bucket of water was dismissed years ago.
It is impossible to do.
-
The DNA from within silencer DB1 was not that of Sheila. This was a letter sent from Dr. Clayton senior forensic scientist to the CCRC in 2001.
The test was taken from Sheila's natural mother, Christine Jay and in reply, Dr. Clayton had said " in my opinion, the DNA cannot be from Sheila Bamber ".
The appeal court concluded that Sheila's dna was not in the silencer but that it didn't mean her blood hadn't been in the silencer since all visible traces had been swabbed away in the tests carried out in 1985/6.
The type of dna testing used in 2001/2 was low copy number (lcn) which is capable of analysing samples invisible to the naked eye.
-
So whose, if any, did the DNA come from ? Another answer we don't know and probably won't get to know.
It could have come from numerous individuals, even jurors who had the opportunity to dismantle and handle the silencer, since no precuations were taken to protect exhibits from contamination in a pre-dna era.
-
It seems that the fraud squad were " interested " with the silencers documented in the Major Incident Property Register ! This was before the trial took place.
Entry 648M---sound moderator, DRB1---28/4/86.
Entry 675---2 x sound moderators found by Mr D Boutflour. Returned to DS 162 at Fraud Squad CD Witham Station property receipt signed by D Boutflour. Handed over by D Supt. Ainsley, dated 20/5 /88.
-
The relatives would need to know -
Is Bamber innocent.
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.
What back splatter is.
Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
Was there a silencer next to Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.
Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Confidence in each other that none would succumb to police pressure.
Sheila's blood group.
The blood group of each other.
----------
This had to be found out very quickly. Providing they have the idea & decide to go ahead.
You express relatively complex iideas and information in an easy to understand way. :)
-
The relatives successfully achieving the frame with the silencer in record time, must be the frame of the century.
Bamber spent 18 months planning his frame. Which failed.
-
The relatives would need to know -
Is Bamber innocent.
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.
What back splatter is.
Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
Was there a silencer next to Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.
Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Confidence in each other that none would succumb to police pressure.
Sheila's blood group.
The blood group of each other.
----------
This had to be found out very quickly. Providing they have the idea & decide to go ahead.
"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
-
You express relatively complex iideas and information in an easy to understand way. :)
Thanks.
That is why David gets upset.
-
David's claim that the relatives took diluted period blood from a bucket of water was dismissed years ago.
It is impossible to do.
No, it isn't.
-
No, it isn't.
Please provide a source.
Be surprised if there are sources on how to put diluted period blood into a silencer.
-
The relatives would need to know -
Is Bamber innocent.
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.
What back splatter is.
Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
Was there a silencer next to Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.
Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Confidence in each other that none would succumb to police pressure.
Sheila's blood group.
The blood group of each other.
----------
This had to be found out very quickly. Providing they have the idea & decide to go ahead.
Of course all this is irrelevant.
The relatives would never have had such a crazy, innovative, risky & complex idea in the first place.
-
It seems that the fraud squad were " interested " with the silencers documented in the Major Incident Property Register ! This was before the trial took place.
Entry 648M---sound moderator, DRB1---28/4/86.
Entry 675---2 x sound moderators found by Mr D Boutflour. Returned to DS 162 at Fraud Squad CD Witham Station property receipt signed by D Boutflour. Handed over by D Supt. Ainsley, dated 20/5 /88.
This was part of a COLP investigation which had been requested by JB for the existence of different silencers in police possession.
-
This was part of a COLP investigation which had been requested by JB for the existence of different silencers in police possession.
NGB1066 posted the other day that the case involves a total of 5 silencers
Anthony Pargeter owned an identical sound moderator and that was also kept at WHF (Pargeter has given conflicting accounts about this at different times but that does not matter for this answer). Both Robert and David Boutflour also each owned a Parker Hale sound moderator and at some stage I understand these were also collected and examined by police. That makes four sound moderators. Finally, the FSS at Huntingdon had a Parker Hale moderator in stock and this was also used for some of their work on the case. There were therefore at different times a total of five identical Parker Hale sound moderators which featured in the case.
-
As I said the forensic literature shows that a high % of gunshot wounds, contact and non-contact, do not result in any blood whatsover depositing in/on barrels. Obviously in this case we're interested in silencers.
Surely it depends on how long contact is maintained, more than a half second or so with a head shot and blood is likely to be transferred to the barrel or silencer? So a contact shot to someone in bed who is not trying to escape ...
In the extract below the "leading to skull fractures" caught my eye.
Blood loss after a gunshot proves fatal
Since the brain stem is nestled safely at the back of the head, brain death is not usually the outright concern for the victim, but rather blood loss. The amount of blood that is potentially lost is directly influenced by the size and speed of the bullet fired. If a bullet hits any other part of the body, the impact is released to the adjoining body parts, often stabilizing the damage and saving the individual.
However, the case of the skull is unique, on account of its enclosed structure. If a high-speed bullet is fired into the skull, the skull bears the full brunt of the force, leading to skull fractures. Skull shards that pierce the brain at that point are even more difficult to remove than the bullet itself. If the skull is subjected to a high-speed, but small bullet, the worry is that the tiny bullet would ricochet around after entering the brain cavity, damaging several areas of the brain at once. The best-case scenario for survival is therefore a small, low-velocity bullet fired from a distance… with a low-caliber gun.
So far, we have discussed the gunshot mostly from a biological standpoint. Let’s now consider the fatality of the gunshot from a physics standpoint.
-
The CT & supporters dispute one piece of evidence - you guessed it. Out of 70+.
Even with this they are being crazy. RB putting his own blood in the silencer, then the relatives scratching the aga!
-
The relatives would need to know -
Is Bamber innocent.
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.
What back splatter is.
Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
Was there a silencer next to Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.
Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
Confidence in each other that none would succumb to police pressure.
Sheila's blood group.
The blood group of each other.
----------
This had to be found out very quickly. Providing they have the idea & decide to go ahead.
Hopefully Rob can address these.
David can't.
-
Maybe they're bored seeing you churn the same things out on a daily basis-----I would be, if I took any notice.
-
Maybe they're bored seeing you churn the same things out on a daily basis-----I would be, if I took any notice.
They have to be adequately address.
Supporters focus on one piece of evidence out of over 70 - The silencer.
Agreeing it was Sheila's blood & the aga paint on. But amazingly claiming RB put his own blood in & scratched the aga!
Without evidence.
-
Surely it depends on how long contact is maintained, more than a half second or so with a head shot and blood is likely to be transferred to the barrel or silencer? So a contact shot to someone in bed who is not trying to escape ...
In the extract below the "leading to skull fractures" caught my eye.
Blood loss after a gunshot proves fatal
Since the brain stem is nestled safely at the back of the head, brain death is not usually the outright concern for the victim, but rather blood loss. The amount of blood that is potentially lost is directly influenced by the size and speed of the bullet fired. If a bullet hits any other part of the body, the impact is released to the adjoining body parts, often stabilizing the damage and saving the individual.
However, the case of the skull is unique, on account of its enclosed structure. If a high-speed bullet is fired into the skull, the skull bears the full brunt of the force, leading to skull fractures. Skull shards that pierce the brain at that point are even more difficult to remove than the bullet itself. If the skull is subjected to a high-speed, but small bullet, the worry is that the tiny bullet would ricochet around after entering the brain cavity, damaging several areas of the brain at once. The best-case scenario for survival is therefore a small, low-velocity bullet fired from a distance… with a low-caliber gun.
So far, we have discussed the gunshot mostly from a biological standpoint. Let’s now consider the fatality of the gunshot from a physics standpoint.
As I said the forensic lit shows a high % of contact gunshot wounds do not result in blood in/on barrel. Wound site is one factor. Other factors are velocity of ammunition and claibre of firearm. But the lit relates to barrels only. Obviously with this case it involves a silencer.
-
As I said the forensic lit shows a high % of contact gunshot wounds do not result in blood in/on barrel. Wound site is one factor. Other factors are velocity of ammunition and claibre of firearm. But the lit relates to barrels only. Obviously with this case it involves a silencer.
That's ok, the point I am trying to make is that 25 shots some of which are supposed to be contact shots and only one blob of blood on the silencer.
I am not casting dispersions how it got their just my surprise having seen a clip of a head shot that it's just one small blob of blood.
-
Hopefully Rob can address these.
David can't.
Adam I can address these but in my opinion no silencer was used that night, if one was it was not the one found in the gun cupboard this was planted.
My previous post to which you replied was not concerned with how the blood got in the silencer but how small the amount of blood was that was found. Perhaps you misunderstood me?
-
Adam I can address these but in my opinion no silencer was used that night, if one was it was not the one found in the gun cupboard this was planted.
My previous post to which you replied was not concerned with how the blood got in the silencer but how small the amount of blood was that was found. Perhaps you misunderstood me?
You can't address them. So the relatives didn't fabricate the silencer.
Otherwise, over to you Lookout.
-
It looks like supporters are not going to address the massive obstacles the relatives would have. If fabricating the silencer with human blood matching Sheila's. Together with the aga paint.
These obstacles must be overcome.
Rob has today refused. David, Lookout, Mike & JackieD have had years to but refused.
The CT make the claim without elaborating.
So surprising that supporters so passionately claim RB put his blood in & the relatives put the aga paint on. Without evidence.
-
That's ok, the point I am trying to make is that 25 shots some of which are supposed to be contact shots and only one blob of blood on the silencer.
I am not casting dispersions how it got their just my surprise having seen a clip of a head shot that it's just one small blob of blood.
Small amount outside. Flake measuring about 1/2" inside along with some other blood staining on the upper baffles.
-
The scratches on the Aga
I have set out my scenario for the SM. There were two. The original Pargeter owned (DB1) and the Bamber SM which was manipulated to be a replica by creating the features of DB1 and the processes it had been subjected to. It was thereafter called DRB1
They had to switch them for the following reasons.
1 It was the Pargeter SM which was the original focus of their attention.
This would not ‘wash’ according to their scenario and would surely raise questions with regard to his Brno rifle and why would JB use AP’s SM on the Anschutz.
The SM DB1 was subjected to a lot of scientific tests and at least one dismantling. These activities had produced no evidence of worth apart from GH’s declaration that the blood was human in origin. Some claim it could have been rabbit because of a shared enzyme. No flake was found, even though it was said to be loose between baffles, when dismantled by RC.
2 It did not have paint on the knurled end.
Without the paint it could not be linked to the crime scene.
I have seen no evidence that GH found paint on the item DB1 on 13/08/85. Her statements do not mention paint. Her trial testimony revolves around the blood smears and her ability to use the Rifle with a SM attached. Her COLP statements are with regard to the changing of exhibit numbers, (part of the effort to examine JB’s complaint). However, she may have seen paint, but was being asked about blood, so she confined her report to that. Though you would imagine for clarity she would have mentioned it.
If I am wrong in this aspect, please direct me to the evidence. I will have to adjust my thinking.
3 They could not use the Pargeter SM DB1 at trial. If JB was asked to identify it as the family owned SM he would know it was not his.
If the police wanted use the original SM (DB1) they would have had to produce evidence of its use and presence. They would need to provide crime scene photos of it in situ together with documentation and a clear chain of custody. Was it in close proximity to the Brno? If it was fitted to the Brno they could have collected that as well but returned it to WHF having eliminated it as an exhibit because it had been cleaned of fingerprints and could not be used. They kept the SM because of the blood.
We only have the police version as to why they were looking for the source of the paint. Even here it appears they were asked about the paint in relation to ‘paint on the end of a rifle’.
The most vivid and detailed descriptions of a SM were provided by the family.
Because they are said to have found it, the police having missed it, no photographic record or an independent witness, to the find exists. We must rely on the family’s statements as to its journey from the finding to receipt by the police. Basil Cock’s statement appears to suggest another and wrong dating of the find.
To link it to the crime scene it had to have a linkage point.
They chose the paint from the AGA.
The scratches
There appear to be two types of mark on the underside of the mantle. Chips and scratches. Both could have been made in the same time episode but it is possible that they were made on different dates and we cannot know which was made first if they were not made during the same episode.
In my experience the chips were most likely made by a blow striking the surface, denting the underlying soft wood and causing the thick layer of paint to fracture. Some paint could have been trapped on the striking object. Without being misogynistic I am sure male readers may have come across this phenomenon when doing DIY badly. The scratches are more reminiscent of an object being dragged across the surface and again this process could leave paint on the object if the surface was pitted or grooved as the end of SM’ are.
The GER for DB1
This document shown on the ‘Lest we forget’ thread appears to be the original produced on 13/08/85 with an emphasis on blood location. Two major additions have been made. One indicates the location of the paint. The other indicates information with regard to the flake and bloodied baffles found by MF. The latter looks like Haywards writing. Who made the note about the paint? To my eyes it was not written by the originator of the document. (GH?)
The SM is recorded as DB1 even though RC said he understood it was found by SBJ and it was only later he realised his error. How and when did he realise this error? If he had not realised it by13/08/85 why did he allow the lab to record it as DB1 and not SBJ1? Three people have initialled the document.
Thoughts and issues.
It is possible that at some point during the investigation the police (Cook) realised that the early ‘fuming’ could have destroyed the viability of any blood inside the SM. Was this done on purpose? (see earlier posts). Was this issue raised by the family who knew more about ‘back spatter’? Did they accuse the police of destroying potential evidence due to incompetence?
This issue took place when Taff was in charge. Were they worried about possible use of the SM by the TFG? I can envisage circumstances which might lead them to use it.
I believe an SM was found on the day. If we are to believe that SJ went back to the farm to collect it. Of course he could say he collected it from the family. It is clear even at that stage that it was of significance but why we cannot know. They knew the Anschutz had been used but when JB told them his story they twigged his SM might have been involved and they needed to rule it in or out. One SM had already been found by DB.
I suggest that DB1 was collected as part of the clean-up operation. DB1 SM DB2 Fire Debris, etc..
Was the silencer used.
It is possible that Sheila did fit a SM but discarded it at some point most likely because it was unwieldy. It is possible that she hit Nevil with it and that on an upstroke it contacted the mantle. It is possible that she wanted to use it but cross threaded it and because it was locked (this can happen with a cross thread). she tried to remove it by bashing it around, again catching the mantle on an upstroke.
I do not agree with the notion that the lack of paint on the carpet below the impact point is indicative of foul play. It is suggested that this indicates the scratches were added later (no paint in the crime scene photos). The chips whenever they happened or whatever caused them could have ricocheted anywhere. The scratches are too superficial to reveal the underlying paint. If the police moved Nevil as I suggest they could have moved/repositioned the carpet as part of that process. Given the nature of the knurled end such scratches would be more likely to produce a fine dust and would need microscopic technology to see them. It would however allow paint to accumulate and collect in the surface dips.
Were the police involved?
The most powerful exhibit which was the lynch-pin of the prosecution case has by coincidence or design left the police appearing to be ‘squeaky clean’. They did not find it and it only came into their control days after the event. If the switch was made at the Laboratory (as I suggest), and subsequently this was exposed, the FSS could be blamed for mixing the SM’s up.
The family could have found the second silencer much later but without bringing the date of this find forward they could not account for a silencer being found prior to the 13/08/85 and its testing and documentation which would be required as part of the overall process. The police could not change the FSS documentation They also had to bear in mind that police officers and staff at the FSS knew of ‘A’ SM from the early stages of the investigation.
I am firmly of the opinion that the Pargeter SM was present with his rifle.
-
David's claim that the relatives took diluted period blood from a bucket of water was dismissed years ago.
It is impossible to do.
Err...
Not if there was heavy menstral blood embedded into the panties belonging primarily to 'Sheila' in the kitchen bucket, as alluded to..
-
Err...
Not if there was heavy menstral blood embedded into the panties belonging primarily to 'Sheila' in the kitchen bucket, as alluded to..
I tend to dismiss the period blood theory. Whilst it is possible that some more dense blood material was lodged in the panties the family could not have known when they would have access to the property and they certainly would not have known that the buckets of blood stained clothes were in the kitchen. Thus they would have had to conceive and execute their plan in 24 hours or less. Whilst possible it really does seem most unlikely.
-
The scratches on the Aga
I have seen no evidence that GH found paint on the item DB1 on 13/08/85.
Its stated in the 13/08/85 holab form -
"Red stain on gridded pattern - KM negative"
-
The scratches on the Aga
I have set out my scenario for the SM. There were two. The original Pargeter owned (DB1) and the Bamber SM which was manipulated to be a replica by creating the features of DB1 and the processes it had been subjected to. It was thereafter called DRB1
They had to switch them for the following reasons.
1 It was the Pargeter SM which was the original focus of their attention.
This would not ‘wash’ according to their scenario and would surely raise questions with regard to his Brno rifle and why would JB use AP’s SM on the Anschutz.
The SM DB1 was subjected to a lot of scientific tests and at least one dismantling. These activities had produced no evidence of worth apart from GH’s declaration that the blood was human in origin. Some claim it could have been rabbit because of a shared enzyme. No flake was found, even though it was said to be loose between baffles, when dismantled by RC.
2 It did not have paint on the knurled end.
Without the paint it could not be linked to the crime scene.
I have seen no evidence that GH found paint on the item DB1 on 13/08/85. Her statements do not mention paint. Her trial testimony revolves around the blood smears and her ability to use the Rifle with a SM attached. Her COLP statements are with regard to the changing of exhibit numbers, (part of the effort to examine JB’s complaint). However, she may have seen paint, but was being asked about blood, so she confined her report to that. Though you would imagine for clarity she would have mentioned it.
If I am wrong in this aspect, please direct me to the evidence. I will have to adjust my thinking.
3 They could not use the Pargeter SM DB1 at trial. If JB was asked to identify it as the family owned SM he would know it was not his.
If the police wanted use the original SM (DB1) they would have had to produce evidence of its use and presence. They would need to provide crime scene photos of it in situ together with documentation and a clear chain of custody. Was it in close proximity to the Brno? If it was fitted to the Brno they could have collected that as well but returned it to WHF having eliminated it as an exhibit because it had been cleaned of fingerprints and could not be used. They kept the SM because of the blood.
We only have the police version as to why they were looking for the source of the paint. Even here it appears they were asked about the paint in relation to ‘paint on the end of a rifle’.
The most vivid and detailed descriptions of a SM were provided by the family.
Because they are said to have found it, the police having missed it, no photographic record or an independent witness, to the find exists. We must rely on the family’s statements as to its journey from the finding to receipt by the police. Basil Cock’s statement appears to suggest another and wrong dating of the find.
To link it to the crime scene it had to have a linkage point.
They chose the paint from the AGA.
The scratches
There appear to be two types of mark on the underside of the mantle. Chips and scratches. Both could have been made in the same time episode but it is possible that they were made on different dates and we cannot know which was made first if they were not made during the same episode.
In my experience the chips were most likely made by a blow striking the surface, denting the underlying soft wood and causing the thick layer of paint to fracture. Some paint could have been trapped on the striking object. Without being misogynistic I am sure male readers may have come across this phenomenon when doing DIY badly. The scratches are more reminiscent of an object being dragged across the surface and again this process could leave paint on the object if the surface was pitted or grooved as the end of SM’ are.
The GER for DB1
This document shown on the ‘Lest we forget’ thread appears to be the original produced on 13/08/85 with an emphasis on blood location. Two major additions have been made. One indicates the location of the paint. The other indicates information with regard to the flake and bloodied baffles found by MF. The latter looks like Haywards writing. Who made the note about the paint? To my eyes it was not written by the originator of the document. (GH?)
The SM is recorded as DB1 even though RC said he understood it was found by SBJ and it was only later he realised his error. How and when did he realise this error? If he had not realised it by13/08/85 why did he allow the lab to record it as DB1 and not SBJ1? Three people have initialled the document.
Thoughts and issues.
It is possible that at some point during the investigation the police (Cook) realised that the early ‘fuming’ could have destroyed the viability of any blood inside the SM. Was this done on purpose? (see earlier posts). Was this issue raised by the family who knew more about ‘back spatter’? Did they accuse the police of destroying potential evidence due to incompetence?
This issue took place when Taff was in charge. Were they worried about possible use of the SM by the TFG? I can envisage circumstances which might lead them to use it.
I believe an SM was found on the day. If we are to believe that SJ went back to the farm to collect it. Of course he could say he collected it from the family. It is clear even at that stage that it was of significance but why we cannot know. They knew the Anschutz had been used but when JB told them his story they twigged his SM might have been involved and they needed to rule it in or out. One SM had already been found by DB.
I suggest that DB1 was collected as part of the clean-up operation. DB1 SM DB2 Fire Debris, etc..
Was the silencer used.
It is possible that Sheila did fit a SM but discarded it at some point most likely because it was unwieldy. It is possible that she hit Nevil with it and that on an upstroke it contacted the mantle. It is possible that she wanted to use it but cross threaded it and because it was locked (this can happen with a cross thread). she tried to remove it by bashing it around, again catching the mantle on an upstroke.
I do not agree with the notion that the lack of paint on the carpet below the impact point is indicative of foul play. It is suggested that this indicates the scratches were added later (no paint in the crime scene photos). The chips whenever they happened or whatever caused them could have ricocheted anywhere. The scratches are too superficial to reveal the underlying paint. If the police moved Nevil as I suggest they could have moved/repositioned the carpet as part of that process. Given the nature of the knurled end such scratches would be more likely to produce a fine dust and would need microscopic technology to see them. It would however allow paint to accumulate and collect in the surface dips.
Were the police involved?
The most powerful exhibit which was the lynch-pin of the prosecution case has by coincidence or design left the police appearing to be ‘squeaky clean’. They did not find it and it only came into their control days after the event. If the switch was made at the Laboratory (as I suggest), and subsequently this was exposed, the FSS could be blamed for mixing the SM’s up.
The family could have found the second silencer much later but without bringing the date of this find forward they could not account for a silencer being found prior to the 13/08/85 and its testing and documentation which would be required as part of the overall process. The police could not change the FSS documentation They also had to bear in mind that police officers and staff at the FSS knew of ‘A’ SM from the early stages of the investigation.
I am firmly of the opinion that the Pargeter SM was present with his rifle.
Absolutely 100% Correct!
-
in your opionion mike how many silencers are there in this case.
-
Its stated in the 13/08/85 holab form -
"Red stain on gridded pattern - KM negative"
This just means its a non blood stain not that it is paint. Like the brown stain which is also KM negative. She does not even suggest what made the stain and if it was paint it would need to be ingrained and she would have mentioned this aspect. Beetroot juice? tomato sauce? red wine? raspberry juice? lipstick? Need I go on?
-
Absolutely 100% Correct!
Thank you for your support and on behalf of innocence supporters another big thank you is deserved. The Herculean effort you have made to upload the documents and your numerous posts have made it possible to examine the case which without your intervention would not have been posiible.
-
The CT say there are two silencers. While simultaneously agreeing the relatives handed in a silencer with human blood which matched Sheila's blood group - courtesy of RB.
Why would the police then need two silencers if the relatives had handed in one with the required paint & Blood on?
-
The relatives handed in a silencer. The police handed it to the lab. Straight forward.
The relatives would not hand in a silencer with nothing on. The only way the police would know what the blood and paint was, was by sending it for tests.
A second silencer is not needed.
-
The CT say one silencer is needed - the one with RB's blood in & which the relatives scratched the aga with.
Then the CT say two silencers were floating around.
-
This just means its a non blood stain not that it is paint. Like the brown stain which is also KM negative. She does not even suggest what made the stain and if it was paint it would need to be engrained and she would have mentioned this aspect. Beetroot juice? tomato sauce? red wine? raspberry juice? lipstick? Need I go on?
Was she asked to? It was a preliminary examination.
So your theory now is - that the relatives mistook tomato sauce or lipstick on the silencer for red paint from the AGA. The police then planted red paint on it later on? :))
-
Was she asked to?
It would never have been explained anyway---like the burns on Nevill's back, June's black eye and also the covered wound on Sheila's lower abdomen.
-
It would never have been explained anyway---like the burns on Nevill's back, June's black eye and also the covered wound on Sheila's lower abdomen.
Why are you still querying June's black eye when I uploaded the pathologist's trial testimony on Tuesday which makes clear it was caused by one of the gunshots she sustained to her head?
-
Why are you still querying June's black eye when I uploaded the pathologist's trial testimony on Tuesday which makes clear it was caused by one of the gunshots she sustained to her head?
How could he differentiate the cause, between an adjacent bullet wound and blunt trauma to the area, for example, by a punch?
-
Was she asked to? It was a preliminary examination.
So your theory now is - that the relatives mistook tomato sauce or lipstick on the silencer for red paint from the AGA. The police then planted red paint on it later on? :))
Do not make such stupid comments. You know full well what I am saying and what I believe happened. You are reduced to stupidity because you are on the wrong side of the argument. Grow up. Back on the naughty step for you, for childish posting.
David1819 "Was she asked to? It was a preliminary examination."
You are even making a comment on a point which is covered in my post, reply191. Too much skim reading maybe?
-
How could he differentiate the cause, between an adjacent bullet wound and blunt trauma to the area, for example, by a punch?
Errr maybe its coz he's a pathologist and that's what he spent years studying and training for but no doubt those here no better ::)
-
Errr maybe its coz he's a pathologist and that's what he spent years studying and training for but no doubt those here no better ::)
That's not a valid answer.
-
That's not a valid answer.
Ok how's this. The grisly murder of Sarah Everard involved her body being burned. She was identified by her dental records. The pathologist was able to conclude she died from compression to the neck.
Back to Bamber. You do realise that the Home Office patholgist was fact-checked by a heavy weight pathologist for the defence namely Prof Bernard Knight CBE.
-
Errr maybe its coz he's a pathologist and that's what he spent years studying and training for but no doubt those here no better ::)
It makes no difference how many years studying/ training etc., they're still open to reneging, more so because they can blind others with science.
-
It makes no difference how many years studying/ training etc., they're still open to reneging, more so because they can blind others with science.
What do you mean by reneging?
Part of the role of an expert is to impart information in a way the lay person can understand.
-
Ok how's this. The grisly murder of Sarah Everard involved her body being burned. She was identified by her dental records. The pathologist was able to conclude she died from compression to the neck.
Back to Bamber. You do realise that the Home Office patholgist was fact-checked by a heavy weight pathologist for the defence namely Prof Bernard Knight CBE.
I'll change the question, to help you. How does a pathologist rule out a black eye caused by blunt trauma.
-
What do you mean by reneging?
Part of the role of an expert is to impart information in a way the lay person can understand.
Just as if ! These people aren't infallible you know. Didn't he say that Sheila had been clean ?
-
Just as if ! These people aren't infallible you know. Didn't he say that Sheila had been clean ?
Who would you suggest carry out post-mortems then if not pathologists?
-
oh 2 silencers i was thinking there was3 for some reason.
-
oh 2 silencers i was thinking there was3 for some reason.
NGB1066 has recently said that 5 silencers were involved. I think 4 were examined at the lab.
-
Who would you suggest carry out post-mortems then if not pathologists?
I didn't say that though did I ?
-
I didn't say that though did I ?
Did I say you did?
Who would you suggest carry out post-mortems if not pathologists?
The pathologists for the defence and prosection had/have lengthy careers. Is there any evidence of incompetence or wrongdoing? If not what do you think the statistical chances are of both of them cocking up in this case?
-
Do not make such stupid comments. You know full well what I am saying and what I believe happened. You are reduced to stupidity because you are on the wrong side of the argument. Grow up. Back on the naughty step for you, for childish posting.
David1819 "Was she asked to? It was a preliminary examination."
You are even making a comment on a point which is covered in my post, reply191. Too much skim reading maybe?
Perhaps you should take a closer look at the document and read the arrow next to red text. "Paint = Mantlepiece at farm"
-
Perhaps you should take a closer look at the document and read the arrow next to red text. "Paint = Mantlepiece at farm"
That has been added, it was not written by GH and we have no idea who wrote it because there is no attributable signature to accompany it. Nor do we know when it was added because there is no date. You still have not shown that there was paint on DB1.
-
That has been added, it was not written by GH and we have no idea who wrote it because there is no attributable signature to accompany it. Nor do we know when it was added because there is no date. You still have not shown that there was paint on DB1.
For some 'inexplicable reason' there does 'not appear to be any Lab' diagram in relation to the submission of a silencer', from Essex police, to the lab', dated the '30th August 1985'. This is probably due to the fact, that Essex police 'did not submit one to the lab' on that date'..
Only two official lab' diagram documents exist, or have ever been disclosed - the first one dated the '13th August 1985', a second one, dated the '25th September 1985'. The absence of any official lab' diagram regarding the suggestion that police submitted, or took a silencer to the lab' at all, on the '30th August 1985', has led to a very startling line of enquiry, which has devastating consequences, for the prosecutions case, and the appalling behaviour of many prosection witnesses who took part in the plot to introduce false evidence capable of convincing a jury, of 'Jeremy Bambers' guilt...
-
Only two official lab' diagram documents exist, or have ever been disclosed - the first one dated the '13th August 1985', a second one, dated the '25th September 1985'. The absence of any official lab' diagram regarding the suggestion that police submitted, or took a silencer to the lab' at all, on the '30th August 1985', has led to a very startling line of enquiry, which has devastating consequences, for the prosecutions case, and the appalling behaviour of many prosection witnesses who took part in the plot to introduce false evidence capable of convincing a jury, of 'Jeremy Bambers' guilt...
Evidence has emerged confirming the fact that, on this date [30th August 1985] that 'a small dried flake of blood' [recovered by police from 'David Boutflour' who claimed that he had scraped (it) off the silencers metal end cap with use of a razor blade] was the item 'DB/1' which Essex police submitted to Huntingdon Lab' on that day [not a silencer] . What 'we now know', is that, when 'he' [`David Boutflour'] states that 'he kept it' [the flake] because it fascinated him, does not make any sense whatsoever..
' The flake' taken from 'David Boutflour' by police at some stage before the end of August 1985, was originally exhibit reference 'DB/1', Lab' item no. 23, It was 'this flake' [not a silencer] that was examined at the Huntingdon lab' which in turn produced the blood grouping evidence, on the 12th, 13th, 18th and the t e found) 19th September 1985! We can now establish, that cops only had 'David Boutflours` word, that' he had recovered' the 'flake' from 'a silencer that the family beleived had been used' on 'one of three guns' used during 'the massacre' . However, it became clear, from 'everyone involved in the find of the second silencer' [10th August 1985] that 'David Boutflour' had 'no opportunty to scrape any blood' from the silencer 'he (claims found at the scene, on that date) In effect 'if' there had only ever been just `one silencer` used during this shooting trajedy, then this fact alone renders the taking of the first silencer ['SBJ/1', item no. 22] 'to the lab' to be examined by 'Glynis Howard' on the '13th August 1985', 'meaningless', since 'DI Cook' [diligent Copper, that he made himself out to be], would subsequently discover that the silencer ['SJ/1', now refferred to as, 'Lab' item no. 22'] had, or 'must have' been 'interferred' with by 'David Boutflour'...
Essex police submitted 'the piece of a dried flake of blood' which 'David Boutflour' claimed to have scraped from the metal end cap of the silencer beleived to have been used in the shootings, with use of a razor blade - which Essex police' soon realised that the emergence of the dried flake of blood, proved to problematic, so there must have been a confrontation (of sorts) between 'the police' and 'the relatives' arising out of this matter - hence why, on the '11th September 1985', 'Ann Eaton' handed over to 'DC Oakley' (or 'DC Oakey') the silencer ['DRB/1'] to which relatives were saying was the silencer from which, 'David Boutflour' claimed to have scraped the small flake of dried blood from..
Police were originally pessimistic regarding the authentcity of the claim that relatives were introducing this secondsilencer to police, a month after presenting the police with the first silencer found at the scene on the '10th August 1985'. So, whilst the said flake of dried blood ['DB/1'] was already being analysed at the lab' (12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, Essex police had more than a suspicion that relatives were up to no good. So, on the '13th September '[1985], the latest silencer [' DRB/1'] was fingerprinted by 'DS Eastwood silencer silencer was deli ££' and 'DS Davison' [type of test, and results not disclosed] and it was not until the '20th September 1985', that 'this' /'that' silencer in format 'DRB/1', lab' item reference numbers, 23/22 arrived at the Lab'. It bore both, lab' item reference numbers '22/23' because this was the method by which 'the blood grouping results' that were obtained from 'David Boutflours' small piece of 'a dried flake of blood' [`DB/1'], said to have been scraped from the flat service of its metal end cap!
I have all the police and Lab' documentation to now be able to prove and establish that this was and is, how the blood group evidence, and the red paint particle evidence were associated with/to this silencer, by means involving foul play, or to put it another way, 'dishonestly'...
-
Evidence has emerged confirming the fact that, on this date [30th August 1985] that 'a small dried flake of blood' was the item which Essex police submitted to Huntingdon Lab' on that day. What we now know, is that, when he states that 'he kept it' [the flake] because it fascinated him does not make any sense whatso ever..
Please provide evidence of the emerged evidence.
-
Please provide evidence of the emerged evidence.
Official and authentic [Huntingdon] lab' documentation 'confirms the actual existence' of 'the flake' in question. Ironically though, the 'exhibit reference' to that 'particular flake' does not bear any 'identifying point of feference'. However, please be reassured that 'this flake of dried blood' was/is the flake of dried blood which 'David Boutflour' scraped from the outside of the silencer [not the inside]...
-
Official and authentic [Huntingdon] lab' documentation 'confirms the actual existence' of 'the flake' in question. Ironically though, the 'exhibit reference' to that 'particular flake' does not bear any 'identifying point of feference'. However, please be reassured that 'this flake of dried blood' was/is the flake of dried blood which 'David Boutflour' scraped from the outside of the silencer [not the inside]...
I am never reassured by anyone about anything unless I have sufficient evidence to reach my own conclusions.
-
I am never reassured by anyone about anything unless I have sufficient evidence to reach my own conclusions.
Me neither---least of all by some who call themselves professionals !
-
Me neither---least of all by some who call themselves professionals !
In which case you will appreciate the need to support your posts by reference to case material or some other supporting evidence rather than just trying to wing it on the basis of your age, being a matriarch and a career in nursing.
-
In which case you will appreciate the need to support your posts by reference to case material or some other supporting evidence rather than just trying to wing it on the basis of your age, being a matriarch and a career in nursing.
" On the basis of your age ?" What's that got to do with anything ? How patronising ! Look at the Queen----she's 95 for God's sake.
-
" On the basis of your age ?" What's that got to do with anything ? How patronising ! Look at the Queen----she's 95 for God's sake.
The queen doesn't go around telling everyone she knows best based on longevity, being a matriarch and head of state. AND she refers to her red boxes! She doesn't flood the coutry with misinformation.
-
The queen doesn't go around telling everyone she knows best based on longevity, being a matriarch and head of state. AND she refers to her red boxes! She doesn't flood the coutry with misinformation.
No, it's the likes of you and your ilk who think they know better than anyone else ! And no better than the media when it comes to twisting words/ information. It tells by your posts !!
-
Thank God I've had the ability to remain one step ahead of people like you, which equates to half the popularity.
-
No, it's the likes of you and your ilk who think they know better than anyone else ! And no better than the media when it comes to twisting words/ information. It tells by your posts !!
My posts are referenced by case material. I either direct others to where they can find information or I quote it as I have with Rob this morning. You on the other hand sit here all day every day flooding the board with misinformation. If you are just seeking company why not spend more time with your family or join a local group etc?
-
Where's all this misinformation that I'm supposed to be flooding the board with ?
BTW, I have enough to do cooking, cleaning washing and ironing to be joining any clubs. Those places are for people with literally nothing to do or think about. I prefer my own company anyway---always have done.
-
I thought it worthwhile to point out the following.
In his statement dated 13/11/85 MF records that he received DRB1 silencer on 30/08/85. His statement is after JB was charged.
However he sent a silencer to JH on 12/09/85 and sent it as DB1. See JH's handwritten notes on the red forum as previously indicated.
If they had discovered the mistake between DB1 and DRB1 by the 30/08/85 why was MF still referring to it as DB1 on the 12/09/85.
My guess is that he changed his statement later to support the mis quoting earlier but did not know JH had used its original nomenclature in his hand written notes.
This may explain why MT could not find a record of DRB1 being sent to the lab on that date (30/08/85). It was most likely sent to MF as DB1 along with other ballistics evidence for test firing etc.
-
David Bird and Essex police misled the COLP enquiry to disguise the fact that DB found DB1.
They created a forged statement dated 24/10/85.
This forgery contained reference to DB1 – DB7 not just DB6 socks as is shown on the statement we have.
He made a key error by recording DB1 in his pocket book TWICE. He calls it a mental aberration.
I have read the whole of the document supplied by David1819. It is a long read but is very interesting.
All of my previous assertions about the find and what was done are correct as shown by this document.
For readers who have little time I summarise some of the key points relating to DB1 since there is a lot of other details which do not relate to DB1. I know it will take time but a full reading will give greater clarity and prove that unlike some I do not do selective evidence presentation, unlike some others. I study it all in detail. David 1819 comes to mind. In these endeavours you have to do the ‘hard yards’
Summary
He freely admits that he collected exhibits when at crime scenes Sheet 971. He also had his own exhibit sheets. On sheet 973 they reference a previous comment which suggests there may have been another taped interview because of the dialogue. It may have been a written submission he presented earlier.
He says he was only responsible for collecting odd exhibits sheet 971.
On sheet 975 they question him with regard to documents called CID6’s. In the following pages they question him more closely about these documents. We do not have these documents but it is clear they suspect these have been rewritten or changed because there is a lack of dates recorded. He says the dates are as shown on the top of documents.
I suggest you read pages 982 – 988. These show he had another statement they were discussing. It is here that we see that he recorded the soil sample twice in his pocket book and that he had added the final line for his 10/09/85 entry. He had to do this so that it could be DB1 his first find but he had already recorded it on another later date. A mental aberration! We do not have the other pages of his pocket book.
The new statement contains all his exhibits DB1 – DB7 which now includes DB7 tampons. On sheet 990 they question him about issues with a Holab3 form which they have issues with regard to who compiled it suggests they thought it had been changed or forged.
On sheet 984 timed at 19.12 of the interview. They talk about the fire debris which came from the fire pit. Unfortunately, they do not ask what and how much of this was taken, unlike the soil sample, where he says he collected about a kilo or bag of sugar. They do not pursue how he selected this sample from a ‘huge’ pit of smouldering waste.
On sheets 1014 – 1016 they return to the CID6’s and the text clearly indicates a different statement dated 24/10/85.
This document confirms all the suggestions that I have made.
He did find DB1 – DB5 on the day collecting the socks DB6 and the Tampons DB7 when he visited the farm on 10/09/85, or it may be that these 2 items were also found on the day but DB7 was not sent to the lab and does not appear on JH’s specimen testing list.
Conclusions
Any full and fair analysis of this taped interview would support my contention that DB found DB1 on the day 07/08/85.
It is also clear that he lied to the enquiry in many instances and sought at times to misrepresent himself as someone low down the pecking order of those working the case and collecting exhibits. He says that on the day he only took photographs and was at the beck and call of others.
As Donald J Trump would say ‘Lock him up’.
Later he made a forged statement for the COLP enquiry. It is clear as I suggested that he made all the finds on the day and they were then all moved back on-bloc to September 10th and 11th after he returned from holiday. They did however have to come up with a replacement DB1 they chose the soil sample. It seems highly likely that EP changed CID6’s and Holab3 forms to back up the forged statement.
I leave it to others to pass judgement on the COLP and their handling of this issue. Should for example they have pressed him further on the Fire Debris and other issues. On the other hand, they had been misled by the forged statement and a pack of lies.
The riddle of the blue socks.
I wonder if any members can explain the following.
How did David Bird DB collect a valid case exhibit DB6 Blue socks from main bedroom on the 12/09/85.
These socks appear in crime scene photos, which most will have seen.
On the Wednesday after the 'Tragedy' and on JB's approval the carpets and bedding were burned.
The following weekend JB burnt his parents clothes.
Ann Eaton says she was a very frequent visitor to the house once the crime scene was closed and the keys returned to the family.
So how was DB able to collect this evidence some 33 days later if the socks had been moved to destroy the carpet?
-
The riddle of the blue socks.
I wonder if any members can explain the following.
How did David Bird DB collect a valid case exhibit DB6 Blue socks from main bedroom on the 12/09/85.
These socks appear in crime scene photos, which most will have seen.
On the Wednesday after the 'Tragedy' and on JB's approval the carpets and bedding were burned.
The following weekend JB burnt his parents clothes.
Ann Eaton says she was a very frequent visitor to the house once the crime scene was closed and the keys returned to the family.
So how was DB able to collect this evidence some 33 days later if the socks had been moved to destroy the carpet?
I think what may have happened was that parts of the carpet which were heavily bloodstained were cut out and removed along with the bedding but the socks remained intact.
-
I think what may have happened was that parts of the carpet which were heavily bloodstained were cut out and removed along with the bedding but the socks remained intact.
They burned the carpets and bedding. Yes samples were cut for blood analysis. They could not burn the carpets without disturbing the socks. There are blood stains from June surrounding the socks. Since the area ceased to be a crime scene even after this why did JB not burn them the following weekend. which he would be entitled to do since the property was no longer a crime scene?
-
They burned the carpets and bedding. Yes samples were cut for blood analysis. They could not burn the carpets without disturbing the socks. There are blood stains from June surrounding the socks. Since the area ceased to be a crime scene even after this why did JB not burn them the following weekend. which he would be entitled to do since the property was no longer a crime scene?
Have another go you're allowed to with riddles.
-
I'm surprised that SJ didn't whizz them away with the shoes he took ?
Why did he tell AE " you didn't see that " as he waltzed off with the the shoes tucked under his arm ?
Wasn't it the police who did the burning and not JB as all he'd done was give permission for the job to be done ? I didn't think he was at WHF at that stage anyway ?
-
I'm surprised that SJ didn't whizz them away with the shoes he took ?
Why did he tell AE " you didn't see that " as he waltzed off with the the shoes tucked under his arm ?
Wasn't it the police who did the burning and not JB as all he'd done was give permission for the job to be done ? I didn't think he was at WHF at that stage anyway ?
The police did the first burning of carpets. Later that week JB burned his parents clothes.
-
The police did the first burning of carpets. Later that week JB burnt his parents clothes.
Ah right. I knew that JB had gone to WHF eventually.
-
The riddle of the blue socks.
I wonder if any members can explain the following.
How did David Bird DB collect a valid case exhibit DB6 Blue socks from main bedroom on the 12/09/85.
These socks appear in crime scene photos, which most will have seen.
On the Wednesday after the 'Tragedy' and on JB's approval the carpets and bedding were burned.
The following weekend JB burnt his parents clothes.
Ann Eaton says she was a very frequent visitor to the house once the crime scene was closed and the keys returned to the family.
So how was DB able to collect this evidence some 33 days later if the socks had been moved to destroy the carpet?
What evidence exists that DC Bird collected the socks 33 days later? Surely the important thing is that they were preserved and available for forensic analysis which showed they contained June's blood group. How was/is Bamber disadvantaged by any of this? It may be that blood stained items were treated slightly differently for health and safety reasons. Remember at trial the judge pointed out to jurors that gloves were available when handling exhibits. Also this period was around the height of the AIDS awareness advertising campaign which caused people to be apprehensive around blood.
DC Hammersley confirmed in his trial testimony that nothing of evidential value was lost. What if anything was destroyed that may have assisted Bamber?
It seem the broken butt was given the exhibit number DRH/21 and a small piece of wood DRH/24. I've no idea about the latter?
-
What evidence exists that DC Bird collected the socks 33 days later? Surely the important thing is that they were preserved and available for forensic analysis which showed they contained June's blood group. How was/is Bamber disadvantaged by any of this? It may be that blood stained items were treated slightly differently for health and safety reasons. Remember at trial the judge pointed out to jurors that gloves were available when handling exhibits. Also this period was around the height of the AIDS awareness advertising campaign which caused people to be apprehensive around blood.
DC Hammersley confirmed in his trial testimony that nothing of evidential value was lost. What if anything was destroyed that may have assisted Bamber?
It seem the broken butt was given the exhibit number DRH/21 and a small piece of wood DRH/24. I've no idea about the latter?
DB claims in his witness statement that he collected them on 12/09/85 and he repeated this to the COLP enquiry. They cannot have still been in situ on this date. You need to examine the full issue surrounding the finding of exhibits DB1 - DB7. He has lied. I do not know why you raise the DRH issues which were not part of my accusation. Can I suggest you read the transcript of his interview and the arguments I have made involving this issue in the previous posts I have made. It is clear he made or forged two witness statements dated 24/10/85.
-
DB claims in his witness statement that he collected them on 12/09/85 and he repeated this to the COLP enquiry. They cannot have still been in situ on this date. You need to examine the full issue surrounding the finding of exhibits DB1 - DB7. He has lied. I do not know why you raise the DRH issues which were not part of my accusation. Can I suggest you read the transcript of his interview and the arguments I have made involving this issue in the previous posts I have made. It is clear he made or forged two witness statements dated 24/10/85.
These false statements were used to conceal the fact that he found a SM DB1 on the day. The family may have presented a SM to the police but this episode shows there were at least two SM's and that they took one as an exhibit on the day but this had to be hidden as part of the framing. Please read the facts and the posts I have made before responding. If collected 33 days later after the crime scene had officially closed they would no longer be valid evidence. That however is not the point. The point is that the socks reveal the concealment of DB finding a SM DB1 on the day.
-
DB claims in his witness statement that he collected them on 12/09/85 and he repeated this to the COLP enquiry. They cannot have still been in situ on this date. You need to examine the full issue surrounding the finding of exhibits DB1 - DB7. He has lied. I do not know why you raise the DRH issues which were not part of my accusation. Can I suggest you read the transcript of his interview and the arguments I have made involving this issue in the previous posts I have made. It is clear he made or forged two witness statements dated 24/10/85.
What reason would he have to lie? How are the socks in any way contentious?
-
The police did the first burning of carpets. Later that week JB burnt his parents clothes.
Later that week JB burnt his parents clothes.
----------
That was helpful of him.
-
Later that week JB burnt his parents clothes.
----------
That was helpful of him.
So the burning of his parents clothes was an offence as well ?
-
So the burning of his parents clothes was an offence as well ?
Not an offence.
Bamber was very pro active in the days after the massacre. Didn't know he also found time to burn his parents clothes.
-
I've added 'burning his parents clothes'.
Within the first month -
Meeting Basil Cock the day after the massacre.
Telling AE he planned to auction WHF valuables. Two days after the massacre.
Offering Mary Mugford June's car.
Buying a Hugo Boss suit.
Authorising the burning of carpets.
Inviting Brett over.
Asking another woman out in front of Julie.
Deciding the bodies would be cremated.
Two foreign holidays.
A foreign drug deal.
Three UK holidays - Pevensey, Burnham, Eastbourne.
Clearing out Sheila's flat.
Clearing out WHF valuables.
Taking items to Southerby's.
Monitoring Julie.
Looking for Nevill's wallet.
Looking for Nevill's watch.
Meeting a NOTW journalist.
Breaking into WHF to collect things.
Taking the TV from WHF.
Buying several newspapers on the same day.
Videoing news coverage of the funeral.
Going back into WHF into Nevill's office.
Staying at Colin's.
Burning his parents clothes.
-
Not an offence.
Bamber was very pro active in the days after the massacre. Didn't know he also found time to burn his parents clothes.
He had all the time in the world didn't he, being betwixt and between the funeral and answering unnecessary questions about the murders ? Afterall, he didn't scarper did he as a lot of murderers do ?
-
What reason would he have to lie? How are the socks in any way contentious?
In your answer to this question you are showing that you have not assimilated the evidence of his statement and his taped interview with the COLP. Nor have you read my argument as set out in my posts. He found the SM DB1 between the 07/08/85 and the time the crime scene closure when the keys were returned on 09/08/85. You are clearly suffering from guilters denial. A problem of not wishing to explore uncomfortable facts that suggest that the case against JB was a fabrication. He lied to deceive the COLP of his finding of DB1 and substituting a soil sample in its place.
If it was shown that there were two SM's the case against JB falls since the Crowns case was based on there only being one.
I would engage further but until you have absorbed the other side of the argument I would be wasting my time. We do not, unfortunately, have a pill for guilters denial. Unless and until you make a cogent argument that fully explains why he made two different statements on the same subject, on the same day which differ in terms of the items collected and why he deleted the SM in favour of a soil sample and then in order to make it DB1 made an additional entry in his pocket book, when he had previously recorded it at a later time, there is nothing to discuss.
You also need to explain how he was able to collect the socks in situ 33 days later.
Can posters let me know if Adam has solved the riddle of the blue socks I have him on ignore. I do not engage with puerile posters?
-
In your answer to this question you are showing that you have not assimilated the evidence of his statement and his taped interview with the COLP. Nor have you read my argument as set out in my posts. He found the SM DB1 between the 07/08/85 and the time the crime scene closure when the keys were returned on 09/08/85. You are clearly suffering from guilters denial. A problem of not wishing to explore uncomfortable facts that suggest that the case against JB was a fabrication. He lied to deceive the COLP of his finding of DB1 and substituting a soil sample in its place.
If it was shown that there were two SM's the case against JB falls since the Crowns case was based on there only being one.
I would engage further but until you have absorbed the other side of argument I would be wasting my time. We do not, unfortunately, have a pill for guilters denial. Unless and until you make a cogent argument that fully explains why he made two different statements on the same subject, on the same day which differ in terms of the items collected and why he deleted the SM in favour of a soil sample and then in order to make it DB1 made an additional entry in his pocket book, when he had previously recorded it at a later time, there is nothing to discuss.
You also need to explain how he was able to collect the socks in situ 33 days later.
Can posters let me know if Adam has solved the riddle of the blue socks I have him on ignore. I do not engage with puerile posters?
Bubo you are barking up the wrong tree.
-
He found the SM DB1 between the 07/08/85 and the time the crime scene closure when the keys were returned on 09/08/85. You are clearly suffering from guilters denial. A problem of not wishing to explore uncomfortable facts that suggest that the case against JB was a fabrication. He lied to deceive the COLP of his finding of DB1 and substituting a soil sample in its place.
According to my research, 'DC Bird' did 'not originally find the 1st silencer' ['DB/1'] at the scene, at 'the beginning of the police investigation' into 'these shootings' ['DS Jones', did] 'SBJ/1'. It is much more likely, that his original exhibit [`DB/1'] assigned to his name, `was`/ `is` either, (a) 'the .22 brno bolt action rifle, or (b) 'the . 22 [BSA] air rifle ('pellet gun')..
-
Bubo you are barking up the wrong tree.
I haven't finished looking into this yet.
Is Bubo barking up the wrong tree? How do you explain the blue socks collected from the farmhouse when it was no longer a scene of crime?
-
I haven't finished looking into this yet.
Is Bubo barking up the wrong tree? How do you explain the blue socks collected from the farmhouse when it was no longer a scene of crime?
Nobody was living in the house and thus the socks remained in one place. Nobody bothered to move them.
Yes he is barking up the wrong tree. He thinks the blood on the silencer documented on August the 13th was rabbit blood and the red marks were from ketchup. The police or lab staff then swapped this for human blood and red paint from the aga shelf a month later.
-
Nobody was living in the house and thus the socks remained in one place. Nobody bothered to move them.
Yes he is barking up the wrong tree. He thinks the blood on the silencer documented on August the 13th was rabbit blood and the red parks marks were from ketchup. The police or lab staff then swapped this for human blood and red paint from the aga shelf a month later.
He thinks the blood on the silencer documented on August the 13th was rabbit blood and the red parks marks were from ketchup.
----------
Who thinks that?
-
The socks were photographed on the bedroom carpet close to 'Sheila Caffells' re-arranged body! That piece of bedroom carpet was cut out and burned on a fire by police, along with 'bloodstained bed matresses', and 'bed sheets'. Und er such circumstances, the socks would hardly have remained on the bedroom floor [minus the carpet] for a month long period. Essex police probably burnt the socks along with the other bloodstained items. It may well be the case, that the 'spots of blood upon them' provided evidence that blood from 'Sheila' [not 'June Bamber'] was present on the socks, and if so, that 'she' had been 'alive' and 'non fatally wounded' , prior to 'her receiving the second fatal shot' in 'the main bedroom' . We will never know, because 'Essex police', 'burnt almost', 'anything' and 'everything', which was 'capable of providing evidence', as to 'what actually took place'..
-
'Rigor Mortis' had not taken effect, by reference to the repositioning of 'Sheila Caffells right arm' [in the two co-joined crime scene photographs, taken by the police, moments apart]. In addition, 'prey', 'please take note', and 'pay attention' [the `devil is in the detail'], Essex police have not yet offerred an explanation as to why, and how could, the bloodstain on 'Sheilas' nightdress, in the region of her 'right shoulder' / 'armpit', grew in stature, and changed its shape, if 'a bent cop [or two, and possibly more] only' moved', ' Sheila Caffells', right hand'? These two consecutively taken crime scene photographs prove and establish beyond any doubt that bent cops originally staged 'Sheila Caffells' body, to fit their, 'four murders' and 'a suicide' [provision]..
-
I would now like to mention, albeit at such a late stage, that on the occasion that I viewed 'The Senior Investigators Album' [consisting of 581 case photographs] during a visit to 'Ewen Smiths' solicitors office in Birmingham, that I saw lots and lots of crime scene photographs depicting 'Sheila Caffells' body [on 'top of the bed' , and 'on the bedroom floor'] that in three consecutive photographs when police photographed her body laying on top of the bed, that 'She' was wearing the pair of socks which were later moved onto the bedroom floor next to her body, after cops moved her body, from on top of the bed, onto the floor [along with the bible]...
-
Nobody was living in the house and thus the socks remained in one place. Nobody bothered to move them.
Yes he is barking up the wrong tree. He thinks the blood on the silencer documented on August the 13th was rabbit blood and the red parks marks were from ketchup. The police or lab staff then swapped this for human blood and red paint from the aga shelf a month later.
Stop misrepresenting my views. I said that some argue that it was rabbit blood. I never said I thought it was rabbit blood. NGB please note this behaviour he keeps doing it. I said the stains were not blood and suggested other items that produce red stains. I did not say what I thought it actually was.
"This just means its a non blood stain not that it is paint. Like the brown stain which is also KM negative. She does not even suggest what made the stain and if it was paint it would need to be ingrained and she would have mentioned this aspect. Beetroot juice? tomato sauce? red wine? raspberry juice? lipstick? Need I go on?"
"The SM DB1 was subjected to a lot of scientific tests and at least one dismantling. These activities had produced no evidence of worth apart from GH’s declaration that the blood was human in origin. Some claim it could have been rabbit because of a shared enzyme. No flake was found, even though it was said to be loose between baffles, when dismantled by RC."
You are a nasty piece of work. You cannot gainsay my arguments and resort to misrepresenting my views.
I will ask for you to be banned if you keep this behaviour going.
-
... in three consecutive photographs when police photographed her body laying on top of the bed, that 'She' was wearing the pair of socks which were later moved onto the bedroom floor next to her body, after cops moved her body, from on top of the bed, onto the floor [along with the bible]...
When 'DS Jones' and 'DC Clark', entered the main bedroom scene [at `about 9.00 - 9.10am`] 'Sheila Caffells' body was laid on top of the bed [ on left hand side of bed, if viewed from the foot of the bed]. Her 'mothers body' ('June Bamber') was also laid next to her on the bed. 'Sheila' only had one bullet wound to her 'neck' / 'throat' at 'that stage'. In addition (rather significantly), 'she' had 'an open bible' resting 'upon her chest'. Furthermore [according to what 'DS Jones' and 'DC Clark' told 'Ann Eaton' and 'other relatives' at 'Jeremys cottage' ( 9 Head Street, Goldhanger) within about 45 minutes or so of having visited the main bedroom crime scene, back at the farmhouse] that inbetween the two bodies on the bed, was a rifle...
Here, 'lies the truth', regarding 'what actually took place', 'beforehand', and 'afterwards'...
-
The socks were photographed on the bedroom carpet close to 'Sheila Caffells' re-arranged body! That piece of bedroom carpet was cut out and burned on a fire by police, along with 'bloodstained bed matresses', and 'bed sheets'. Und er such circumstances, the socks would hardly have remained on the bedroom floor [minus the carpet] for a month long period. Essex police probably burnt the socks along with the other bloodstained items. It may well be the case, that the 'spots of blood upon them' provided evidence that blood from 'Sheila' [not 'June Bamber'] was present on the socks, and if so, that 'she' had been 'alive' and 'non fatally wounded' , prior to 'her receiving the second fatal shot' in 'the main bedroom' . We will never know, because 'Essex police', 'burnt almost', 'anything' and 'everything', which was 'capable of providing evidence', as to 'what actually took place'..
I think DB collected the socks on the day (DB6) along with his other finds DB1 - DB7. He claims he found them all on 11/09/85 and 12/09/85. but this is a lie because he could not have collected the socks since if they were not collected on the day they would have been burned by EP or Jeremy when he burned his parents clothes. Given that AE removed two buckets of blood stained and soiled clothing, took them home before binning them, are we to believe she left a pair of blood stained socks in situ in the main bedroom.
-
I think DB collected the socks on the day (DB6) along with his other finds DB1 - DB7. He claims he found them all on 11/09/85 and 12/09/85. but this is a lie because he could not have collected the socks since if they were not collected on the day they would have been burned by EP or Jeremy when he burned his parents clothes. Given that AE removed two buckets of blood stained and soiled clothing, took them home before binning them, are we to believe she left a pair of blood stained socks in situ in the main bedroom.
Good points!
-
Would posters please read my posts and ignore what David1819 claims are my views. He is a young man with no scruples or moral sense. He may do to you what he keeps doing to me. Thanks.
-
Soon after, I viewed the [`Senior Investigating Officers album'] `consisting of all '581 photographs', 'Ewen Smith' (Jeremys' solicitor/advocate) joined the 'CCRC' as 'a Commisioner'. This was around the same time, that 'Jeremy' and 'myself' became 'at odds' with 'one another'. The 'fall out' (if 'you'd like to call it that') revolved around me posting 'one photograph' which proved that 'the body of his sister' was not 'only laid on top of the bed', but also, that, 'she' had 'only received one bullet entry wound' to her 'neck' / 'throat' by the time 'police took the relevant photograph'. I 'posted that photograph' to 'Jeremy' to 'HMP Full Sutton' under 'the privilege' afforded to me, after my release from prison (pending an appeal) in July (26th) 1990. After my release, on that occasion, I became 'Jeremy Bambers', 'Mckensie man'. One of the benefits of performing this role, was that I could visit 'Jeremy' twice a day ( morning and afternoon, sessions) without the need for 'Jeremy' to send out a visiting order. All I had to do, was to phone up the prison and tell them when I intended to visit him. Of course, during those conversations, I was asked, whether or not, it would be a morning, or an afternoon visit, or both? The prison service, were very helpful and co-operative. Hence, why over the next decade, or so, that I visited 'him' regularly. We wrote letters to eachother, and had regular telephone call (booked) appointments in the evenings. It was during one such telephone call, that I told 'Jeremy' the good news, concerning the photographic album (581) pictures that I had seen earlier that day, and that I had taken one of the photographs in question, which as far as I was concerned, suggested in the strongest terms imaginable, that 'Essex police' had 'stage managed', 'Sheila Caffells', suicide..
Of course, 'Jeremy' was excited by what 'I was reporting to him' ..
I decided to post into him, the 'said photograph' on the following morning, under the terms of my role, in his case, as his 'Mckensie man' representative...
-
I decided to post into him, the 'said photograph' on the following morning, under the terms of my role, in his case, as his 'Mckensie man' representative...
This act of mine, (tended in good faith) served to become the deterioration of our partnership, because 'unbeknown to me', 'Jeremy' had taken steps to secure the services of 'Giovani de Stefano' as 'his legal representative'.
-
Soon after, I viewed the [`Senior Investigating Officers album'] `consisting of all '581 photographs', 'Ewen Smith' (Jeremys' solicitor/advocate) joined the 'CCRC' as 'a Commisioner'..
The 'Senior Investigating Officer' [in this particular case] was non other than 'ACC', 'Peter Simpson'..
-
The 'Senior Investigating Officer' [in this particular case] was non other than 'ACC', 'Peter Simpson'..
' He' kept the original (complete) photographic album, 'consisting of 581 case photographs', locked 'inside his office safe', with clear instruction that 'no-one' was permitted to remove 'it', from the safe, or to view 'its content', without 'his permission', or ' his consent' ..
-
Meanwhile ['on the far side of the moon'], 'Jeremy Bamber', his 'legal team' and the jury' were all 'deliberately conned' into 'beleiving' and 'accepting' that there only existed 'a total' of 223 case photographs, contained in a seperate photographic album, that 'Essex police' , and the 'CPS' referred to inappropriately as 'The Master Copy Album' [missing 358, other case images]..
-
Meanwhile ['on the far side of the moon'], 'Jeremy Bamber', his 'legal team' and the jury' were all 'deliberately conned' into 'beleiving' and 'accepting' that there only existed 'a total' of 223 case photographs, contained in a seperate photographic album, that 'Essex police' , and the 'CPS' referred to inappropriately as 'The Master Copy Album' [missing 358, other case images]..
What content 'did', 'the 358', 'withheld' case images', 'portray', which 'Essex Police' and the 'CPS' did not want 'Bamber', his 'legal team', or 'the jury' to 'see', or 'know about'?
-
What content 'did', 'the 358', 'withheld' case images', 'portray', which 'Essex Police' and the 'CPS' did not want 'Bamber', his 'legal team', or 'the jury' to 'see', or 'know about'?
Well, for a start, it was imperitive that the other parties did not get proof that the bodies of 'June Bamber' and 'Sheila Caffell' were not photographed, laying side by side, on top of the bed, with a bible on 'Sheila Caffells' chest, and a rifle resting upon the bed inbetween both of the bodies, long before crime scene photographs placed 'June Bambers' body propped up at the man bedroom door, and with 'Sheila Caffell' laid upon the bedroom floor next to that side of the bed she had earlier been photographed laying upon..
-
'Worse still', some 'Essex police officers' took the opportunity 'to pose next to the bodies of the three adult victims' ['Sheila', 'June' and 'Neville'] Some of the photograhs taken were in my opinion, akin to soft porn photographs [disgusting behaviour, by any bodies standards] especially around or next to 'Sheila Caffells' body..
-
'Worse still', some 'Essex police officers' took the opportunity 'to pose next to the bodies of the three adult victims' ['Sheila', 'June' and 'Neville'] Some of the photograhs taken were in my opinion, akin to soft porn photographs [disgusting behaviour, by any bodies standards] especially around or next to 'Sheila Caffells' body..
In point of fact, 'DC Clark' was photographed on the roof of the farmhouse, with a banner, which read, ' Mick was Here'...
All of the aforementioned activities were captured on crime scene imagery [amongst the 358 photographs that were deliberately withheld from 'Jeremy', 'His legal team' and 'the JURY']..
-
In point of fact, 'DC Clark' was photographed on the roof of the farmhouse, with a banner, which read, ' Mick was Here'...
All of the aforementioned activities were captured on crime scene imagery [amongst the 358 photographs that were deliberately withheld from 'Jeremy', 'His legal team' and 'the JURY']..
Such behaviour, is unacceptable!!
-
I would like to point out, that four of the original six man raid party, had left the scene prior to this disgusting behaviour occurring. However, ' PI Montgomery' and 'PS Woodcock' were present at the scene during that period of abuse..
-
He thinks the blood on the silencer documented on August the 13th was rabbit blood and the red parks marks were from ketchup.
----------
Who thinks that?
Bubo Bubo
This just means its a non blood stain not that it is paint. Like the brown stain which is also KM negative. She does not even suggest what made the stain and if it was paint it would need to be ingrained and she would have mentioned this aspect. Beetroot juice? tomato sauce? red wine? raspberry juice? lipstick? Need I go on?
For Christ's sake FO. You are a misleading bastard. She did not know how far in she swabbed. It is widely known that it could also have been rabbit blood. You are an utter disgrace and like many others I would be glad to see the back of you. Go and join the other Troll (Adam) under the rickety rackety bridge.
-
Another point of contention, is that contained in the original 13 pages of 'PS Woodcocks' witness statement, two Pages have been retyped, at the point when he entered the kitchen through 'the internal', 'back passageway door' at the 'exact moment' when according to police log entry reports, refer to, the body of 'one dead male' and 'the body' of 'one dead female' found 'upon entry to the kitchen'. My query is this - 'where is the original script' of those 'two retyped pages', and 'where are the other missing page contents'?
-
Another point of contention, is that contained in the original 13 pages of 'PS Woodcocks' witness statement, two Pages have been retyped, at the point when he entered the kitchen through 'the internal', 'back passageway door' at the 'exact moment' when according to police log entry reports, refer to, the body of 'one dead male' and 'the body' of 'one dead female' found 'upon entry to the kitchen'. My query is this - 'where is the original script' of those 'two retyped pages', and 'where are the other missing page contents'?
Rather 'worryingly, is the fact that once' PS Woodcock' entered the kitchen ['in which' in 'his edited version' of 'the two retyped page contents' ['pages 5' and '6'] further police radio messages [7.37am, 7.38am, 7.41am and 7.42am] were passed, between, 'members of the raid team' and 'senior officers' at 'the forward control point' in 'a nearby outbuilding', and 'exchanged messages', between, ['Senior Officers', 'at the scene' and `staff] at police Headquarters' [control room at Chelmsford Police station'] 'reaffirming' that 'two bodies' (not only one) had been 'found upon entry' to 'the kitchen'. In point of fact, 'these worded messages' were 'being trasmitted' between 'police at the scene' and 'police elsewhere' [in 'whatever capacity'] that 'two bodies were found downstairs' (upon entry to the kitchen) at 'the latest' by '7.42am', an that 'by', and 'from' 8.10am, 'onward', and that 'a further three bodies' were 'found upstairs' in 'bedrooms'..
-
Bubo Bubo
I am going to ask for you to be banned. I never said it was rabbit blood. I am saying that many people knew that there was a chance it COULD be rabbit blood. I do not care one way or the other it is of little consequence to my narrative.
The first piece is you repeating a misleading interpretation of my views on the stain.
I would ask posters to ignore this persons misleading interpretations of my views.
-
I am going to ask for you to be banned. I never said it was rabbit blood. I am saying that many people knew that there was a chance it COULD be rabbit blood. I do not care one way or the other it is of little consequence to my narrative.
The first piece is you repeating a misleading interpretation of my views on the stain.
I would ask posters to ignore this persons misleading interpretations of my views.
Hi, 'Bubo bubo'
Please try 'not to be harsh' , the beauty about our [this forum] is that 'everyone has the opportunity to express their opinion', However there is 'no room for personel attacks'. My advice, is 'don't respond' to what 'other members say' , or 'do'...
-
Hi, 'Bubo bubo'
Please try 'not to be harsh' , the beauty about our [this forum] is that 'everyone has the opportunity to express their opinion', However there is 'no room for personel attacks'. My advice, is 'don't respond' to what 'other members say' , or 'do'...
The problem is that this is turning into a goading issue, which is against forum rules. Moreover this is not an isolated incident as NGB is aware. and I have had to put up with this 'crap' for some time without the mildest of reprimands or short term bans. You may enjoy being a target I do not. My posts are I believe well researched and I have not had this problem with others. I regret the use of expletive language but recognise that you too are not beyond its use yourself when continually being pushed.
David 1819 is not arguing against my position he continually seeks to undermine my overall position by creating lies about my views.
-
The problem is that this is turning into a goading issue, which is against forum rules. Moreover this is not an isolated incident as NGB is aware. and I have had to put up with this 'crap' for some time without the mildest of reprimands or short term bans. You may enjoy being a target I do not. My posts are I believe well researched and I have not had this problem with others. I regret the use of expletive language but recognise that you too are not beyond its use yourself when continually being pushed.
David 1819 is not arguing against my position he continually seeks to undermine my overall position by creating lies about my views.
I am trying 'to understand the complexities' of 'your(s)' and 'his situation'
For the time being, I would suggest that 'you both refrain from antagonising', 'eachother'
-
Nobody was living in the house and thus the socks remained in one place. Nobody bothered to move them.
Yes he is barking up the wrong tree. He thinks the blood on the silencer documented on August the 13th was rabbit blood and the red marks were from ketchup. The police or lab staff then swapped this for human blood and red paint from the aga shelf a month later.
If the bloodstained blue socks remained in situ then I am suprised Mrs Eaton did not recall such when she made her witness statement detailing how she found the farmhouse when DS Jones showed her around on 9th Aug but she doesn't.
She notes the tampon applicator in the lounge and this was eventually collected by DC Bird along with the socks, soil sample, fire debris, gloves and gauntlets. I think he also took at this time the broken stock piece.
The carpet around the socks is bloodstained and this was removed. The relatives later put a rug over the area and commented on how heavy the bed was to lift but no mention of the socks.
I don't think there's anything particularly sinister in any of this but not sure why the socks were not removed on 7th Aug along with other exhibits?
-
If the bloodstained blue socks remained in situ then I am suprised Mrs Eaton did not recall such when she made her witness statement detailing how she found the farmhouse when DS Jones showed her around on 9th Aug but she doesn't.
She notes the tampon applicator in the lounge and this was eventually collected by DC Bird along with the socks, soil sample, fire debris, gloves and gauntlets. I think he also took at this time the broken stock piece.
The carpet around the socks is bloodstained and this was removed. The relatives later put a rug over the area and commented on how heavy the bed was to lift but no mention of the socks.
I don't think there's anything particularly sinister in any of this but not sure why the socks were not removed on 7th Aug along with other exhibits?
I would appreciate the source for your evidence re AE. There is a lot of her stuff on the forum can you pin point for me please? Who else commented on the weight of the bed? I understood that it was tampons not the applicator (DB7) (see COLP statement sheet 983 a box of 9 Tampax). How did she know what exhibits he had collected? Thanks
-
I would appreciate the source for your evidence re AE. There is a lot of her stuff on the forum can you pin point for me please? Who else commented on the weight of the bed? I understood that it was tampons not the applicator (DB7) (see COLP statement sheet 983 a box of 9 Tampax). How did she know what exhibits he had collected? Thanks
I will have to re-check the precise wording re the tampons/applicator. I am not suggesting she did know what exhibits he collected.
Mrs Eaton was first shown the main bedroom on 9th Aug by DS Jones. She made no comment about blue socks https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.0.html - Page 42/117
She then showed her mother around the farmhouse on 11th Aug and seemed keen that there wasn't anything distressing for her to see. This is when the lifting of the bed is mentioned (ws below). Nothing about the socks (ws below)
Finally Bamber was the last to be shown around on 12th Aug. Nothing about the socks. (ws below)
-
Seems most unlikely the blue socks remained in situ as David claims. No doubt David is a young guy who just takes his socks off before bed and dumps them on the carpet expecting his mother/partner to pick them up and therefore sees it as normal socks are just left discarded on the floor.
-
Why did DC Hammersley not collect the socks on 7th Aug under the direction of DI Cook?
What if anything differentiated when/who collected exhibits or was it just haphazard? Eg DC Hammersley collected many items from the main bedroom spent bullets, casings, rifle, bloodstained pillow, which contained spent bullets, and bible. DS Davidson collected blood stained carpet samples (required cutting). DC Bird collected the blood stained blue socks.
-
Why did DC Hammersley not collect the socks on 7th Aug under the direction of DI Cook?
What if anything differentiated when/who collected exhibits or was it just haphazard? Eg DC Hammersley collected many items from the main bedroom spent bullets, casings, rifle, bloodstained pillow, which contained spent bullets, and bible. DS Davidson collected blood stained carpet samples (required cutting). DC Bird collected the blood stained blue socks.
As a point of interest, 'any item of evidential value' , is normally 'given' an 'exhibit reference', 'denoting the initials of the person' , or 'police officer', who initially 'seizes it', or 'finds it'. There is simply no need whatsoever, to alter conflicting exhibit references, simply because two or more likewise named witnesses have the same 'Christian' or 'Surname' as 'eachother'. This is because where this crops up, it is easy and not at all confusing because two such instances relate to two [or more] different people, or persons, and that the exhibits in question, would have been seized or found on different occasions, and not relate in the same instance, to the same item. Not only 'this' / 'that', but each item would be numbered in sequential order, demonstrating which item of evidential value were 'seized' or 'found by that person' - but this did not happen in this particular police investigation...
-
.. it is easy and not at all confusing because two such instances relate to two [or more] different people, or persons, and that the exhibits in question, would have been seized or found on different occasions, and not relate in the same instance, to the same item. Not only 'this' / 'that', but each item would be numbered in sequential order, demonstrating which item of evidential value were 'seized' or 'found by that person' - but this did not happen in this particular police investigation...
Each exhibit 'seized', 'found' or 'recovered' at a crime scene should be placed in a plastic exhibit bag [before it is taken away to the police station] , [or, as the case may be], for sending to a lab' to be `scientifically examined` by 'a variety of so called experts' ...
Attached to this plastic exhibits bag, should be an exhibit label, bearing 'the signature of the police officer', who 'first took possession ot the item' [or 'who saw it in the first instance', or as the case may be, 'who referred to its existence before anyone else']. The 'signature of the finder', should 'be on the exhibit label', accompanied by 'a number',(1, 2, 3, 4, etc) to 'confirm the order in which item', was 'taken'. Upon 'arrival at the designated police station', each item has to 'be manually entered into an official documant', known as 'the property other than found register', after which 'the items are transported to a property store at that establishment' - there is a ['separate'] 'property store register' belonging to 'the property store', in which 'everything that is placed into storage there', has 'to be recorded by inclusion of its exhibit recerence', the 'signature of the police officer', of 'the person' who is 'depositting' any number of 'items', there, and 'the date' and 'time', that 'the item's in question', were 'placed into storage', in 'there' . In addition to this, 'there is a police officer' who 'is solely responsible' for controlling 'what is put into storage', 'inside the property store', who is 'duty bound to countersign', 'each entry' in 'the property store register', alongside the 'signature of the depositivees'[adding 'date' and 'time' , against 'his', or 'her signature'[these measures are necessary to prevent 'a police officer' getting access to items of evidential value' and 'tampering', or 'exchanging one item' , for 'another', or from 'deliberately contaminating it' , or ''them' ...
It is 'significant', in this case, that 'no such police documentation', 'confirming these protocols', were 'strictly adhered to', in 'the case' brought, against 'Jeremy Bamber'
-
NOTHING TO SEE HERE?
For CC
Many thanks for your efforts it is much appreciated. However, you have not answered the full question. You appear to suggest that there is nothing sinister to find. Is it not sinister that the socks had clearly been collected before the 09/08/85 yet DB is able to collect them again 33 days later? Added to this he makes two statements on the same day on the same subject where he collects one item in one statement and seven in the other. It may not be sinister in the full sense of the word but it is clearly evidence manipulation.
I do not know what others may think but it looks like corruption to me. No doubt the guilters will deploy their weapon of last resort, human error.
It is also clear that you have not examined the fire debris. I would suggest you read my posts about this item and check out JH’s specimen testing list on the red forum
.
I suggest that DB took these items for one of several possible reasons.
1 Taff did not trust the story he had been told by the TFG as to how events had unfolded. He tasked DB with collecting items that might be associated with them covering their tracks.
2 He knew they had messed up and was keen to keep separate items that signified a possible cover up from those related to four murders and a suicide. The latter would be done by SOCO operatives.
Members can make up their own minds. I am not dogmatic about my scenario and have no problems answering well-crafted responses which challenge my view. I take issue with ill-conceived and childish point scoring responses. I cannot produce definitive results and neither can others. The Crown case is only what has been agreed in law, up to this time. It does not make it the whole truth. In the end we come to a personal view.
-
Each exhibit 'seized', 'found' or 'recovered' at a crime scene should be placed in a plastic exhibit bag [before it is taken away to the police station, or as the case may be, for sending to a lab' to be scientifically examined by a variety of so called experts...
Attached to this plastic exhibits bag, should be an exhibit label, bearing the signature of the police officer, who first took possession ot the item [or who saw it in the first instance, or as the case may be, who referred to its existence before anyone else]. The signature of the finder, should be on tge exhibit label accompanied by a number,(1, 2, 3, 4, etc) to confirm the order in which item was taken. Upon arrival at the designated police station, each item has to be manually entered into an official documant, known as 'the property other than found register', after which tge items are transported to a property store at tgat establishment - there is a [separate] property store register belonging to tge property store, in which 'everything that is placed into storage' there, has 'to be recorded by inclusion of its exhibit recerence', the 'signature of the police officer', of 'the person' who 'is depositting any number of items' there, and 'the date' and 'time', the 'item's in question' were 'placed into storage' in 'there'. In addition to this, there is 'a police officer' who is 'solely resonsible' for 'controlling' what is 'put into storage', 'inside the property store', who 'is duty bound' to 'countersign', each 'entry in the property store register', alongside 'the signature' of 'the depositivees' [adding date and time, against 'his', or 'her signature'[these measures are necessary 'to prevent a police officer' getting 'access to items of evidential vale' and 'tampering' , or 'exchanging one item' , for 'another', or from 'deliberately contaminating it', or 'them'...
It is 'significant', in this case, that 'no such police documentation', 'confirming these protocols', were 'strictly adhered to', in 'the case' brought, against 'Jeremy Bamber'
And, 'then' of course, 'it' is 'incumbent' upon each' and 'every police officer' working for 'every police force' in 'the uk' ['all ranks', 'up to', and 'including' the 'Chief Constable'] to 'complete pocket book entries' , in relation to 'his' or 'her' 'tour of duty', the 'time a police officer' came 'on duty' any break times throughout their shift, and 'anything' which may later come 'to be relied upon' in future 'court proceedings', or 'potential', 'prosecutions'...
-
And, 'then' of course, 'it' is 'incumbent' upon each' and 'every police officer' working for 'every police force' in 'the uk' ['all ranks', 'up to', and 'including' the 'Chief Constable'] to 'complete pocket book entries' , in relation to 'his' or 'her' 'tour of duty', the 'time a police officer' came 'on duty' any break times throughout their shift, and 'anything' which may later come 'to be relied upon' in future 'court proceedings', or 'potential', 'prosecutions'...
Rules 'enforcible' include 'the remit' , that 'a police officer' , may only 'be in possession', of 'one ('live' and 'useable') police pocketbook', at 'a time'. 'Each pocketbook' has 'its own serial number'. The 'serial numbers' of 'each' and 'every fresh' [unused], 'police pocketbook' (also, sometimes 'referred to' as, an 'officers notebook') are 'provisionally recorded' in a document, entitled `pocketbook Issuing Register'. 'Fresh' , and 'new', or 'unused pocketbooks' may only be issued, providing that 'a senior officer', of 'no less rank' than 'a police inspector', had 'checked the latest pocketbook', in 'the possession of' an 'officer' , 'to confirm that it is full'. The senior officer, will confirm this to be true, by 'giving his signature', 'accompanied' by 'the date' that 'the senior officer' carried out 'this duty'..
Once 'this protocol', has been 'confirmed', the 'next stage in the proceedings', involves 'the procedure' involving 'a senior officer' , 'issuing' a 'replacement pocketbook'.
-
Once 'this protocol', has been 'confirmed', the 'next stage in the proceedings', involves 'the procedure' involving 'a senior officer' , 'issuing' a 'replacement pocketbook'.
There are 'certain provisions' which 'come into play', at 'this stage' / 'point'..
For example, the 'senior police officer', in 'his' or 'her bid' to issue 'a fresh pocketbook', 'he' or 'she' must 'complete the following', 'acknowledged', 'protocol'..
'The senior officer' must place 'his' or 'her', 'signature' [accompanied by 'the date' (when) the 'issuing of the fresh pocketbook took place']. This of course, 'includes the requirement', that 'the police officer', 'receiving' the 'fresh pocketbook', also requires 'his' or 'her', 'signature' and 'the date' that 'he', or 'she' was 'issued', with such 'a fresh pocketbook', in 'the very self-same', 'issuing register'
-
In 'the Greater Manchester police investigation' into the handling of prosecutions against myself, [between', 'December 1985' and 'June 1990', 'it highlighted' the 'dishonest practice' , 0f 'South Yorkshire police, favouring unlawful tactics, in order to vet convictions against me...
The' bent cops that stitched me up' [on several different 'historical' occasions] , and 'the disgraceful conduct of the CCRC', and 'the brain dead court of appeal', 'judges', informs me that' the criminal justice system' gets things wrong 'in' / 'on', 'many instances' ..
Those 'in power' [therefore] are 'very often' the 'real criminals'..
-
NOTHING TO SEE HERE?
For CC
Many thanks for your efforts it is much appreciated. However, you have not answered the full question. You appear to suggest that there is nothing sinister to find. Is it not sinister that the socks had clearly been collected before the 09/08/85 yet DB is able to collect them again 33 days later? Added to this he makes two statements on the same day on the same subject where he collects one item in one statement and seven in the other. It may not be sinister in the full sense of the word but it is clearly evidence manipulation.
I do not know what others may think but it looks like corruption to me. No doubt the guilters will deploy their weapon of last resort, human error.
It is also clear that you have not examined the fire debris. I would suggest you read my posts about this item and check out JH’s specimen testing list on the red forum
.
I suggest that DB took these items for one of several possible reasons.
1 Taff did not trust the story he had been told by the TFG as to how events had unfolded. He tasked DB with collecting items that might be associated with them covering their tracks.
2 He knew they had messed up and was keen to keep separate items that signified a possible cover up from those related to four murders and a suicide. The latter would be done by SOCO operatives.
Members can make up their own minds. I am not dogmatic about my scenario and have no problems answering well-crafted responses which challenge my view. I take issue with ill-conceived and childish point scoring responses. I cannot produce definitive results and neither can others. The Crown case is only what has been agreed in law, up to this time. It does not make it the whole truth. In the end we come to a personal view.
I am still investigating DC Bird. My post above was really aimed at David1819 who claims the socks were simply left discarded on the main bedroom floor and DC Bird collected from there when it is clear he did not.
-
As a point of interest, 'any item of evidential value' , is normally 'given' an 'exhibit reference', 'denoting the initials of the person' , or 'police officer', who initially 'seizes it', or 'finds it'. There is simply no need whatsoever, to alter conflicting exhibit references, simply because two or more likewise named witnesses have the same 'Christian' or 'Surname' as 'eachother'. This is because where this crops up, it is easy and not at all confusing because two such instances relate to two [or more] different people, or persons, and that the exhibits in question, would have been seized or found on different occasions, and not relate in the same instance, to the same item. Not only 'this' / 'that', but each item would be numbered in sequential order, demonstrating which item of evidential value were 'seized' or 'found by that person' - but this did not happen in this particular police investigation...
You're showing your age pal. The police force is now multicultural hence we have 'first names' which might or might not be associated with Christianity.
Do you have a copy of the police training/operational manual for 1985? If not how were you able to act as Bamber's McKenzie friend?
-
You're showing your age pal. The police force is now multicultural hence we have 'first names' which might or might not be associated with Christianity.
Do 'we'? And what rank are you in the police, out of interest?
-
I am still investigating DC Bird. My post above was really aimed at David1819 who claims the socks were simply left discarded on the main bedroom floor and DC Bird collected from there when it is clear he did not.
I await the results of your investigation. I am working on a couple of other issues related to DB and the SM Hope to present later this week. Not earth shattering but very interesting, I think. You might like to read my thread 'Watch the Birdie'.
-
You're showing your age pal. The police force is now multicultural hence we have 'first names' which might or might not be associated with Christianity.
Do you have a copy of the police training/operational manual for 1985? If not how were you able to act as Bamber's McKenzie friend?
I have 'access to everything' that 'I need to rely upon', including 'support through 'paranormal avenues' /'activities'..
-
Most successful prosecutions, are fundamentally based upon supposition [an imaginary form of the actual truth], which basically amounts, to 'a great leap of faith' [false] without any, said investigator, or prosecution witness - 'speculation at its most damning!!!
Those' in power', beleive that ' if you can think it', 'a jury' could 'easily', 'be' convinced' that 'a defendant', 'is' /'was', 'convicted' of 'any type of criminal activity' '' 'alledged', 'accusation(s)'..
-
I have 'access to everything' that 'I need to rely upon', including 'support through 'paranormal avenues' /'activities'..
Need? I thought you had been thrown over and substituted by the support group?
If you were relying on support through 'paranormal avenues/activities' to support a person you believe has been wrongly convicted person then I doubt you would be much use as a Mckenzie friend.
I am unsure as to how you are able to determine what the police should or should not have done, operationally speaking, if you do not have access to the training/operations manual 1985?
Do you have a copy? If not did you attempt to obtain a copy at the time or any time since?
I admire your dedication and loyalty to Bamber's cause but I remain unconvinced its a worthy one pal?
-
Most successful prosecutions, are fundamentally based upon supposition [an imaginary form of the actual truth], which basically amounts, to 'a great leap of faith' [false] without any, said investigator, or prosecution witness - 'speculation at its most damning!!!
Those' in power', beleive that ' if you can think it', 'a jury' could 'easily', 'be' convinced' that 'a defendant', 'is' /'was', 'convicted' of 'any type of criminal activity' '' 'alledged', 'accusation(s)'..
I would say most successful prosecutions are based on prosecuting counsel delivering a more believable narrative to the jury than defence counsel.
-
I am still investigating DC Bird. My post above was really aimed at David1819 who claims the socks were simply left discarded on the main bedroom floor and DC Bird collected from there when it is clear he did not.
From DC Bird's COLP interview:
DS Young: Can you describe to us how you actually got to the scene?
PC Bird: What you mean?
DS Young: From Headquarters to
PC Bird: Oh, we've got a major incident vehicle, its a large transit and I took Mr Cook up there.
DS Young: Right
PC Bird: And that's loaded with all the equipment for other scenes of crime officers so its a mobile store room in effect
-
Where does the info come from about DC Bird collecting the blue socks after 9th Aug?
-
Each exhibit 'seized', 'found' or 'recovered' at a crime scene should be placed in a plastic exhibit bag [before it is taken away to the police station] , [or, as the case may be], for sending to a lab' to be `scientifically examined` by 'a variety of so called experts' ...
Attached to this plastic exhibits bag, should be an exhibit label, bearing 'the signature of the police officer', who 'first took possession ot the item' [or 'who saw it in the first instance', or as the case may be, 'who referred to its existence before anyone else']. The 'signature of the finder', should 'be on the exhibit label', accompanied by 'a number',(1, 2, 3, 4, etc) to 'confirm the order in which item', was 'taken'. Upon 'arrival at the designated police station', each item has to 'be manually entered into an official documant', known as 'the property other than found register', after which 'the items are transported to a property store at that establishment' - there is a ['separate'] 'property store register' belonging to 'the property store', in which 'everything that is placed into storage there', has 'to be recorded by inclusion of its exhibit recerence', the 'signature of the police officer', of 'the person' who is 'depositting' any number of 'items', there, and 'the date' and 'time', that 'the item's in question', were 'placed into storage', in 'there' . In addition to this, 'there is a police officer' who 'is solely responsible' for controlling 'what is put into storage', 'inside the property store', who is 'duty bound to countersign', 'each entry' in 'the property store register', alongside the 'signature of the depositivees'[adding 'date' and 'time' , against 'his', or 'her signature'[these measures are necessary to prevent 'a police officer' getting access to items of evidential value' and 'tampering', or 'exchanging one item' , for 'another', or from 'deliberately contaminating it' , or ''them' ...
It is 'significant', in this case, that 'no such police documentation', 'confirming these protocols', were 'strictly adhered to', in 'the case' brought, against 'Jeremy Bamber'
Has Bamber shared with you the 100 page doc produced by the review commission in 2012 explaining why it was not referring to appeal court?
-
Where does the info come from about DC Bird collecting the blue socks after 9th Aug?
His statement that we have on the forum and the details of his COLP taped interview also on the forum where they discuss another and obviously different statement.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1037.0;attach=20698;image
This is the first of two pages showing the date. The second page describes him collecting only the socks.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7461.0.html
-
His statement that we have on the forum and the details of his COLP taped interview also on the forum where they discuss another and obviously different statement.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1037.0;attach=20698;image
This is the first of two pages showing the date. The second page describes him collecting only the socks.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7461.0.html
I can't see anything about the blue bloodstained socks on the second page?
A blue pair of socks is mentioned later on but no mention of bloodstains. It might be a different pair of socks found in the outbuildings when he took the gloves, gauntlets, fire debris from a pit etc. Just because a blue pair of socks is mentioned it does not mean it is the pair found near Sheila's body containing bloodstains matching June's blood group.
-
I can't see anything about the blue bloodstained socks on the second page?
A blue pair of socks is mentioned later on but no mention of bloodstains. It might be a different pair of socks found in the outbuildings when he took the gloves, gauntlets, fire debris from a pit etc. Just because a blue pair of socks is mentioned it does not mean it is the pair found near Sheila's body containing bloodstains matching June's blood group.
But there was only one pair of blue socks in the main bedroom and they were bloodstained! He could not, as you have shown collected them on that date. Why collect blue socks with no blood stains. On that basis they should have emptied the house of its contents
There are two demonstrably different statements made on the same day showing different items collected. Why make these two statements? You have not explained how this happened.
You seem to be clutching at straws. While possible it seems bizarre that there were another pair of blue socks in an outbuilding.
You seem to be reverting to guilter denial.
-
I remember seeing a pic of the kitchen where a pair of pale blue socks were beside a red plastic garbage bin. This pic is somewhere on the forum but can't remember which thread it was under.
-
I remember seeing a pic of the kitchen where a pair of pale blue socks were beside a red plastic garbage bin. This pic is somewhere on the forum but can't remember which thread it was under.
Yeah its not like blue socks are uncommon. I think the socks in question were probably found in the outbuildings with other such items eg gloves, gaunlets. Just because a blue pair of socks is mentioned doesn't mean it was the bloodstained pair found in the main bedroom.
DS Jones handed over the keys of the farmhouse to Mrs Eaton late noon on 9th Aug. At the same time he explained the alarm system. How were officers able to come and go thereafter? I think they went in after 9th Aug to check windows and take a paint sample from the Aga mantle and presumably the relatives had to allow access? Prosecution (and defence?) counsel visited scene of crime prior to trial.
-
But there was only one pair of blue socks in the main bedroom and they were bloodstained! He could not, as you have shown collected them on that date. Why collect blue socks with no blood stains. On that basis they should have emptied the house of its contents
There are two demonstrably different statements made on the same day showing different items collected. Why make these two statements? You have not explained how this happened.
You seem to be clutching at straws. While possible it seems bizarre that there were another pair of blue socks in an outbuilding.
You seem to be reverting to guilter denial.
He doesn't mention the blue socks he collected and referred to as DB/6 as having bloodstains on or that he found them within the farmhouse.
Why does it seem bizarre another pair of blue socks were found in outbuildings? They were probably thick outdoor ones worn with wellies or other such outdoor footwear suitable for farming. They were collected with gloves and gauntlets so obviously a place where such items were kept.
You can't see the woods for the trees matey and its obscuring your vision as to what really happened!
-
The bloodstained socks in the bedroom which were near Sheila had droplets of June's blood on them which coincided with the droplets of blood on the carpet which again were June's blood----as were droplets found beneath the sewing room window. It would have seemed that an injured June had wandered around before succumbing to her injuries ?
-
He doesn't mention the blue socks he collected and referred to as DB/6 as having bloodstains on or that he found them within the farmhouse.
Why does it seem bizarre another pair of blue socks were found in outbuildings? They were probably thick outdoor ones worn with wellies or other such outdoor footwear suitable for farming. They were collected with gloves and gauntlets so obviously a place where such items were kept.
You can't see the woods for the trees matey and its obscuring your vision as to what really happened!
Please do not call me matey. Is this a mirage.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1037.0;attach=20699;image
Of what possible evidential value was a pair of blue 'Welly' or other use socks from an outbuilding. Did DB have a blue sock fetish?
There was only one pair of blue socks in the main bedroom as per SOC photos. They clearly show blood staining.
Why did he not pass his other finds to DS Davidson. Was he also at the farm that day?
You have still to explain why he made two different statements on the same day.
-
Please do not call me matey. Is this a mirage.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1037.0;attach=20699;image
Of what possible evidential value was a pair of blue 'Welly' or other use socks from an outbuilding. Did DB have a blue sock fetish?
There was only one pair of blue socks in the main bedroom as per SOC photos. They clearly shows blood staining.
Why did he not pass his other finds to DS Davidson. Was he also at the farm that day?
You have still to explain why he made two different statements on the same day.
Of what possible evidential value was a pair of gloves and gauntlets from the outbuilding? If a pair of non-blood stained blue socks were found with the gloves and gauntlets then why take the latter and not the former?
-
Of what possible evidential value was a pair of gloves and gauntlets from the outbuilding? If a pair of non-blood stained blue socks were found with the gloves and gauntlets then why take the latter and not the former?
The gloves and gauntlets were probably used along with the overcoat and plastic mackintosh in the restaging of the crime scene to prevent officers clothing becoming blood stained.
-
WHY TWO STATEMENTS
Let me explain what I think happened. At the start and before trial the defence would have looked at the crime scene photos. The blood stained socks feature prominently in several photos taken in the main bedroom.
The defence would need to know who found them and what other forensic activity had been undertaken. They would need to see a witness statement by the finder/collector. The police could not show the other finds in the DB1 – DB7 range so they redacted all but the blue socks.
The other exhibits especially the SM (DB1) would open a very large can of worms and the fire debris (DB2) would have ignited a bonfire of huge proportions.
Five years later following JB’s accusations the COLP were tasked in examining his claims. They would look into all DB’s finds and the other paperwork like CID6’s and Holab documentation.
So they created another statement which cross checked with the other paper work as above but now all the finds were found externally in outbuildings and the fire pit. In order to get round the SM it was swapped for a soil sample.
The COLP could also check with the FSS to see if they matched. DB2 – DB6 were sent to the lab (20/09/85). Please see JH’s hand written notes on red.
The first statement which is also now demonstrably false was used at trial. The second full copy was given to the COLP along with other documents requested by the investigators.
CC has also shown that it was impossible to find a pair of blue socks, with or without blood stains in the main bedroom on the date stated.
If the socks DB6 had no blood evidence why were they sent to the lab.
-
WHY TWO STATEMENTS
Let me explain what I think happened. At the start and before trial the defence would have looked at the crime scene photos. The blood stained socks feature prominently in several photos taken in the main bedroom.
The defence would need to know who found them and what other forensic activity had been undertaken. They would need to see a witness statement by the finder/collector. The police could not show the other finds in the DB1 – DB7 range so they redacted all but the blue socks.
The other exhibits especially the SM (DB1) would open a very large can of worms and the fire debris (DB2) would have ignited a bonfire of huge proportions.
Five years later following JB’s accusations the COLP were tasked in examining his claims. They would look into all DB’s finds and the other paperwork like CID6’s and Holab documentation.
So they created another statement which cross checked with the other paper work as above but now all the finds were found externally in outbuildings and the fire pit. In order to get round the SM it was swapped for a soil sample.
The COLP could also check with the FSS to see if they matched. DB2 – DB6 were sent to the lab (20/09/85). Please see JH’s hand written notes on red.
The first statement which is also now demonstrably false was used at trial. The second full copy was given to the COLP along with other documents requested by the investigators.
CC has also shown that it was impossible to find a pair of blue socks, with or without blood stains in the main bedroom on the date stated.
If the socks DB6 had no blood evidence why were they sent to the lab.
Did the gloves, gauntlets, debris from fire pit and soil show evidence of blood?
The lab did more than blood analysis.
-
Did the gloves, gauntlets, debris from fire pit and soil show evidence of blood?
The lab did more than blood analysis.
Of course not. You need to look more deeply at the fire debris. I contend that all DB items were collected while the house was a crime scene, most likely on the first day.
I suggest this because EP could have used the items uncovered in the debris by EP to claim that it was JB who had used these items to cover up his crime, along with the gloves and gauntlets. They had little physical evidence to link him to the crime apart from JM's statements and the SM. They could have claimed that he had burned these items in the aftermath and this was why they could not find evidence on any of his clothing.
Do you know what the lab found on these items?
PS I seem to remember that in one of her many fairy stories JM told police that JB had told her that during the act a glove had come off. Is there a link to the gloves DB3, DB4, DB5.
-
Smiffy was an interesting poster, wasn't he. Another vintage poster from the old days.
-
NOTHING TO SEE HERE?
For CC
Many thanks for your efforts it is much appreciated. However, you have not answered the full question. You appear to suggest that there is nothing sinister to find. Is it not sinister that the socks had clearly been collected before the 09/08/85 yet DB is able to collect them again 33 days later? Added to this he makes two statements on the same day on the same subject where he collects one item in one statement and seven in the other. It may not be sinister in the full sense of the word but it is clearly evidence manipulation.
I do not know what others may think but it looks like corruption to me. No doubt the guilters will deploy their weapon of last resort, human error.
It is also clear that you have not examined the fire debris. I would suggest you read my posts about this item and check out JH’s specimen testing list on the red forum
.
I suggest that DB took these items for one of several possible reasons.
1 Taff did not trust the story he had been told by the TFG as to how events had unfolded. He tasked DB with collecting items that might be associated with them covering their tracks.
2 He knew they had messed up and was keen to keep separate items that signified a possible cover up from those related to four murders and a suicide. The latter would be done by SOCO operatives.
Members can make up their own minds. I am not dogmatic about my scenario and have no problems answering well-crafted responses which challenge my view. I take issue with ill-conceived and childish point scoring responses. I cannot produce definitive results and neither can others. The Crown case is only what has been agreed in law, up to this time. It does not make it the whole truth. In the end we come to a personal view.
Check this out. Tenuous evidence to partly support the above. It appears his finds may have been classed as 'Not Relevant' or 'Not required'.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1721.0;attach=8353;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1721.0;attach=8354;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1721.0;attach=8355;image
-
Smiffy was an interesting poster, wasn't he. Another vintage poster from the old days.
Yes he was. He was highly suspicious of the prosecution camp. He was quite abrasive towards them and their claims.
-
Check this out. Tenuous evidence to partly support the above. It appears his finds may have been classed as 'Not Relevant' or 'Not required'.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1721.0;attach=8353;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1721.0;attach=8354;image
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1721.0;attach=8355;image
After further reading I accept DB/6 is in all probability the blue bloodstained socks depicted in crime images but what I don't accept is that they were left in situ until DC Bird collected a month later for reasons I gave in an earlier post re relatives covering area with a rug.
I still maintain nothing overall sinister. The socks were analysed and found to match Mrs Bamber's blood groups which ties in with carpet samples all of which was relayed to jury at trial.
-
Smiffy was an interesting poster, wasn't he. Another vintage poster from the old days.
A poster to whom I took a lot of guidance from and also noticed that he was castigated for speaking sense. :(
-
Of course not. You need to look more deeply at the fire debris. I contend that all DB items were collected while the house was a crime scene, most likely on the first day.
I suggest this because EP could have used the items uncovered in the debris by EP to claim that it was JB who had used these items to cover up his crime, along with the gloves and gauntlets. They had little physical evidence to link him to the crime apart from JM's statements and the SM. They could have claimed that he had burned these items in the aftermath and this was why they could not find evidence on any of his clothing.
Do you know what the lab found on these items?
PS I seem to remember that in one of her many fairy stories JM told police that JB had told her that during the act a glove had come off. Is there a link to the gloves DB3, DB4, DB5.
Most farms have a firepit for burning unwanted material. Mr Boutflour jnr burned the cannabis found in the safe.
Yes they "could have" done lots of things but where's the evidence they did?
-
After further reading I accept DB/6 is in all probability the blue bloodstained socks depicted in crime images but what I don't accept is that they were left in situ until DC Bird collected a month later for reasons I gave in an earlier post re relatives covering area with a rug.
I still maintain nothing overall sinister. The socks were analysed and found to match Mrs Bamber's blood groups which ties in with carpet samples all of which was relayed to jury at trial.
You are entitled to your opinion but you still have to explain the two statements, on the same day, with different contents retrieved.
You indicated that other tests were performed by the lab on the socks. What were these tests. I know it was June's blood no dispute there.
Members can make up their own minds as to whether this issue is sinister.
If the other items were collected and not seen by the defence that is a disclosure issue.
-
WHY TWO STATEMENTS
Let me explain what I think happened. At the start and before trial the defence would have looked at the crime scene photos. The blood stained socks feature prominently in several photos taken in the main bedroom.
The defence would need to know who found them and what other forensic activity had been undertaken. They would need to see a witness statement by the finder/collector. The police could not show the other finds in the DB1 – DB7 range so they redacted all but the blue socks.
The other exhibits especially the SM (DB1) would open a very large can of worms and the fire debris (DB2) would have ignited a bonfire of huge proportions.
Five years later following JB’s accusations the COLP were tasked in examining his claims. They would look into all DB’s finds and the other paperwork like CID6’s and Holab documentation.
So they created another statement which cross checked with the other paper work as above but now all the finds were found externally in outbuildings and the fire pit. In order to get round the SM it was swapped for a soil sample.
The COLP could also check with the FSS to see if they matched. DB2 – DB6 were sent to the lab (20/09/85). Please see JH’s hand written notes on red.
The first statement which is also now demonstrably false was used at trial. The second full copy was given to the COLP along with other documents requested by the investigators.
CC has also shown that it was impossible to find a pair of blue socks, with or without blood stains in the main bedroom on the date stated.
If the socks DB6 had no blood evidence why were they sent to the lab.
And you point is?
-
If the socks were found on the day then it is most likely the other items were also found at the same time. How could he go out and collect items from the fire pit if he was meant to be on hand to take photographs for the SOCO team? He had to go to the mortuary in the afternoon to photograph and record at the autopsy.
I suggest that the fire debris was EP destroying evidence on the day and that the fire debris could have come from the AGA or the main fireplace in the living room.
You clearly have not studied enough. I said I would verify your posts. I will not be answering any more of your points until I feel you have researched my narrative.
-
You are entitled to your opinion but you still have to explain the two statements, on the same day, with different contents retrieved.
You indicated that other tests were performed by the lab on the socks. What were these tests. I know it was June's blood no dispute there.
Members can make up their own minds as to whether this issue is sinister.
If the other items were collected and not seen by the defence that is a disclosure issue.
I'm only aware of blood anaylsis carried out on the socks.
The other items may not have held any evidential value. Lots of items were analysed eg Mr Bamber's car. Is anyone suggesting this was connected to the crime?
The defence might well have been aware of a lot but chose not to include at trial.
-
If the socks were found on the day then it is most likely the other items were also found at the same time. How could he go out and collect items from the fire pit if he was meant to be on hand to take photographs for the SOCO team? He had to go to the mortuary in the afternoon to photograph and record at the autopsy.
I suggest that the fire debris was EP destroying evidence on the day and that the fire debris could have come from the AGA or the main fireplace in the living room.
You clearly have not studied enough. I said I would verify your posts. I will not be answering any more of your points until I feel you have researched my narrative.
Suit yourself pal. I've read enough of your back posts to know that you frequently bark up the wrong tree. I will highlight some time permitting.
Re the socks the simple explanation is that they were stored in the mobile scenes of crime vehicle until they resurfaced later. The police are trained to be mindful of costs. Each time the lab analyses an exhibit it costs. On 7th Aug (apart from DS Jones) all considered the case to be sucide/murder. It is obvious that the drips on the carpet and socks originated from the same source. Therefore why analayse both especially when it was considered murder/suicide so no trial/defence to answer to. Roll on a month later and the case is now considered 5 murders. DC Bird returns to the farmhouse to take photos of the outbuildings, adjacent land etc and recovers other exhibits eg gloves, gauntlets, soil sample, fire debris sample and includes the socks as it is obvious they will now come under scrutiny.
-
You are entitled to your opinion but you still have to explain the two statements, on the same day, with different contents retrieved.
You indicated that other tests were performed by the lab on the socks. What were these tests. I know it was June's blood no dispute there.
Members can make up their own minds as to whether this issue is sinister.
If the other items were collected and not seen by the defence that is a disclosure issue.
The defence sees a lot of material but either overlooks (incompetence/negligence) or chooses not to include. Eg you can see in the attached where at the 2002 appeal Turner QC was arguing about the letter written by Colin Caffell to Mr Bamber. Appeal judges point out it was in defence bundle and so nothing to answer.
-
Suit yourself pal. I've read enough of your back posts to know that you frequently bark up the wrong tree. I will highlight some time permitting.
Re the socks the simple explanation is that they were stored in the mobile scenes of crime vehicle until they resurfaced later. The police are trained to be mindful of costs. Each time the lab analyses an exhibit it costs. On 7th Aug (apart from DS Jones) all considered the case to be sucide/murder. It is obvious that the drips on the carpet and socks originated from the same source. Therefore why analayse both especially when it was considered murder/suicide so no trial/defence to answer to. Roll on a month later and the case is now considered 5 murders. DC Bird returns to the farmhouse to take photos of the outbuildings, adjacent land etc and recovers other exhibits eg gloves, gauntlets, soil sample, fire debris sample and includes the socks as it is obvious they will now come under scrutiny.
I am not your matey or your pal. If you are going to debate it cannot be a one-sided affair. You expect me to answer your questions but the reverse is also true. How many times have I posed the two statements question without any acceptable answer? Your suggestion makes no sense. He passed the socks to DS Davidson. So how did he collect them again 33 days later? You have already proved they were not available later.
Your argument is all over the place. If he found the socks while the farmhouse was a crime scene how are they DB6 they should be DB1. They can only be DB6 if found at the same time as the other items. If they had been left in the SOCO vehicle the nomenclature after collection, bagging and labelling, would not have changed. The date would be 07/08/85 to 09/08/85 and they should still be DB1
I will not be responding to your ill thought out suggestions.
-
The defence sees a lot of material but either overlooks (incompetence/negligence) or chooses not to include. Eg you can see in the attached where at the 2002 appeal Turner QC was arguing about the letter written by Colin Caffell to Mr Bamber. Appeal judges point out it was in defence bundle and so nothing to answer.
I am no fan of the defence as my posts show. The trial statement looks OK. They were unlikely to know of the activities eg, burning items, AE's tidying up which occurred between the crime scene closure and the stated find date which made this find on the date stated impossible.
-
The defence sees a lot of material but either overlooks (incompetence/negligence) or chooses not to include. Eg you can see in the attached where at the 2002 appeal Turner QC was arguing about the letter written by Colin Caffell to Mr Bamber. Appeal judges point out it was in defence bundle and so nothing to answer.
A negligent defence doesn't itself support Bamber having committed the killings. Quite the contrary, it is more likely to have been a significant component in bringing about his wrongful conviction. If you had a pie chart with segments, 'negligent-defence' would sit aside 'nondisclosure' 'misled- jury' 'cheque-book journalism' 'witnesses who stood to gain' etc etc.
-
A negligent defence doesn't itself support Bamber having committed the killings. Quite the contrary, it is more likely to have been a significant component in bringing about his wrongful conviction. If you had a pie chart with segments, 'negligent-defence' would sit aside 'nondisclosure' 'misled- jury' 'cheque-book journalism' 'witnesses who stood to gain' etc etc.
My ref to incompetence/negligence was in general terms not necessarily with this case.
Re this case, a lot of material was produced but it gets whittled down as to what is used at trial. This doesn't mean the defence was unaware of certain material but chose not to include. I've given an example above about the letter written by Colin Caffell.
-
I am not your matey or your pal. If you are going to debate it cannot be a one-sided affair. You expect me to answer your questions but the reverse is also true. How many times have I posed the two statements question without any acceptable answer? Your suggestion makes no sense. He passed the socks to DS Davidson. So how did he collect them again 33 days later? You have already proved they were not available later.
Your argument is all over the place. If he found the socks while the farmhouse was a crime scene how are they DB6 they should be DB1. They can only be DB6 if found at the same time as the other items. If they had been left in the SOCO vehicle the nomenclature after collection, bagging and labelling, would not have changed. The date would be 07/08/85 to 09/08/85 and they should still be DB1
I will not be responding to your ill thought out suggestions.
You're splitting hairs. Were any of the items harmful to Bamber: Gloves, gauntlets, socks, soil sample, fire debris etc?
For those of us who believe Bamber guilty we could just as easily say Bamber burned the clothes he wore when he carried out the murders in the firepit and this might have blostered the prosecution case against him. Not that it needed bolstering with the mountain of evidence presented at trial.
I've looked through some of your posts and you seem to me to be a massive conspiracy theorist. If its not swapped bullets its the above and so it goes on and on. Can you cite another case which features multiple wrongdoings by the police and other authorities in order to secure a conviction?
Paperwork will show ambiguities and anomalies because humans are not perfect!
-
My ref to incompetence/negligence was in general terms not necessarily with this case.
Re this case, a lot of material was produced but it gets whittled down as to what is used at trial. This doesn't mean the defence was unaware of certain material but chose not to include. I've given an example above about the letter written by Colin Caffell.
Yes, exactly. As Rivlin was too polite and respectful of the prosecution to do his job properly.
-
It is surprising that the defence brought up Julie's minor cheque book fraud. Committed over 2 years before the trial!
It was nothing to do with the massacre. Unlike the caravan break in.
Very doubtful this is usual practice with witnesses.
-
It is surprising that the defence brought up Julie's minor cheque book fraud. Committed over 2 years before the trial!
It was nothing to do with the massacre. Unlike the caravan break in.
Very doubtful this is usual practice with witnesses.
Why was it surprising that JM's cheque book fraud was brought up? The defence were trying to cast doubt on her credibility and reliability.
-
You're splitting hairs. Were any of the items harmful to Bamber: Gloves, gauntlets, socks, soil sample, fire debris etc?
For those of us who believe Bamber guilty we could just as easily say Bamber burned the clothes he wore when he carried out the murders in the firepit and this might have blostered the prosecution case against him. Not that it needed bolstering with the mountain of evidence presented at trial.
I've looked through some of your posts and you seem to me to be a massive conspiracy theorist. If its not swapped bullets its the above and so it goes on and on. Can you cite another case which features multiple wrongdoings by the police and other authorities in order to secure a conviction?
Paperwork will show ambiguities and anomalies because humans are not perfect!
1 The fact that the silencer was swapped to a soil sample hurt JB
2 I do not claim that the fire debris came from the firepit. I have already had to pull up David 1819 for misrepresenting my views. Please don't go down that road.
3 You could only say he burnt his clothes if there was evidence. There is no evidence. However there is evidence that items were burnt and collected on the day. Items that could have been used during the tragedy to protect the wearer amongst other things. Why not lay them at JB's door?
4 As predicted resorting to human error. I will say what I have said before. If JB's case is not the record for a MOJ. It will win hands down on human errors and paperwork ambiguities.
-
Why was it surprising that JM's cheque book fraud was brought up? The defence were trying to cast doubt on her credibility and reliability.
I suppose her WS was watertight. Desperate times....
I just hope if ever a witness, in cross examination my apple stealing on my uncles allotment when I was 9 isn't brought up.
-
It is surprising that the defence brought up Julie's minor cheque book fraud. Committed over 2 years before the trial!
It was nothing to do with the massacre. Unlike the caravan break in.
Very doubtful this is usual practice with witnesses.
The defence will look to dig the dirt on prosecution witnesses and anyone else if it assists the defence case. The defence employed 2 private detectives to look into Sheila's background. They concluded 'more museli than marijuana'.
-
The defence will look to dig the dirt on prosecution witnesses and anyone else if it assists the defence case. The defence employed 2 private detectives to look into Sheila's background. They concluded 'more museli than marijuana'.
They weren't looking very hard then, were they. I hope the defence asked for a refund.
-
I suppose her WS was watertight. Desperate times....
I just hope if ever a witness, in cross examination my apple stealing on my uncles allotment when I was 9 isn't brought up.
I think Mike has something on that in his archives. Action Report on what to do about Adam, the apple scrumper. Operation Adam's Apples. I didn't have the heart to bring it up though, especially after all the moral support you've been giving me via the PM system, Adam.
-
1 The fact that the silencer was swapped to a soil sample hurt JB
You have no evidence for this just your interpretation of sloppy paperwork.
2 I do not claim that the fire debris came from the firepit. I have already had to pull up David 1819 for misrepresenting my views. Please don't go down that road.
Maybe you need to be clearer then? Is it yourself or David1819 and myself?
3 You could only say he burnt his clothes if there was evidence. There is no evidence. However there is evidence that items were burnt and collected on the day. Items that could have been used during the tragedy to protect the wearer amongst other things. Why not lay them at JB's door?
If you can't see the flaws in the above then really there's no hope for you.
4 As predicted resorting to human error. I will say what I have said before. If JB's case is not the record for a MOJ. It will win hands down on human errors and paperwork ambiguities.
The errors have been explained by the authorities but the supporters just refuse to accept them.
-
They weren't looking very hard then, were they. I hope the defence asked for a refund.
Weren't they?
-
Weren't they?
No, they weren't.
I think you should discipline them, Cambridgecutie.
It's time for the pretence to end. You should put on your leathers, get out your whip, and administer some good old-fashioned discipline!
-
No, they weren't.
I think you should discipline them, Cambridgecutie.
It's time for the pretence to end. You should put on your leathers, get out your whip, and administer some good old-fashioned discipline!
:-[
-
I suppose her WS was watertight. Desperate times....
I just hope if ever a witness, in cross examination my apple stealing on my uncles allotment when I was 9 isn't brought up.
Watertight WS?? but where did the information in her WS come from?? SC on the bed maybe AE?
Stealing a apple I would not worry about that, but going to bed with a mass killer including two children?? Very few women would do that would they??
-
No, they weren't.
I think you should discipline them, Cambridgecutie.
It's time for the pretence to end. You should put on your leathers, get out your whip, and administer some good old-fashioned discipline!
I think Cc needs someone to practice on first QC ;)
-
I think Cc needs someone to practice on first QC ;)
-
You have no evidence for this just your interpretation of sloppy paperwork.
Maybe you need to be clearer then? Is it yourself or David1819 and myself?
If you can't see the flaws in the above then really there's no hope for you.
The errors have been explained by the authorities but the supporters just refuse to accept them.
I do have evidence. All the DB items 1- 7 were collected on the day but then he takes another soil sample a month later and another a little later still according to his pocket book and what he told the COLP.
-
Watertight WS?? but where did the information in her WS come from?? SC on the bed maybe AE?
Stealing a apple I would not worry about that, but going to bed with a mass killer including two children?? Very few women would do that would they??
Yes there was a lot of information Julie could have only got from Bamber.
Both the police & relatives are ruled out in giving her this info -
The police would not give her info & then tell her to bring up MM.
The relatives would not give her info (if they had any), as she was Bamber's girlfriend.
-
The defence at trial claimed Julie got all the information from the following days papers.
However the information was much too wide ranging & detailed for journalists to find out in a few hours.
The press would not bother putting any of it in the following days papers anyway. It would be all about Sheila the crazy model.
-
Yes there was a lot of information Julie could have only got from Bamber.
Both the police & relatives are ruled out in giving her this info -
The police would not give her info & then tell her to bring up MM.
The relatives would not give her info (if they had any), as she was Bamber's girlfriend.
So are you saying SC was originally on the bed when the armed police went into the house? Why was she moved onto the floor?
-
Low house insurance.
Bible by Sheila.
Sheila's shot locations.
Kitchen fight.
Twins asleep.
Sheila putting up no resistance.
Nevill's multiple shots.
June shot in bed.
Kitchen windows.
Portable phone.
Meissen clock.
Twins shot first.
Sheila shot last.
June's sleeping pills.
Sheila & the twins sleeping in different rooms on different nights.
Kitchen argument.
Shooting rabbits.
Sheila shot on parents bed.
Matthew Macdonald
----------
Obviously Julie only got this information from Bamber.
-
Not sure if that answers the question Adam, JM said SC was on the bed, so if this came from JB then the police moved her to the bedroom floor for some reason?
-
Not sure if that answers the question Adam, JM said SC was on the bed, so if this came from JB then the police moved her to the bedroom floor for some reason?
Bamber probably said 'by' or 'next to' the bed. Julie remembered it as 'on'.
Or Bamber did say 'on' in error.
Very minor detail considering Julie's WS was 24 pages & gave so much information.
-
1 The fact that the silencer was swapped to a soil sample
That is not a fact.
-
I do have evidence. All the DB items 1- 7 were collected on the day but then he takes another soil sample a month later and another a little later still according to his pocket book and what he told the COLP.
Which day?
-
Which day?
This is why Cambridgecutie has been brought on to the Forum, to help Adam chivvy things up. There's been too much slacking at the back, if you ask me.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
It's not funny, Lookout. We want discipline here!
I caught Rob lounging around on his sunbed the other day, trying to get a winter tan, while Adam is busy on the Forum doing all the legwork and breaking new ground with his scenarios.
-
i have put together some of my ideas, thoughts, views on the Sound Moderator.
All ideas, are welcome, no matter how utterly ridiculous our opinions might be - the way I see it, 'the more outrageous someone's script' or 'theory', the sooner 'this' or' that' can 'be eliminated' from 'other prosperous lines of enquiry'. I am pleased to inform everyone, that 'the silencer debacle' has now been resolved fully. This came about through various members in our group postulating different ideas about 'this' , 'that' , or 'the other silencer'. I am as guilty as the next person in respect of `guilding the lilly`, so to speak [on the odd occasion] by putting forth information that I simply had no proof or evidence to back up the silencer theory' I sometimes postulated. However, I always beleived that 'other members might contribute to the silencer saga' by 'giving us their own ideas' on the subject. By this approach on my part, 'I have now finally got to the absolute truth' , about 'who found' , 'seized' or 'took possession' of 'any silencer' or 'flake of dried blood' or as the case may be, a blob of jamlike substance that 'David Boutflour' with 'aid of a razor blade', 'scraped from the outer casing of the silencer' that 'he found at the scene' , on 'the 10th August 1985', or 'other item of evidential value' from the 'crime scene' [on 'different occasions'
, involving 'different people']. There were 'several silencer props' used in the investigation of these shootings, at various points and stages. But, there are only 'two chief silencers' at 'the heart of the case'. I can name both of them now because 'the jiggery', 'pokery' 'slight of hand tactics' , has now been undone! The' two parker Hale silencers' were 'almost identical looking' in every sense of the word', except for the following conditions (a) one of the silencers was almost 'five years older' than 'the other one' (b) one of them had been purchased in 1980, (c) whilst the other one 'wasn't purchased by its owner', until 'the 30th November 1984'. (d) one of the silencers [the oldest one] 'looked worn' and had an elongated scratch mark along the edge of its metal outer casing (e) it also had a grey coloured hair attached to its muzzle end cap, which was stuck to a jam-like 'sticky' blod close to the bullet aperture on that silencers metal end cap, (f) whilst the other silencer was undamaged, and in an 'almost prestige condition'.(g) 'One' of 'these two silencers' measured 'seven inches in length', whilst (h) the 'other silencer' measured six' and 'a half inches', 'in length'. (i) the reason why one of these two different similar looking parker hale silencer, was because at the commencement of 'November 1984', the manufacturer [ Parker Hale Silencer, Ltd] altered the internal design features of the product in question, (j) the '1980 version of the model silencer' was 'manufactured containing a total of 17 internalised metal baffle plates' (k) whilst its 'November 1984' model, olly had a total of 14 manufactured internalised metal baffle plates. (l) Hence 'the difference in length' of 'half an inch' [the difference of length, between both, being about 'the depth of three metal baffle plates', inside 'one of the silencers' (m) or, as the case may be, the fact that the other silencer had 'three less metal baffle plates' to 'house inside' its 'metalic outer casing', (n) 'One of these two silencers' belonged to 'Anthony Pargeter', (o) the 'other silencer' belonged to 'Neville Bamber', (p) 'one of these silencers' was designed to have 'the shoulders of each metal baffle plate' 'facing inward' , from 'the muzzle end' of the design 'pointing inwards' toward the 'bottom end of the silencer' (q) whilst 'effectively','facing outwards', 'the other silencer', 'housed the shoulders' of the 'cup shape baffle plates facing inwards',(r) ' effectively facing away from ' the muzzle end of the silencer', at 'the top end' of 'that silencer', (s) the 'internal metal baffle plates','belonging to either silencer', are 'produced using 'universal measurement', (t) as 'a result of which', it may have been possible to 'switch baffle plates, from one of these silencers','into the other silencer' so that 'it could be made to look like one of the two silencers' had been fitted to the barrel of a rifle which was found 'no traces of blood' and 'human tissue'. In an 'instant reversing the roles' of 'the two rifles belonging' to 'each of the two unique silencers'. However, 'in order' to be 'able to pull the deception off', one of the rifles would need to be removed from 'any police enquiry', or 'investigation', so that 'the condition of its barrel', could 'not be checked' for 'the lack' or 'proof of it being contaminated' or 'for want' of 'a better phrase' with 'the blood of a victim', or 'as the case may well be', the 'presence',[or `for that matter`] 'a complete absence' of 'human tissue', 'lining one' or 'other' of 'the two rifle barrels, ..
-
There was 'only two key silencers at play' in 'this miscarriage of justice debacle' these are, to 'cut to the chase' a 17 baffled parker hale silencer belonging to the 'Pargeter rifle' that 'he had purchased' in '1980'. The other 'similar parker hale silencer' [a 'half inch shorter 'in length' than 'the other', '14 baffled parker hale silencer'] was 'purchased' in 'November 1984' by 'Neville Bamber'.
'One' of 'these two silencers' was 'almost certainly used' during 'the course' of 'the shooting of family member' fitted to 'the end of the barrel of either one' of [them] the 'Pargeter rifle' , or the' Bamber rifle', and yet 'it may still be possible', despite 'some 36 years already having elapsed" to 'confirm' to 'which rifle' a 'silencer' was 'attached to', or 'not', and 'the identity of the gun man'...
-
Bamber probably said 'by' or 'next to' the bed. Julie remembered it as 'on'.
Or Bamber did say 'on' in error.
Very minor detail considering Julie's WS was 24 pages & gave so much information.
Although the phrase 'on the bed' does appear in someone else's WS Adam as I am sure you know, it's not minor to me. It's a good job Cc is here to help you out Adam ;)
-
Although the phrase 'on the bed' does appear in someone else's WS Adam as I am sure you know, it's not minor to me. It's a good job Cc is here to help you out Adam ;)
Feel free to make it a big thing.
The information in Julie's WS she could only have got from Bamber.
-
Feel free to make it a big thing.
The information in Julie's WS she could only have got from Bamber.
How can she only have got information from Bamber that was also known to Ann Eaton, Robert Boutflour and the police?
-
Although the phrase 'on the bed' does appear in someone else's WS Adam as I am sure you know, it's not minor to me. It's a good job Cc is here to help you out Adam ;)
The bible on Sheila's chest is in Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary also.
-
How can she only have got information from Bamber that was also known to Ann Eaton, Robert Boutflour and the police?
As said yesterday -
The relatives would not engage with Bamber's girlfriend.
The police would not tell her to include these in her WS. Then tell her to introduce MM.
-
I pose the following dilemna, in the hope of being successful in determing which rifle was fitted with one of these two silencers at the time that the fatal contact shot killed off 'Sheila Caffell' on 'the bed in the main bedroom', and why did whoever shot her and killed her on tge bed, went to all the trouble of lifting her body off the top of the bed, and placing her in the recovery positition on the bedroom floor, after which her body was rolled back into the suppine position in close proximity to the edge of the main bed, and the light coloured bedside cabinet. It must be the case, that after 'Sheila' received the second shot and whilst she was positioned in the recovery position on the bedroom floor, as described, that the rifle that was subsequently placed on top of her body, with the muzzle end of the rifles barrel pointing general into that part of her neck, where previously there had only been a single bullet entry wound whilst her body was photographed laid on top of the bed resting on top of the bed, but where now she had been wounded [fatally] by way of a second shot which must have got inflicted after police had photographedwho were keen to relay her on the bed, minus any rifle, or bible, but which by the time she was transferred into her eventual place of death'where had the rifle' from 'the bed' and 'the holy bible' from on top of her chest'[gone to], as `contended` by 'DS Jones' and 'DC Clark' when they attended 'Jeremys' cottage to take his '7th August 1985 [1st) witness statement. The two cops informed', 'Ann Eaton', 'other relatives, and 'Julie Mugford' that 'Nevilles' body had been found dead' downstairs in the kitchen. They added voluntarily that the bodies of 'Sheila' and ' June' were laid side by side on top of the bed, and that tgere was a rifle resting on the bed in between both bodies. 'Sheila' they told all present had an
Open bible resting on her chest. The twins were fo. Und, both had been shot dead in the beds where they had been sleeping. It must all be true, and remained as such, until 'DS Jones' and 'DC Clark' left the main bedroom crime scene, at around 9.12am. At that stage, 'Sheila' and 'Junes' bodies were laid side by side on top of the bed in the main bedroom. That left a 48 minute period before 'PC Bird' entered the main bedroom and started to take photographs of the rearranged positions where the two bodies had been displaced to 'June' onto the floor next to, and leaning against the inside of the bedroom door, with 'Sheila on the floor on the side of the bed where ' DS Jones' and 'DC Clark' ' had seen them both only some' three quarters of an hour' or 'so' , 'earlier'. How had the two bodies got from off the bed, onto the main bedroom floor withIn 'a 48 minute period' ? Who moved the rifle from its resting place on top of the bed [as seen by 'DS Jones' and 'DC Clark' insitu on the bed until 9.12am? Who practiced 'CPR' on 'Sheila' and rolled her body about after she received the second fatal shot? It wasn't 'Jeremy' or any 'hitman' who 'staged' 'Sheila Caffells suicide', it was 'the police', 'themselves' who did it. They not only tamperred with the positioning of 'Sheila Caffells' body whilst they rearranged her death scene, but these hoodlum crooked cops, rearranged 'Neville Bambers' and 'June Bambers', death scenes. Lets set out the facts, this mob of lawless cops took great joy in having their photographs taken next to the bodies of the three adult victims. These cops treat the bodies of these three family members, lIke props in a theatre production. The cops know what they have done, and did - and by the same token, they went along with a wicked plan to convict an innocent man of five murders using dodgy blood, paint and silencer evidence that was clearly manufactured and falsified for the sake of trying to prevent anyone and everyone from ever knowing the disgusting and hordendous behaviour those cops performed at, and inside the farmhouse...
-
For the record, only two silencers were ever sent to the lab' to be examined - 'SBJ/1' on the '13th August 1985' and 'DRB/1' sent to the lab' at 'Huntingdon' on the '20th September 1985. Exhibit 'DB/1' (lab item no. 23) was 'a dry flake of blood' come 'sticky blob' which 'David Boutflour' scraped off the outside casing of the silencer he found at the scene, on the '10th August 1985', the silencer that he tampered with on tgat occasion, subsequently became exhibit 'DRB/1' (lab item no. 22/23]
-
I do have evidence. All the DB items 1- 7 were collected on the day but then he takes another soil sample a month later and another a little later still according to his pocket book and what he told the COLP.
What day?
-
It remains a distinct possibility that `any use of the 17 baffled parker hale silencer on one of the rifles used in the shootings, and that in particular, it fired 'the fatal shot' and that 'it' killed 'Sheila' [bullet 'PV/19'] and that the phenomena of 'backspatter' caused blood 'to flow back', into 'the full 7 inch length' of the 'items' [all other '17 baffle plates,' containing the blood'. 'if' so, then 'three features', arising 'out of this possibility', 'would or might come into play, as follows (1) all 17 internal metal baffle plates of that '7 inch long', 'parker hale silencer' at risk of being contaminated' or 'saturated with human blood', also (2) at peril of the 'internal screw thread' which attaches onto 'the external thread' on 'the end of the rifles barrel', which 'might' or 'could', 'receive', 'blood contamination', and (3) 'blood contamination', 'lining the inner wall' of 'the rifles barrel', which 'had fired the [only] full contact shot' and `fatal bullet` ['PV/19']...
Meanwhile, the 'other rifle', belonging to 'Bamber', which had been used to fire some of the shots, 'was not fitted' with 'its, or 'a silencer'. A 'truth', 'exacerbated', and 'proven' by 'an absence' of 'any blood group activity', 'inside', 'the lining of the [Bamber] rifles barrel'...
Please, 'take into account', 'the following aspects' and 'features' of ' the importance' and 'the significance' of 'Human blood', found 'to be present in the inverted [internal] thread of the' 17 internalised version / model of one of these two key silencers. This silencer 'was' / 'is owned' by 'Anthony Pargeter' and 'it was purchased in 1980, at the same time that he purchased his . 22 [Brno] bolt action rifle and a variety of several manufacturers. 22 [type] ammunition...
-
THE MISSING ITEM DB1
[/size]
As a result of recent communications on this thread, I believe we have agreed that DB1 thru DB7 exhibits were collected while WHF was a crime scene (07/08/85 – 09/08/85).
Which day?
The exact day is of little relevance. My best guess is the first day because DS Davidson was in attendance and DB says he passed him his finds, particularly the blue socks. DB went to the mortuary for recording on day one pm and again to further autopsies on the second day, returning to WHF for a meeting late in the afternoon. I have no evidence as to whether DS Davidson was present. I do not know if DB attended on day 3 before the handing over of the keys to the relatives.
We agree that DB collected a soil sample(s) in September as noted in his pocket book. However, If the above is true, this should have been recorded as DB8 and not DB1 according to his explanation of how he collected exhibits.
Even if this is a misreporting or an accident, it does not tell us what the original item DB1 collected from the crime scene was.
The only item in all the case paperwork currently available is a silencer or sound moderator originally recorded as DB1 which was later changed to DRB1 when the finder was said to be David Robert Boutflour and not David Bird.
"That is not a fact." David 1819 reply 358.
David is quite right to say the swap was not a fact. I should have been more circumspect in my language used and said that the fact that maybe the silencer was swapped hurt JB.
However, it does appear that something like a swap may have happened. Members can come to their own conclusions.
Can members suggest an item for the missing DB1? Please do not use this an excuse for ribaldry. It is a very serious question deserving of a serious answer.
I have yet to receive a plausible and rational argument regarding the two statements and additionally ask for the following to be considered
.
Why are there no photographs of DB’s finds, in situ, before he collected and processed them? The only picture we have is DB6 blue socks.
He describes to us, that this is the procedure used by the SOCO officers.
-
Can members suggest an item for the missing DB1? Please do not use this an excuse for ribaldry. It is a very serious question deserving of a serious answer.
Everything, points, to the item bearing the exhibit reference of 'DB/1', lab' item reference no. 23, as not having been a silencer, at all. Infact, lab' item no. 23 [exhibit reference, 'DB/1'] was infact, 'the flake of blood' [`sticky', 'jam-like', 'blob'] which 'David Boutflour' 'scraped from the outer casing', of 'the silencer' that 'he found at the scene' on the '10th August 1985'. The `fact of the matter`, is that on 'the evening of the 12th August 1985', 'Peter Eaton' [a `registered gun`,'dealor'] did 'not hand over' to 'DS Jones'['a silencer'] , on 'that occasion', since, 'the silencer', [`David Boutflour'] he 'himself' had found initially', belonged to 'the Bamber', 'owned', '.22 Anshuzt, semi-automatic 'rifle'. 'That', 'however', regarding 'this particular part' of the 'prosecutions', 'various scripts'. This 'particular approach' or 'action', the 'silencer' which 'David Boutflour' recovered 'from the farmhouse' on 'the 10th August 1985' [the,`Bamber owned silencer'] , only 'had 14 internal baffle plates', 'not the crucial 17 internalised baffle plates', inside 'which was discovered' the 'key blood group evidence', and, 'or' the 'red paint' that was 'eventually found', or 'contaminated', and, 'or' falsified'..
-
THE MISSING ITEM DB1
[/size]
As a result of recent communications on this thread, I believe we have agreed that DB1 thru DB7 exhibits were collected while WHF was a crime scene (07/08/85 – 09/08/85).
The exact day is of little relevance. My best guess is the first day because DS Davidson was in attendance and DB says he passed him his finds, particularly the blue socks. DB went to the mortuary for recording on day one pm and again to further autopsies on the second day, returning to WHF for a meeting late in the afternoon. I have no evidence as to whether DS Davidson was present. I do not know if DB attended on day 3 before the handing over of the keys to the relatives.
We agree that DB collected a soil sample(s) in September as noted in his pocket book. However, If the above is true, this should have been recorded as DB8 and not DB1 according to his explanation of how he collected exhibits.
Even if this is a misreporting or an accident, it does not tell us what the original item DB1 collected from the crime scene was.
The only item in all the case paperwork currently available is a silencer or sound moderator originally recorded as DB1 which was later changed to DRB1 when the finder was said to be David Robert Boutflour and not David Bird.
"That is not a fact." David 1819 reply 358.
David is quite right to say the swap was not a fact. I should have been more circumspect in my language used and said that the fact that maybe the silencer was swapped hurt JB.
However, it does appear that something like a swap may have happened. Members can come to their own conclusions.
Can members suggest an item for the missing DB1? Please do not use this an excuse for ribaldry. It is a very serious question deserving of a serious answer.
I have yet to receive a plausible and rational argument regarding the two statements and additionally ask for the following to be considered
.
Why are there no photographs of DB’s finds, in situ, before he collected and processed them? The only picture we have is DB6 blue socks.
He describes to us, that this is the procedure used by the SOCO officers.
There has only ever been one silencer in this case. It was found by Mr Boutflour jnr and handed to DS Jones who took meticulous care of it by wrapping it in the cardboard inner of a kitchen roll thus preserving its integrity. Supporters come up with all sorts of nonsense ranging from multiple silencers to deliberate contamination by relatives dripping blood inside or using Sheila's stained period blood knickers. Anything other than admit its damning evidence against Bamber.
-
Going back a few years there's always been two silencers, documented too ! There are a couple such letters of proof on the forum.
-
Everything, points, to the item bearing the exhibit reference of 'DB/1', lab' item reference no. 23, as not having been a silencer, at all. Infact, lab' item no. 23 [exhibit reference, 'DB/1'] was infact, 'the flake of blood' which 'David Boutflour' 'scraped from the outer casing', of 'the silencer' that 'he found at the scene' on the '10th August 1985'. The fact of the matter, is that on 'the evening of the 12th August 1985', was that 'Peter Eaton' [a `registered gun`,'dealor'] did 'not hand over' to 'DS Jones', on 'that occasion', since, 'the silencer' he 'himself' had found initially', belonged to 'the Bamber owned' and 'a rifle'. 'That, however, this particuler' advice and action, silencer bearing only 14 internal baffle plates
I cannot agree. If SBJ handed RC a SM it had to be either one given to him between 11.35 and 14.30 by DB on 07/08/85 or the SM presented by the family. I do not believe the family found a SM on 10/08/85. They found it or used it some time later when Ainsley was in charge. But they had to bring the find date forward so that it could be the only one involved in the case. And it had to be found early enough so that it could be the one sent to the lab on 13/08/85.
Taff was clever enough to see where they were coming from given their behaviour towards him and EP.
Do not forget that there is a possibility that NB did phone the police (This was hidden, like who found DB1?) and that signs of life were observed during the so called siege. So why would he have any interest in a piece of evidence proffered by a mendacious family.
You yourself have shown us that Basil Cock was at WHF when the find was made and correctly observed it had to be later because of the fingerprint dust.
I believe this was a staged event. Using a legal representative as a witness. But and it is a big but, when further into the organising of the frame they discovered records of an SM being sent to the lab. Whose records they could not change to fit.
Hence the bringing forward of the find date.
Besides all of this would look mighty strange if this happened before JM came forward.
The item that would be the only source of JB's conviction would be a SM found by the family.
-
Going back a few years there's always been two silencers, documented too ! There are a couple such letters of proof on the forum.
Yes, you may be referring to the FSS examination reports, which I have seen as well. They clearly document two different silencers.
-
Yes, you may be referring to the FSS examination reports, which I have seen as well. They clearly document two different silencers.
The resident criminal barriser here has already said there were at least four silencers and possibly a fith. So what? Only one had incriminating evidence in/on it - blood, paint and a hair - and that's the one that rightly convicted Bamber. Slam dunk. Try and get out of that one pal!
-
The resident criminal barriser here has already said there were at least four silencers and possibly a fith. So what? Only one had incriminating evidence in/on it - blood, paint and a hair - and that's the one that rightly convicted Bamber. Slam dunk. Try and get out of that one pal!
We're not pals. Let's just clear that one up for starters.
I have no idea about four or five silencers. I am aware of FSS records that show two different silencers were examined, one found with paint, the other found with blood. The documents are already uploaded to the Forum.
-
The resident criminal barriser here has already said there were at least four silencers and possibly a fith. So what? Only one had incriminating evidence in/on it - blood, paint and a hair - and that's the one that rightly convicted Bamber. Slam dunk. Try and get out of that one pal!
Yes he has but when you look at the sources of the other three it is clear they played no part in events. I believe he explained the sources.
-
We're not pals. Let's just clear that one up for starters.
I have no idea about four or five silencers. I am aware of FSS records that show two different silencers were examined, one found with paint, the other found with blood. The documents are already uploaded to the Forum.
Just hope CC doesn't move on to another moniker like matey.
-
We're not pals. Let's just clear that one up for starters.
I have no idea about four or five silencers. I am aware of FSS records that show two different silencers were examined, one found with paint, the other found with blood. The documents are already uploaded to the Forum.
Yeah like the phone call from Mr Bamber snr ::) a 999 call from Sheila ::) someone alive inside the farmhouse when police arrived ::) swapped bullet ::) Sheila first observed in kitchen ::) police shooting Sheila ::) police using farmhouse as a training exercise ::) all concerned fabricating the silencer evidence ::) swapping this that and the other for soil samples ::)
The review commission and appeal courts need a medal for dealing with this utter nonsense.
-
Yes he has but when you look at the sources of the other three it is clear they played no part in events. I believe he explained the sources.
So if he has explained 3 then surely that only leaves the one that secured Bamber's fate?
-
Just hope CC doesn't move on to another moniker like matey.
Eh that's enought of that love ;D
-
So if he has explained 3 then surely that only leaves the one that secured Bamber's fate?
Five minus 3 = 2 not 1
-
Yeah like the phone call from Mr Bamber snr ::) a 999 call from Sheila ::) someone alive inside the farmhouse when police arrived ::) swapped bullet ::) Sheila first observed in kitchen ::) police shooting Sheila ::) police using farmhouse as a training exercise ::) all concerned fabricating the silencer evidence ::) swapping this that and the other for soil samples ::)
The review commission and appeal courts need a medal for dealing with this utter nonsense.
Don't know what you're on about. As I've literally just told you, the documents are uploaded to the Forum. They are FSS examination reports.
-
Don't know what you're on about. As I've literally just told you, the documents are uploaded to the Forum. They are FSS examination reports.
Course they are and there's only one interpretation ::)
-
Course they are and there's only one interpretation ::)
Ah, another guilter who says I am lying when I say that something is already posted on the Forum.
All I have said is that there are two different FSS examination reports showing two different silencers, which were examined and show two different pieces of evidence - one paint, the other blood. These documents were uploaded to the Forum by Mike. This is fact. I am not making it up.
Whether this means that something untoward has gone on is a matter for reasoning and interpretation. I have not said that or made that claim. I only say what is on the Forum.
-
Ah, another guilter who says I am lying when I say that something is already posted on the Forum.
All I have said is that there are two different FSS examination reports showing two different silencers, which were examined and show two different pieces of evidence - one paint, the other blood. These documents were uploaded to the Forum by Mike. This is fact. I am not making it up.
Whether this means that something untoward has gone on is a matter for reasoning and interpretation. I have not said that or made that claim. I only say what is on the Forum.
You're getting a bit sensitive pal ;D
A document can be intepreted in many ways eg the phone logs which supporters say is evidence of a phone call from Mr Bamber snr. Those who believe Bamber guilty say the complete opposite. What's important is how the review commission/appeal courts interpret these things. in the grand scheme of things forums and posters are completely irrelevant.
-
I cannot agree. If SBJ handed RC a SM it had to be either one given to him between 11.35 and 14.30 by DB on 07/08/85 or the SM presented by the family. I do not believe the family found a SM on 10/08/85. They found it or used it some time later when Ainsley was in charge. But they had to bring the find date forward so that it could be the only one involved in the case. And it had to be found early enough so that it could be the one sent to the lab on 13/08/85.
Taff was clever enough to see where they were coming from given their behaviour towards him and EP.
Do not forget that there is a possibility that NB did phone the police (This was hidden, like who found DB1?) and that signs of life were observed during the so called siege. So why would he have any interest in a piece of evidence proffered by a mendacious family.
You yourself have shown us that Basil Cock was at WHF when the find was made and correctly observed it had to be later because of the fingerprint dust.
I believe this was a staged event, Using a legal representative as a witness. but when further into the organising of the frame they discovered records of an SM being sent to the lab. Whose records they could not change to fit.
Hence the bringing forward of the find date.
Besides all of this would would look mighty strange if this happened before JM came forward.
The item that would be the only source of JB's conviction would be a SM found by the family.
He already had a SM DB1 which may have played a part/role in the tragedy so why would he need another, which in all probability, had been scrutinised and deemed to be of no evidential value
-
You're getting a bit sensitive pal ;D
I'm going to cry. Boo-hoo.
A document can be intepreted in many ways eg the phone logs which supporters say is evidence of a phone call from Mr Bamber snr. Those who believe Bamber guilty say the complete opposite. What's important is how the review commission/appeal courts interpret these things. in the grand scheme of things forums and posters are completely irrelevant.
You have a great talent for stating the obvious. If you look back at my post, you'll see that I accept the evidence on the Forum could be open to interpretation, though I have to remind you that the police and Crown have always denied seizing and examining more than one silencer.
In last year's judicial review case, Crown counsel offered that [words to the effect] any number of silencers could have been discovered, it would make no difference. I'm not sure I agree with this rather breezy and complacent assertion. For one thing, this is about two different silencers having been seized and then examined, with different evidence found on each. It leaves us with rather an opaque picture.
Of course, you are free to disagree.
One polite request: please desist from calling me 'pal'. We're not lorry drivers sipping hot brews in a cafe at Scotch Corner, and I am not acquainted with you beyond this Forum, thank goodness.
-
The best thing to do with the silencer is follow the evidence -
There was an available silencer.
Using a silencer would benefit Bamber.
Back spatter occurs with contact shots.
Sheila received 2 contact shots in an area of high blood flow.
The ceiling kitchen light was smashed. Suggesting a wrestle for the rifle.
The aga was scratched during the wrestle for the rifle.
Bamber had to take the silencer off after shooting Sheila.
Bamber had three options after taking the silencer off. He chose to put it away.
The police did not check the silencers in the gun cupboard.
The relatives did check the silencers in the gun cupboard.
A silencer was examined & had Sheila's blood & the aga paint on/in. Meaning Sheila was not the killer.
Bamber is now the only suspect. With motives, an opportunity & no alibi.
-
Scotch Corner,
Quite a junction that. A66 meets A1. North Yorks is some county and A66 (gateway to Cumbria) has to be one of the most scenic motorways in Britain.
-
I'm going to cry. Boo-hoo.
You have a great talent for stating the obvious. If you look back at my post, you'll see that I accept the evidence on the Forum could be open to interpretation, though I have to remind you that the police and Crown have always denied seizing and examining more than one silencer.
In last year's judicial review case, Crown counsel offered that [words to the effect] any number of silencers could have been discovered, it would make no difference. I'm not sure I agree with this rather breezy and complacent assertion. For one thing, this is about two different silencers having been seized and then examined, with different evidence found on each. It leaves us with rather an opaque picture.
Of course, you are free to disagree.
One polite request: please desist from calling me 'pal'. We're not lorry drivers sipping hot brews in a cafe at Scotch Corner, and I am not acquainted with you beyond this Forum, thank goodness.
If Bamber can prove that two different silencers are involved - one with paint and another with blood - them I'm sure the review commission will be bouncing his submission onto the appeal courts. Bamber and his people claim all sorts of things none of which stand up to scrutiny and I doubt this silencer business is any different.
You do realise that lorry drivers are in great demand.
-
All I have said is that there are two different FSS examination reports showing two different silencers, which were examined and show two different pieces of evidence - one paint, the other blood. These documents were uploaded to the Forum by Mike. This is fact. I am not making it up.
That is incorrect. There is paint and blood recorded on both examinations.
-
The best thing to do with the silencer is follow the evidence -
There was an available silencer.
Using a silencer would benefit Bamber.
Back spatter occurs with contact shots.
Sheila received 2 contact shots in an area of high blood flow.
The ceiling kitchen light was smashed. Suggesting a wrestle for the rifle.
The aga was scratched during the wrestle for the rifle.
Bamber had to take the silencer off after shooting Sheila.
Bamber had three options after taking the silencer off. He chose to put it away.
The police did not check the silencers in the gun cupboard.
The relatives did check the silencers in the gun cupboard.
A silencer was examined & had Sheila's blood & the aga paint on/in. Meaning Sheila was not the killer.
Bamber is now the only suspect. With motives, an opportunity & no alibi.
Makes perfect sense to me. Brief to the point in plain English but at the same time well thought through and logical.
-
Quite a junction that. A66 meets A1. North Yorks is some county and A66 (gateway to Cumbria) has to be one of the most scenic motorways in Britain.
I think my compatriots in the North Riding should give some of the West Riding back. Or there may be a Yorkie civil war.
-
That is incorrect. There is paint and blood recorded on both examinations.
That's not my recollection. Anyway, the documents are on the Forum for people to look at. So look.
-
If Bamber can prove that two different silencers are involved - one with paint and another with blood - them I'm sure the review commission will be bouncing his submission onto the appeal courts. Bamber and his people claim all sorts of things none of which stand up to scrutiny and I doubt this silencer business is any different.
You do realise that lorry drivers are in great demand.
I have no idea what they can and cannot prove. I only repeat what is on the Forum - two documents that show two different silencers. Make of it what you will.
I don't care whether lorry drivers are in great demand or not. I was not denigrating lorry drivers, I was denigrating you as the way you address me here seems inappropriate. We're not 'pals'.
-
That's not my recollection. Anyway, the documents are on the Forum for people to look at. So look.
I have. The SBJ/1 August 13th Holab has KM negative red marks on the knurled end cap where it was later confirmed as red paint from the mantle.
-
I have. The SBJ/1 August 13th Holab has KM negative red marks on the knurled end cap where it was later confirmed as red paint from the mantle.
Thank you for looking, but I'm happy for people to look for themselves. If my recollection about the particularity of what evidence is on what is mistaken, that doesn't change the fact that there are two different examination reports for two different silencers with - inevitably - two sets of forensic evidence. I merely report what is on the Forum.
-
Thank you for looking, but I'm happy for people to look for themselves. If my recollection about the particularity of what evidence is on what is mistaken, that doesn't change the fact that there are two different examination reports for two different silencers with - inevitably - two sets of forensic evidence. I merely report what is on the Forum.
SBJ1 - DB1 - DRB1 are all the same exhibit.
Di Cook named it SBJ1 because he wrongly assumed Stan Jones had found it. It was the changed to DB and later DRB1.
-
The best thing to do with the silencer is follow the evidence -
There was an available silencer.
Using a silencer would benefit Bamber.
Back spatter occurs with contact shots.
Sheila received 2 contact shots in an area of high blood flow.
The ceiling kitchen light was smashed. Suggesting a wrestle for the rifle.
The aga was scratched during the wrestle for the rifle.
Bamber had to take the silencer off after shooting Sheila.
Bamber had three options after taking the silencer off. He chose to put it away.
The police did not check the silencers in the gun cupboard.
The relatives did check the silencers in the gun cupboard.
A silencer was examined & had Sheila's blood & the aga paint on/in. Meaning Sheila was not the killer.
Bamber is now the only suspect. With motives, an opportunity & no alibi.
When can I expect an answer to -
Marks on Nevills forearm caused by the end rifle barrel.
Muzzle imprints on Sheilas chin caused by the end rifle barrel sans silencer.
No skin tissue in the silencer.
No blood, DNA, tissue or bone fragments from Nicholas Cafell in the silencer.
Or are you just going hand wave this and say its in my imagination like last time?
-
SBJ1 - DB1 - DRB1 are all the same exhibit.
Di Cook named it SBJ1 because he wrongly assumed Stan Jones had found it. It was the changed to DB and later DRB1.
We're at cross-purposes. That's not what I'm referring to.
-
When can I expect an answer to -
Marks on Nevills forearm caused by the end rifle barrel.
He refers to a linear object and the rounded end of such.
Muzzle imprints on Sheilas chin caused by the end rifle barrel sans silencer.
The fact experts in US claim such is meaningless when experts haven't challenged on behalf of prosecution.
No skin tissue in the silencer.
Skin tissue doesn't always present.
No blood, DNA, tissue or bone fragments from Nicholas Cafell in the silencer.
Hair can impede flight. Immature skull may make a difference.
Or are you just going hand wave this and say its in my imagination like last time?
I wouldn't say its your imagination just that you're wrong.
-
I have no idea what they can and cannot prove. I only repeat what is on the Forum - two documents that show two different silencers. Make of it what you will.
I don't care whether lorry drivers are in great demand or not. I was not denigrating lorry drivers, I was denigrating you as the way you address me here seems inappropriate. We're not 'pals'.
It's a figure of speech. Does it really matter? At least I am not using derogatory terms. ::)
-
SBJ1 - DB1 - DRB1 are all the same exhibit.
Of course they are ::)
(http://)
Di Cook named it SBJ1 because he wrongly assumed Stan Jones had found it. It was the changed to DB and later DRB1.
Wasn't there something about DS Jones entering the silencer into the wrong property book when it was checked in as an exhibit?
-
We're at cross-purposes. That's not what I'm referring to.
Pray tell.
-
When can I expect an answer to -
Marks on Nevills forearm caused by the end rifle barrel.
Muzzle imprints on Sheilas chin caused by the end rifle barrel sans silencer.
No skin tissue in the silencer.
No blood, DNA, tissue or bone fragments from Nicholas Cafell in the silencer.
Or are you just going hand wave this and say its in my imagination like last time?
Marks on Nevills forearm caused by the end rifle barrel.
----------
That was dismissed a couple of days ago. You do not hit a tennis ball with the thin part.
But well done for finding a scribbled note.
-
When can I expect an answer to -
Marks on Nevills forearm caused by the end rifle barrel.
Muzzle imprints on Sheilas chin caused by the end rifle barrel sans silencer.
No skin tissue in the silencer.
No blood, DNA, tissue or bone fragments from Nicholas Cafell in the silencer.
Or are you just going hand wave this and say its in my imagination like last time?
Muzzle imprints on Sheilas chin caused by the end rifle barrel sans silencer.
----------
Sheila was shot with silencer attached. In an area of high blood flow.
This resulted in back splatter into the silencer.
-
When can I expect an answer to -
Marks on Nevills forearm caused by the end rifle barrel.
Muzzle imprints on Sheilas chin caused by the end rifle barrel sans silencer.
No skin tissue in the silencer.
No blood, DNA, tissue or bone fragments from Nicholas Cafell in the silencer.
Or are you just going hand wave this and say its in my imagination like last time?
No skin tissue in the silencer.
----------
Skin tissue? Even the CT have not brought that up.
-
When can I expect an answer to -
Marks on Nevills forearm caused by the end rifle barrel.
Muzzle imprints on Sheilas chin caused by the end rifle barrel sans silencer.
No skin tissue in the silencer.
No blood, DNA, tissue or bone fragments from Nicholas Cafell in the silencer.
Or are you just going hand wave this and say its in my imagination like last time?
No blood, DNA, tissue or bone fragments from Nicholas Cafell in the silencer.
----------
Even the CT have not brought this up. Despite the current wave of about 20 podcasts.
-
Well the author of this thread certainly got the title right. Could somebody please explain succinctly in one short paragraph without repetition, hesitation or deviation why the the evidence in this area is dubious?
-
SBJ1 - DB1 - DRB1 are all the same exhibit.
Di Cook named it SBJ1 because he wrongly assumed Stan Jones had found it. It was the changed to DB and later DRB1.
Unfortunately, these three [four or five] exhibit references, which 'the damned' who 'claim them' to/as 'being' the same 'parker hale silencer' in 'all instances', is 'false', and 'amounts' to 'dishonest activity', which the 'worst Criminals' 'working' within different parties of 'the overall criminal justice system', 'pull off', 'frequently...
'Irrefutable evidence' has 'now been sourced'(uncovered) 'to confirm' that 'the following items' of 'evidential value' were 'all silencers', or 'the self-same silencer' which was presented as 'having been contaminated' with 'all manner' of 'scientific' or 'forensic - waffle'..
'Know the truth' - here, 'I can now reveal' / 'provide' and 'identify', 'all of the items', which 'at one time' , or 'another', were 'faked' in order to present 'a misleading script', capable of 'fooling' the 'court' , which 'tried the matter' with the view [intension] of 'trying' to 'convict' an innocent defendant' of 'five murders' of 'family members'...
'SBJ/1' - [ `Bamber owned silencer', consisting of 'only 14 internalised baffle plates'
'SJ/1' - as above
'DB/1' - ['flake', 'sticky', 'jam-like' 'blob' which 'David Boutflour' on his own admission, that 'he' had used 'a razor blade' to 'scrape it' from 'the outer surface' of 'the silencers', 'casing'..
'CA/1' - the 'silencer' that 'her brother' ['David Boutflour`] had 'originally recovered from, a 'so called', 'gun cupboard at the scene', [the previous month] on the '10th August 1985'..
'CAE/1' - as above, at 'CA/1'
'DRB/1' - the 'actual silencer', which 'David Boutflour' had 'used a razor blade' to 'enable him', to 'scrape' [the item] `DB/1' [the 'flake of blood', 'sticky', 'jam-like', 'blob'], from 'this silencer'..
The items, (listed above) were / are 'not' references to 'a Silencer' which just so happens to be the very same silencer (in all instances). There was only 'two key silencers' [`SBJ/1'] that was once referred to, as exhibit 'SJ/1', which 'Essex police', 'its experts' [from the lab', and] 'the relatives`,' tampered with' [and, of course] `they all 'conspired to pervert the course of justice' in 'pursuit of financial reward' and 'improved reputation'
-
No skin tissue in the silencer.
----------
Skin tissue? Even the CT have not brought that up.
I don't suppose anyone realised that there would have been a certain amount of skin tissue in/on the silencer and also inside the rifle's barrel, but alas it obviously wasn't tested for such ::)
-
I don't suppose anyone realised that there would have been a certain amount of skin tissue in/on the silencer and also inside the rifle's barrel, but alas it obviously wasn't tested for such ::)
Skin tissue. The rifle was barely powerful enough to bring up blood spatter.
-
I don't suppose anyone realised that there would have been a certain amount of skin tissue in/on the silencer and also inside the rifle's barrel, but alas it obviously wasn't tested for such ::)
Are you for real?
The rifle was checked by way of a 'pull through' and did not reveal any debris associated with the killings. The silencer on the other hand contained blood within.
I honestly think if you understood the case against Bamber you would not believe him innocent.
-
The fact experts in US claim such is meaningless when experts haven't challenged on behalf of prosecution.
The CCRC couldn't challenge the ballistic evidence, they had no counter-expert to challenge the findings of the US experts. What they did manage to do, was get a photographic counter-experts opinion on the reports of Peter Suthurst. Who believed Suthursts claims were inconclusive. This enabled to CCRC to deny a referral on labyrinthine technicality explained below.
"34. The evidence of Dr Fowler is set out in a more substantial report. That report has been peer?reviewed by Dr Dragovich, who is Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, who is the retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Both have qualifications as forensic pathologists. In his careful report, Dr Fowler makes clear that he has reviewed the evidence, which was available in relation to the wounds. He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds. He refers to further work that needs doing, a matter to which I will return in a moment.
35. The Commission's judgment on this matter, which is set out carefully in its decision, is at paragraphs 360 to 362. First of all, it is said that Dr Fowler did not deal with the fact that there was no residue found in the rifle, but there was the blood flake found in the silencer. Although there is really no answer to the first half of that observation, as regards the second there is the point, on which I was prepared to make an assumption, namely that there may be a problem with the blood flake. I have made that assumption because it seems to me that it is possible to do so by reference to the other reasons given by the Commission. The first is the fact that the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence."
"38.Taking, therefore, the three grounds relied on together, and for this purpose making an assumption again in favour of Mr Bamber on the first point, but doing so on the basis that the second and third points, namely the report of Dr Caruso and the report of Dr Fowler, have been dealt with by the Commission in a way that is not open to challenge",
"11. That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil."
They could have denied an application for an appeal. The silencer itself consists of two pillars of evidence
A - The blood on the inside that matches Sheila
B - The Paint on the outside that matches the AGA surround.
Dismantling A is all well and good but then you still have B showing the silencer was still used on the night. The same applies vice versa. For argument sake, If it was proven that the marks on Sheila's neck/chin show silencer abrasions but Jeremy could prove the scratches were put there afterwards, it does not overcome the evidence against him.
Suthurst's evidence was undermined Andy Laws claiming it was "inconclusive"
The logic applied by the CCRC makes sense, But it is raising the bar extremely high.
If it can be proven 100% that the scratches were made after the murders then they would probably have to grant an appeal.
the COA have already made a judgment back in 2002 on the relevant issue
"The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself
Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room."
This brings us back the 2012 Judgment
"That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil."
This is why the appeal was denied and the court sided with the CCRC.
-
Skin tissue. The rifle was barely powerful enough to bring up blood spatter.
I wasn't talking about blood spatter ::) Where you have injuries such as bullet wounds---some made at close quarters you have slivers of flesh on the end of the rifle.
-
This brings us back the 2012 Judgment
"That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil."
Why is this so?
-
The CCRC couldn't challenge the ballistic evidence, they had no counter-expert to challenge the findings of the US experts. What they did manage to do, was get a photographic counter-experts opinion on the reports of Peter Suthurst. Who believed Suthursts claims were inconclusive. This enabled to CCRC to deny a referral on labyrinthine technicality explained below.
"34. The evidence of Dr Fowler is set out in a more substantial report. That report has been peer?reviewed by Dr Dragovich, who is Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, who is the retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Both have qualifications as forensic pathologists. In his careful report, Dr Fowler makes clear that he has reviewed the evidence, which was available in relation to the wounds. He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds. He refers to further work that needs doing, a matter to which I will return in a moment.
35. The Commission's judgment on this matter, which is set out carefully in its decision, is at paragraphs 360 to 362. First of all, it is said that Dr Fowler did not deal with the fact that there was no residue found in the rifle, but there was the blood flake found in the silencer. Although there is really no answer to the first half of that observation, as regards the second there is the point, on which I was prepared to make an assumption, namely that there may be a problem with the blood flake. I have made that assumption because it seems to me that it is possible to do so by reference to the other reasons given by the Commission. The first is the fact that the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence."
"38.Taking, therefore, the three grounds relied on together, and for this purpose making an assumption again in favour of Mr Bamber on the first point, but doing so on the basis that the second and third points, namely the report of Dr Caruso and the report of Dr Fowler, have been dealt with by the Commission in a way that is not open to challenge",
"11. That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil."
They could have denied an application for an appeal. The silencer itself consists of two pillars of evidence
A - The blood on the inside that matches Sheila
B - The Paint on the outside that matches the AGA surround.
Dismantling A is all well and good but then you still have B showing the silencer was still used on the night. The same applies vice versa. For argument sake, If it was proven that the marks on Sheila's neck/chin show silencer abrasions but Jeremy could prove the scratches were put there afterwards, it does not overcome the evidence against him.
Suthurst's evidence was undermined Andy Laws claiming it was "inconclusive"
The logic applied by the CCRC makes sense, But it is raising the bar extremely high.
If it can be proven 100% that the scratches were made after the murders then they would probably have to grant an appeal.
the COA have already made a judgment back in 2002 on the relevant issue
"The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself
Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room."
This brings us back the 2012 Judgment
"That question again has resolved into a narrow issue as to whether, when the fatal shot was fired in the kitchen at the father, Mr Bamber senior, the rifle used had on it a silencer, it being accepted that if there was a silencer on it at that time the prospects of the sister being the murderer were nil."
This is why the appeal was denied and the court sided with the CCRC.
The CCRC were not going to waste public money challenging the ballistics evidence (Sheila's abrasion rings) when they could fall back on the blood flake and to a lesser extent the scratch marks/paint.
The so called marks on Mr Bamber's back are a non-starter as the pathologists at trial could not even argee on what they were or when they occurred.
To date no evidence has been put forward to dent the silencer evidence that stands up to any sort of scrutiny. The support group are now having a go on the basis of dodgy paperwork and multiple silencers.
-
The CCRC were not going to waste public money challenging the ballistics evidence (Sheila's abrasion rings) when they could fall back on the blood flake and to a lesser extent the scratch marks/paint.
They couldn't challenge the evidence, read what I posted.
The so called marks on Mr Bamber's back are a non-starter as the pathologists at trial could not even argee on what they were or when they occurred.
CAL interviewed Vanezis in 2014 -
With hindsight, Vanezis disagrees: ‘I’ve thought about this a lot, with the benefit of another twenty-eight years’ experience. If you put something hot against fairly thick clothing, you’re more likely to burn the skin than the clothing because of the properties of the skin. If you pushed a rifle against someone’s back, that would fit in very nicely with the gun having already been fired and the muzzle still being hot when touching the back.’ He discounts the poker: ‘No, I think it’s the gun pressed against his skin.
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 193).
Moreover, when you consider the fact that Nevills burns are circular with an area in the centre less burned. Just like the Boyce experiments. There is little room for doubt for what caused them.
PS: Images 4 and 5 I have increased the contrast to make it easier to see.
(https://s8.postimg.cc/5b4a8cfb9/burntrial.png)
(https://s8.postimg.cc/iphd4vm4l/nb_burn.png)
(https://s8.postimg.cc/6c4ixe3zp/nb_burn2.png)
(https://s8.postimg.cc/71nb9qp3p/nb_burn3.png.jpg)
(https://s8.postimg.cc/q80idfdgl/muzzle.jpg)
-
They couldn't challenge the evidence, read what I posted.
CAL interviewed Vanezis in 2014 -
With hindsight, Vanezis disagrees: ‘I’ve thought about this a lot, with the benefit of another twenty-eight years’ experience. If you put something hot against fairly thick clothing, you’re more likely to burn the skin than the clothing because of the properties of the skin. If you pushed a rifle against someone’s back, that would fit in very nicely with the gun having already been fired and the muzzle still being hot when touching the back.’ He discounts the poker: ‘No, I think it’s the gun pressed against his skin.
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 193).
Moreover, when you consider the fact that Nevills burns are circular with an area in the centre less burned. Just like the Boyce experiments. There is little room for doubt for what caused them.
PS: Images 4 and 5 I have increased the contrast to make it easier to see.
(https://s8.postimg.cc/5b4a8cfb9/burntrial.png)
(https://s8.postimg.cc/iphd4vm4l/nb_burn.png)
(https://s8.postimg.cc/6c4ixe3zp/nb_burn2.png)
(https://s8.postimg.cc/71nb9qp3p/nb_burn3.png.jpg)
(https://s8.postimg.cc/q80idfdgl/muzzle.jpg)
I can read the full doc attached. Basically a polite way of saying no case to answer.
Prof Knight for the defence didn't think the marks were burns. And according to him neither did the HO pathologist.
-
Who but a severely deranged person would/ could cause such injuries, as well as the shooting and bashing of another person in this way ?
One category of a serial killer is to " rid the world of evildoers ".
" All people are bad and should be killed ", said Sheila.
-
I can read the full doc attached. Basically a polite way of saying no case to answer.
Prof Knight for the defence didn't think the marks were burns. And according to him neither did the HO pathologist.
Attached
-
Who but a severely deranged person would/ could cause such injuries, as well as the shooting and bashing of another person in this way ?
One category of a serial killer is to " rid the world of evildoers ".
" All people are bad and should be killed ", said Sheila.
The marks on Mr Bamber's back might be completely irrelevant to the murders. According to Yvonne she has got to the bottom of them.
-
Unfortunately for supporters, the silencer evidence is just one piece.
All the other sourced forensic evidence carries equal importance. Julie's huge WS is also very important.
Appreciate why the silencer is focused on. The relatives found it. Julie is focused on as she is such a strong prosecution witness.
-
Supporters obviously like it when the topic is the silencer.
It gives the impression it is the only thing that convicted Bamber. If the evidence can be undermined.....
An example is this thread created by Bubo Bubo. The first few posts being very long. And this is just 'part 1'!
-
Of course the silencer is important.
The paint & blood together with Bamber's phone call to the police, confirms his guilt.
-
Of course the silencer is important.
The paint & blood together with Bamber's phone call to the police, confirms his guilt.
No, it does not..
-
The marks on Mr Bamber's back might be completely irrelevant to the murders. According to Yvonne she has got to the bottom of them.
But 'non disclosure' from her.
-
But 'non disclosure' from her.
Yes!
-
But 'non disclosure' from her.
No authorities are asking for disclosure from her. Or, you could say that she has disclosed to the CCRC on this? Comparing non-disclosure from Essex Constabulary and the CPS to non-disclosure from the CT is a facile argument.
-
I think my compatriots in the North Riding should give some of the West Riding back. Or there may be a Yorkie civil war.
I'm currently employed within what was the most northern part of the north riding. I think it is anyway.
-
I'm currently employed within what was the most northern part of the north riding. I think it is anyway.
I was wrong. But not far off the most north eastern part of the north riding.
-
The marks on Mr Bamber's back might be completely irrelevant to the murders. According to Yvonne she has got to the bottom of them.
That would figure.
-
That would figure.
As I've always maintained that there'd been a bit of a " set-to " prior to the night of the murders, i.e. June's black-eye, Sheila's lower abdominal wound and Nevill's back injuries.
-
Does not make much difference what caused the burn marks.
Bamber's 2012 CCRC submission says it was caused by the rifle without silencer attached. It seems that Yvonne disagrees but refuses to disclose her apparent findings.
Either way Bamber had to take the silencer off after shooting Sheila.
-
Bamber lifting Nevill onto a coal scuttle was done for a reason.
It gave him easy access to Nevill's back, where the burn marks are.
So until Yvonne Hartley provides a comprehensive alternative, it has to be agreed Bamber inflicted the burn marks on the night.
-
It would be good to know whether Yvonne Hartley believes the burn marks were caused on the massacre night. If not then why did Bamber lift Nevill onto the coal scuttle?
If the burn marks were inflicted on the massacre night, but not done with the rifle, it just highlights why Nevill was lifted onto the coal scuttle.
-
Nobody lifted anyone onto the coal scuttle ::)
-
Nobody lifted anyone onto the coal scuttle ::)
Bamber lifted Nevill onto the coal scuttle. Sheila would not be strong enough.
The only explanation is Bamber wanted to burn Nevill's back.
Bamber agrees with this, saying in 2012 the burn marks were caused on the massacre night. Minus silencer.
-
It makes you wonder...
At the 1986 trial the defence pathologist states in his opinion the marks on Mr Bamber's back were not burns. Fast forward 26 years to 2012 and a burns expert not only concludes the marks were burns but he goes further and states they were caused by the barrel of the rifle and not the silencer :-\ In fairness to the burns expert I believe he did say more tests were required to be absolute!
-
Can't think what else they can be.
They are not bruises as they would cover a bigger surface area.
Bamber agrees they are burn marks, caused minus the silencer. Either by the rifle barrel or another available item. I agree!
-
I would like to reiterate, that two silencers lie at the heart of the investigation
One [belonging to Anthony Pargeter] parker hale silencer, 7 inches in length, containing 17 metal cup shaped baffle plates, purchased in the period of 1980 and the 31st October 1984.
From the 1st of November 1984, the product manufacture [`Parker Hale Silencer Ltd'] replaced the outdated unit (old type silencer) with its latest upgraded version (new streamlined silencer model) which was only 6 and a half inches in length, and which only had 14 cup shaped internal ('metal') baffle plates [belonging to Neville Bamber]
-
Some posters have suggested that SBJ revisited WHF when he left JB's cottage at 11.35am and that he collected a silencer. Do we have evidence by way of testimony or statements to back this up?
RC claims that he thought that SBJ had found the SM and this is why he labelled it SBJ1 in the first instance. This must be false because if it was to be an exhibit it would need to be collected to SOC protocol.
That is photographed in situ bagged and labelled. In which case it would be obvious who's find it was. As head of the SOCO team he must have known this>
-
Some posters have suggested that SBJ revisited WHF when he left JB's cottage at 11.35am and that he collected a silencer. Do we have evidence by way of testimony or statements to back this up?
No
-
Re: Split thread
« Reply #56 on: Today at 07:40 PM »
If anyone wants a good read it's called Justice for All, The McKenzie Organisation. It's on the forum headed Fraudulent ???. R v Bamber---Further Blood Notes. Interesting.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34357;image
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34358;image
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34360;image
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34362;image
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34364;image
Thanks for drawing our attention to this report Lookout. I know what I think about this but would welcome other members views as to what is being claimed.
-
Many thanks for that Bubo. I'm going through it again as in parts it's quite disturbing.
-
Re: Split thread
« Reply #56 on: Today at 07:40 PM »
If anyone wants a good read it's called Justice for All, The McKenzie Organisation. It's on the forum headed Fraudulent ???. R v Bamber---Further Blood Notes. Interesting.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34357;image
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34358;image
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34360;image
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34362;image
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34364;image
Thanks for drawing our attention to this report Lookout. I know what I think about this but would welcome other members views as to what is being claimed.
Am I to take it that members do not find this intriguing, or are you still digesting the contents.
-
Am I to take it that members do not find this intriguing, or are you still digesting the contents.
I doubt you'll get many, if any guilty takers reading this Bubo, it won't be their cup of tea :o
-
Am I to take it that members do not find this intriguing, or are you still digesting the contents.
The latter!
-
Am I to take it that members do not find this intriguing, or are you still digesting the contents.
Why would anyone find it any more 'intriguing' that all the other things which pertain to cast doubt on the findings of other experts. At the end of the day, isn't it all about personal opinion, from the members of this forum, to the jury.
-
Why would anyone find it any more 'intriguing' that all the other things which pertain to cast doubt on the findings of other experts. At the end of the day, isn't it all about personal opinion, from the members of this forum, to the jury.
You can't honestly believe that the jury were party to the level info that members of this forum have in 2021?
I suspect they had access to 100th of the info that we have, at best.
-
You can't honestly believe that the jury were party to the level info that members of this forum have in 2021?
I suspect they had access to 100th of the info that we have, at best.
What on earth makes you think it is any different from any other case that's 36 years in the past. JB's jury heard enough ton convict him. How much of what we know now is actually relevant? Jackie gobs on about Julie's past crimes, Lookout is concerned about Colin's treatment of Sheila, and someone else whose name escapes me questions whether Bews peed or pood himself whilst rushing from the scene. How much of this is pertinent to any outcome, then or now?
-
What on earth makes you think it is any different from any other case that's 36 years in the past. JB's jury heard enough ton convict him. How much of what we know now is actually relevant? Jackie gobs on about Julie's past crimes, Lookout is concerned about Colin's treatment of Sheila, and someone else whose name escapes me questions whether Bews peed or pood himself whilst rushing from the scene. How much of this is pertinent to any outcome, then or now?
Because you're comparing members of the jury back in '86 to interested case followers in 2021. The jury were very obviously provided with a skewed version of events designed for conviction. If the case was retried now, it would be extremely difficult for any prosecution to pull off that type of stunt.
-
Because you're comparing members of the jury back in '86 to interested case followers in 2021. The jury were very obviously provided with a skewed version of events designed for conviction. If the case was retried now, it would be extremely difficult for any prosecution to pull off that type of stunt.
You appear to be under the belief that every single piece of evidence found in the interim will be in JB's favour? Are you really under the misapprehension that your opinion -or that of any of those "interested case followers" now- will carry any weight? Certainly, a few experts can be pulled in to give their opinions, but as I recall, Lookout has NO time for the opinion/claims of experts. It rather begs the question WHICH expert should we believe.
-
The latter!
You said you were in the process of digesting it. Your post 454 above.
-
You said you were in the process of digesting it. Your post 454 above.
Sorry I'm getting confused. I thought that was in ref to the blue socks. Ok the blue socks I'm still going through. Might have to pm you if that's ok for any clarification and the McKenzie report I will try and look at asap. I have looked at it previously but not in any sort of detail.
-
Sorry I'm getting confused. I thought that was in ref to the blue socks. Ok the blue socks I'm still going through. Might have to pm you if that's ok for any clarification and the McKenzie report I will try and look at asap. I have looked at it previously but not in any sort of detail.
I am sure members will not mind if you seek clarification in a post. I do not think it is fair on members to take the subject 'in camera'. Let them see what we have to say. If you wish to pm on something else not under discussion I will respond as I see fit.
-
Can I suggest we discuss the case and move well away from the immature behaviour that has recently been on display? IMO no one comes out of these spats without reputational damage. I am not a moderator but feel the forum has descended into a pit of vipers. Let’s keep it civil.
BLOOD WORKS
[/size]
I think this subject might be right up CC’s street.
I thought it might be useful to set out more clearly how I believe the SM came to have blood inside. I will set them out individually. I have already outlined my thinking on DB1 being found by DB on the day. It should be noted that this exhibit was on DB’s list, which was later headed N/R as outlined in the COLP DB interview. The COLP suggested this meant Not Required or Not Relevant. DB offered no explanation. I argue he was collecting items that were used or produced in the cover up otherwise they would have been assigned to other SOCO officers. Taff wanted them kept apart and I have set out the reasons for this before. The most important may have been a suspicion he held that it could have been contaminated by the TFG which might bring JB into the frame.
1 Sheila contaminated it by her actions.
This could have been caused by a nose bleed when adding or removing the SM blood drips on the SM or muzzle. Another possibility is that she had blood on her hand which transferred to the muzzle during handling. It is also possible some blood dripped onto the SM around the exit. It is also possible that SC ‘prodded dead victims putting blood on the muzzle.
2 The TFG unwittingly contaminated it.
If there was blood on the muzzle and maybe a small incursion into the barrel and they then fitted the SM to make at least one shot (say the first or second shot as outlined in evidence). The action would possibly cause minute particles/mist size droplets to be distributed on the baffle plates and inside the main SM’s barrel/bore as far as that noted in the evidence.
3 A deliberate action at the lab
They, MDF in particular, could have created a flake or they obtained it from the receptacle containing PV20 and blood. As noted by Taylor on his GER. (QC I believe this is another document dated 12/09/85). Since there is a distinct possibility that he swapped PV20 to help create the one-gun crime, the creation of a flake or a flake from the PV20 receptacle would hold no fear.
4 A mistake by MDF who test fired the rifle.
Though he says he did a pull through and found no blood he might have come to the conclusion that he had caused it when small quantities were found by testing for bloods. He may have test fired before the blood tests. A mistake by a ‘novice’? Any earlier contamination would be blasted into the SM. If he visually inspected, it before both the test fire and/or the pull through. It is unlikely he could see the blood because JH and PJL asserted that the blood was not visible to the naked eye.
This suggestion comes into play if 2 above is excluded.
I would suggest that you read this to engage with my thinking.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action\attach;topic=4779.0;attach=34386;image
It seems to me that in the initial stages the mixed group theory was a possibility. JH did not do the tests himself someone, initials ALB did the tests. JH presented on behalf of the FSS at trial.
Try reading this.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34390;image
and this
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34392;image
It could be argued that PJL’s first report was sent to the FSS. (It would have been seen as a matter of curtesy and professional behaviour) as well as presenting findings to the defence. JH said he needed two matching sources to confirm SC’s blood. Low and behold PJL’ s reasoning is undermined by the finding of a flake. This caused him to adjust his advice.
I have severe reservations about this as previously outlined. See this
SILENCER SAGA reply 2 Was there a flake of blood.
I have seen the McKenzie report which says the same. It is a pity I had not read this when first posting this suggestion.
The flake provided additional evidence to support an otherwise highly contestable finding from the SM bore and baffle plates. This is similar to JM’s testimony bolstering the SM evidence.
There many who say that these nuanced issues were used to mislead the Jury about the veracity of the blood evidence. The flake result was not easy to contest and could not be verified by a subsequent test because the all the flake was consumed in the original test. The testing method was called into question later.
The flake was not discovered by RC when he dismantled it and it is clear he was not seeking quick tests because he did not send it to the lab for another nine days. MF did not find the flake when according to some he dismantled it on 13/08/85, (some claim this is a lie and is connected to a forged HOLAB 5 form), was it him who found the flake? Did he dismantle it before passing it to JH and his team? In any case it would seem that neither RC or MF saw blood as would be the case, if it was invisible to the naked eye.
I do not know which if any of the four scenarios I favour but I feel it could be an amalgam of any 2 or 3 from the total. All these scenarios place blood on the muzzle and a strong likelihood that this fact resulted in stronger blood findings which were found on the female screw head. A condition that cannot occur in normal operating conditions. They (SM’s) are designed and built so as not to leak in this area.
I strongly agree with David1819’s take on the back spatter issue. For me the amount of material (blood) was very small indeed, some might say minute and there was no other material like bone or tissue which are characteristic elements of the phenomenon. The quantities were so small I cannot see how any deliberate attempt to introduce blood into the silencer could be achieved. It would be extremely difficult because the actor would have to apply such a small amount as that found in the testing. The flake is different in that making one would be more easily achieved.
While arguments such as this maybe wrong or right, there seems little possibility that this aspect will lead to a CCRC referral. The blood evidence is a dead end I am afraid.
I believe the CT should proceed with this case on the basis that it is a ‘frame up’ following a cover-up. A case could be constructed explaining the framing of JB as part of a whole new narrative, citing the lack of disclosure as a deliberate attempt to hide pertinent evidence and the mistakes that were made. The outcome of this behaviour eventually leading to the diabolical framing of an innocent man.
-
The blood was first reported by the relatives. This is prior to the silencer being in the possession of the police and the lab staff. This narrows down the contamination to them and them ONLY.
-
The blood was first reported by the relatives. This is prior to the silencer being in the possession of the police and the lab staff. This narrows down the contamination to them and them ONLY.
You missed out the word 'retrospectively'.
-
The blood was first reported by the relatives. This is prior to the silencer being in the possession of the police and the lab staff. This narrows down the contamination to them and them ONLY.
Thanks. No one has known that over the last 36 years.
-
Lots of reasons why Bamber would use a silencer.
Lots of reasons why he would take it off after finishing the shootings.
Lots of reasons why he would put it away.
No evidence the relatives scratched the aga & asked the police for a sample of Sheila's blood.
-
Lots of reasons why Bamber would use a silencer.
Lots of reasons why he would take it off after finishing the shootings.
Lots of reasons why he would put it away.
No evidence the relatives scratched the aga & asked the police for a sample of Sheila's blood.
A total of four blood samples were taken from Sheila Caffell during autopsy. Yet only three of them were processed or analysed. One of the blood samples went missing and could not be accounted for. This came to light during the COLP investigation. They discovered that 'DI COOK' took possession of these four blood samples.When questioned by 'COLP' about the fourth blood samples whereabouts, or whether or not it was analysed at the lab', 'DI COOK' told them that it had got lost and noboby knew where and when it had disappeared to. .
-
A total of four blood samples were taken from Sheila Caffell during autopsy. Yet only three of them were processed or analysed. One of the blood samples went missing and could not be accounted for. This came to light during the COLP investigation. They discovered that 'DI COOK' took possession of these four blood samples.When questioned by 'COLP' about the fourth blood samples whereabouts, or whether or not it was analysed at the lab', 'DI COOK' told them that it had got lost and noboby knew where and when it had disappeared to. .
According to the following 3 blood samples were taken for Sheila, 3 for Mr Bamber, 2 for Mrs Bamber and 1 for each of Daniel and Nicholas.
-
I have removed several posts from this thread because they contained personal abuse and therefore added little to the debate. Please try to keep to the thread topic and refrain from personal attacks.
-
No evidence the relatives scratched the aga & asked the police for a sample of Sheila's blood.
Muzzle imprints on Sheila's chin.
Absence of Bone, Skin, Blood or DNA from Nicholas Caffell.
Marks on Nevills back and arm.
Absence of debris under the mantle shelf.
Pathologists testimony precluding such altercation causing the scratch marks.
PS: They didn't need a sample, they already took her bloodstained clothing home.
-
Muzzle imprints on Sheila's chin.
Absence of Bone, Skin, Blood or DNA from Nicholas Caffell.
Marks on Nevills back and arm.
Absence of debris under the mantle shelf.
Pathologists testimony precluding such altercation causing the scratch marks.
PS: They didn't need a sample, they already took her bloodstained clothing home.
Its worth pointing out that it was mentioned on the other thread than Ann Eaton made a conscious decision to take Sheila's bloody underwear home with her. Nobody in their right mind would do such things unless they have found a use for such a thing. Ann Eaton needed Sheila's blood for something. 8)
-
Muzzle imprints on Sheila's chin.
Absence of Bone, Skin, Blood or DNA from Nicholas Caffell.
Marks on Nevills back and arm.
Absence of debris under the mantle shelf.
Pathologists testimony precluding such altercation causing the scratch marks.
PS: They didn't need a sample, they already took her bloodstained clothing home.
There is no evidence the relatives fabricated the silencer. Just your own hand picked sources.
They needed the police to give them Sheila's blood as well as a mountain of other information. Straight away. Your diluted blood theory is a non starter.
-
There is no evidence the relatives fabricated the silencer. Just your own hand picked sources.
They needed the police to give them Sheila's blood as well as a mountain of other information. Straight away. Your diluted blood theory is a non starter.
More BS from you as usual.
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
August 8th:
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
They knew Jeremy said he left the rifle out without the silencer on. Thus they could seemingly contradict his statements.
They knew where Nevills body was found.
They knew Nevill had bad facial injuries.
They knew the coat was obscuring an area of the mantle from crime scene photos where they later showed the scratches to the police.
They knew there was a mess in the kitchen.
Thus they could make it seem the silencer was involved in the kitchen altercation.
They knew Sheila was shot under the chin/neck.
They had both Sheila's blood and the silencer in their possession.
They had unlimited access to the crime scene.
Thus they could make it appear she was shot with the silencer attached and a killer put it away.
-
More BS from you as usual.
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
August 8th:
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
They knew Jeremy said he left the rifle out without the silencer on. Thus they could seemingly contradict his statements.
They knew where Nevills body was found.
They knew Nevill had bad facial injuries.
They knew the coat was obscuring an area of the mantle from crime scene photos where they later showed the scratches to the police.
They knew there was a mess in the kitchen.
Thus they could make it seem the silencer was involved in the kitchen altercation.
They knew Sheila was shot under the chin/neck.
They had both Sheila's blood and the silencer in their possession.
They had unlimited access to the crime scene.
Thus they could make it appear she was shot with the silencer attached and a killer put it away.
Such a shame this kind of narrative is not given airtime. Just the usual regurgitated clichés.
-
Roch have you listened to the podcast from Dennis Eady and the team ?. Questions too this time.
-
Its worth pointing out that it was mentioned on the other thread than Ann Eaton made a conscious decision to take Sheila's bloody underwear home with her. Nobody in their right mind would do such things unless they have found a use for such a thing. Ann Eaton needed Sheila's blood for something. 8)
Would they have known at that stage that RWB's blood group was the same ?
-
Roch have you listened to the podcast from Dennis Eady and the team ?. Questions too this time.
No, I feel I often don't have time to listen to lengthy podcasts. Though I am interested in any new claims which are sometimes within them. Was there any interesting points which you felt stood out?
-
More BS from you as usual.
August 7th
DC Clarke tells Ann Eaton that Nevills body was found by the AGA near the mantle shelf.
August 8th:
Ann Eaton takes Julie to the mortuary and notes down Nevills injuries after talking to Julie.
Jeremy provides a witness statement saying he left the rifle in the kitchen without the silencer on.
August 9th:
After visiting the accountant, Jeremy asks Ann Eaton to pay back the loan for the farmland that she is living on. In order to pay death duties.
Ann Eaton visits WHF with DCI and DS Jones. While there she would have seen the blue coat obscuring a certain area of the mantle shelf.
August 10th:
Relatives visit WHF again and collected the silencer and also take back home Sheila's blood stained clothing. David Boutflour does not recall seeing any blood, paint or hair on the silencer while at WHF at this stage.
Ann Eaton contacts Whitam police station about the silencer later that evening.
August 13th:
Stan Jones collects the silencer and gives it to DI Cook.
August 14th:
Ann Eaton alerts DI Cook to the scratch marks under the mantle shelf.
And so, to summarise AE had the means motive and opportunity to contaminate the sound moderator in order to incriminate JB.
They knew Jeremy said he left the rifle out without the silencer on. Thus they could seemingly contradict his statements.
They knew where Nevills body was found.
They knew Nevill had bad facial injuries.
They knew the coat was obscuring an area of the mantle from crime scene photos where they later showed the scratches to the police.
They knew there was a mess in the kitchen.
Thus they could make it seem the silencer was involved in the kitchen altercation.
They knew Sheila was shot under the chin/neck.
They had both Sheila's blood and the silencer in their possession.
They had unlimited access to the crime scene.
Thus they could make it appear she was shot with the silencer attached and a killer put it away.
I asked you 37 questions o this. You did not answer any.
Even the CT/OS have not promoted the diluted blood theory.
Unlike his 'forensic evidence breakthrough', David has not sent this theory to Bamber.
-
Thanks. No one has known that over the last 36 years.
Some people have trouble remembering things...
-
Conspiracy theorists often use AEs 14/8 statement to argue that no silencer was collected on August 10th.
They ignore the fact that the officer taking the statement was not inclined to ask her to make a statement about it at that stage. Furthermore the silencer is mentioned in her handwritten notes.
-
Conspiracy theorists often use AEs 14/8 statement to argue that no silencer was collected on August 10th.
They ignore the fact that the officer taking the statement was not inclined to ask her to make a statement about it at that stage. Furthermore the silencer is mentioned in her handwritten notes.
Your last sentence is not very supportive of your view.
-
Your last sentence is not very supportive of your view.
How so?
-
How so?
My apologies, I misread your post.
-
Conspiracy theorists often use AEs 14/8 statement to argue that no silencer was collected on August 10th.
They ignore the fact that the officer taking the statement was not inclined to ask her to make a statement about it at that stage. Furthermore the silencer is mentioned in her handwritten notes.
She does not mention the silencer in her notes where she is talking about loading the rifles into the car? I find this strange unless I have missed it?
-
She does not mention the silencer in her notes where she is talking about loading the rifles into the car? I find this strange unless I have missed it?
Its mentioned here. Top sentence.
(https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1677.0;attach=7868)
-
Its mentioned here. Top sentence.
(https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1677.0;attach=7868)
Thanks you have got sharp eyes!
-
Thanks you have got sharp eyes!
The whole of the first section could have been added and so might the last sentence on its own. We do not have the whole document so we have no context because of what is missing. It looks like it might have been cut from elsewhere and pasted.
It does not chime with the next piece 'with Julie &' This looks to be a continuation from another part of her notes.
Notice also the Homophobic comment thrown in for good measure.
-
The whole of the first section could have been added and so might the last sentence on its own. We do not have the whole document so we have no context because of what is missing. It looks like it might have been cut from elsewhere and pasted.
It does not chime with the next piece 'with Julie &' This looks to be a continuation from another part of her notes.
Notice also the Homophobic comment thrown in for good measure.
Bubo Bubo. Most if not all the AE notes can be found here.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1677.msg51388.html#msg51388 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1677.msg51388.html#msg51388)
Also notice in one of the notes, she is working out how much of her farmland is now owned by Jeremy and how much she owes.
-
Thanks you have got sharp eyes!
You will have to thank the Amfexa for that also. :))
-
Ann Eaton still had a lampshade with Junes blood on it in 2001.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1986.0.html (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1986.0.html)
-
Ann Eaton still had a lampshade with Junes blood on it in 2001.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1986.0.html (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1986.0.html)
If this was true it begs the question why Mrs Bamber's sister, Mrs Boutflour, was required to provide a DNA sample for the 2002 appeal hearing.
-
If this was true it begs the question why Mrs Bamber's sister, Mrs Boutflour, was required to provide a DNA sample for the 2002 appeal hearing.
Can I suggest they wanted to see if it was June's blood on the lamp shade.
-
Can I suggest they wanted to see if it was June's blood on the lamp shade.
I would assume its far more safe and sound to obtain fresh DNA from a sibling, as opposed to something that's been sitting around for 16 years with no storage protocols (contrary to the silencer.)
Who on earth keeps a lampshade on their bedside table that has their murdered relatives blood on it from the night they were killed? ???
-
The same one who rinsed Sheila's knickers , David. Weirdo !
-
Can I suggest they wanted to see if it was June's blood on the lamp shade.
What evidence exists that tests were undertaken in an attempt to determine whether a stain on a lampshade originated from biological matter associated with Mrs Bamber? How would they determine such when a sample didn't exist for comparison?
I have also read attempts were made to recover from floorboards but the same applies to this as above.
-
I would assume its far more safe and sound to obtain fresh DNA from a sibling, as opposed to something that's been sitting around for 16 years with no storage protocols (contrary to the silencer.)
Who on earth keeps a lampshade on their bedside table that has their murdered relatives blood on it from the night they were killed? ???
What evidence exists that tests were undertaken in an attempt to determine whether a stain on a lampshade originated from biological matter associated with Mrs Bamber? How would they determine such when a sample didn't exist for comparison?
I have also read attempts were made to recover from floorboards but the same applies to this as above.
490. Samples obtained from Sheila Caffell's natural mother and from other sources enabled the scientists to say with confidence that the major component did not come from Sheila Caffell. Because the blood sample of June Bamber no longer exists, it has not been possible to do a direct comparison between her DNA and that of the major component. However, it has been possible to obtain a sample from June Bamber's sister, Pamela Boutflour, which because closely related relatives are statistically more likely to have shared components than unrelated individuals, has enabled conclusions to be drawn. That evidence shows that it is about 3,500 times more likely that the major source of DNA was from a full sister of Pamela Boutflour, i.e. June Bamber, compared to it being from an unrelated female. Both Mr Clayton and Miss Tomlinson, the DNA experts from whom we have heard, assessed this as strong evidenced that the major component therefore comes from June Bamber.
491. A part of this ground of appeal relates to the destruction of June Bamber's blood sample. It is not suggested that that can be used as a free standing ground of appeal but it is combined with the DNA evidence to suggest that the appellant may have been deprived of the chance of advancing even stronger evidence that the DNA was from June Bamber. On the evidence of the two scientists, we would feel that the only safe course for us to take is to conclude that the major component of the DNA on the baffles did originate from June Bamber. When we made clear to Mr Turner that this would be our approach and queried whether in such circumstances the destruction of the samples from June Bamber could be said to prejudice the appellant, Mr Turner recognised the force in the point and after taking specific instructions from the appellant decided not to pursue that aspect further. We have therefore not considered the circumstances in which the blood samples were destroyed since they have no bearing upon any other aspect of this case.
-
The same one who rinsed Sheila's knickers , David. Weirdo !
What would you expect her to do with the clothing in buckets of water?
-
The same one who rinsed Sheila's knickers , David. Weirdo !
I suspect she may not have done that (despite claiming she did). If she did contaminate the silencer with blood from those kickers. Then she will understandably say things to make it seem like she couldn't have done.
-
I suspect she may not have done that (despite claiming she did). If she did contaminate the silencer with blood from those kickers. Then she will understandably say things to make it seem like she couldn't have done.
What would you expect her to do with clothing found in buckets of water?
Regardless of what she said or didn't say, did or didn't do, science proves 100% that it would have been impossible to contaminate the silencer with a pair of menstrual stained knickers soaking in a bucket of water where the ratio would be something like 1: 1,000,000.
-
Wouldn't a normal person drain the buckets of the water then bag up the contents to put in the bin ?
-
This was after a murder, not just an unfortunate accident. ::)
-
Wouldn't a normal person drain the buckets of the water then bag up the contents to put in the bin ?
According to AE, she did put them in the bin at WHF and that is what she told the jury. However in 1991 she admitted to COLP that she took the bin home with her(along with the silencer). Thus she lied to the Jury by omission, she didn't want the Jury to know that part. That raises yet another reason to be suspicious.
-
Wouldn't a normal person drain the buckets of the water then bag up the contents to put in the bin ?
And according to Mrs Eaton she did exactly that.
-
And according to Mrs Eaton she did exactly that.
It's strange how words, so often read, suddenly take on different meanings, ie Ann's description of Sheila's knickers, hardly relates to the haemorrhagic flow we've previously been encouraged to believe it was, or uterine contents resembling a large lump of liver, pictures of which have found their way onto the forum. Indeed, there seems to have been nothing untoward about this usual monthly occurrence.
-
I suspect she may not have done that (despite claiming she did). If she did contaminate the silencer with blood from those kickers. Then she will understandably say things to make it seem like she couldn't have done.
You have never said how. Despite making the claim years ago.
How was AE supposed to have the idea & find out in hours?
-
What would you expect her to do with the clothing in buckets of water?
Drain the water off and dump the contents, what else ?
-
You have never said how. Despite making the claim years ago.
Yes, I have said how. NGB also has the same model silencer and explained how.
How was AE supposed to have the idea & find out in hours?
I have already demonstrated this in the sequence of events that took place.
This is a woman who meticulously noted down dozens of pages of information and proactively probed the police from day one. She was also feigning sympathy for Jeremy by stroking his arms when she was actually looking for signs of cuts and bruises on him. This is someone with the savviness and sociopathy to do such a thing.
-
Yes, I have said how. NGB also has the same model silencer and explained how.
I have already demonstrated this in the sequence of events that took place.
This is a woman who meticulously noted down dozens of pages of information and proactively probed the police from day one. She was also feigning sympathy for Jeremy by stroking his arms when she was actually looking for signs of cuts and bruises on him. This is someone with the savviness and sociopathy to do such a thing.
NGB1066 explained how diluted period blood with a ratio of about 1:1,000,000 could have contaminated the silencer :o
-
Yes, I have said how. NGB also has the same model silencer and explained how.
I have already demonstrated this in the sequence of events that took place.
This is a woman who meticulously noted down dozens of pages of information and proactively probed the police from day one. She was also feigning sympathy for Jeremy by stroking his arms when she was actually looking for signs of cuts and bruises on him. This is someone with the savviness and sociopathy to do such a thing.
Explain again.
-
Yes, I have said how. NGB also has the same model silencer and explained how.
I have already demonstrated this in the sequence of events that took place.
This is a woman who meticulously noted down dozens of pages of information and proactively probed the police from day one. She was also feigning sympathy for Jeremy by stroking his arms when she was actually looking for signs of cuts and bruises on him. This is someone with the savviness and sociopathy to do such a thing.
I had 37 questions you didn't answer.
-
Yes, I have said how. NGB also has the same model silencer and explained how.
I have already demonstrated this in the sequence of events that took place.
This is a woman who meticulously noted down dozens of pages of information and proactively probed the police from day one. She was also feigning sympathy for Jeremy by stroking his arms when she was actually looking for signs of cuts and bruises on him. This is someone with the savviness and sociopathy to do such a thing.
Which AE didn't try to hide.
-
Drain the water off and dump the contents, what else ?
And I uploaded her statement just a short while ago confirming this is exactly what she did.
-
Yes, I have said how. NGB also has the same model silencer and explained how.
I have already demonstrated this in the sequence of events that took place.
This is a woman who meticulously noted down dozens of pages of information and proactively probed the police from day one. She was also feigning sympathy for Jeremy by stroking his arms when she was actually looking for signs of cuts and bruises on him. This is someone with the savviness and sociopathy to do such a thing.
Not from day one. But soon after. She correctly thought Bamber was guilty.
-
David's getting carried away with a consipracy theory.
Even the CT have not promoted his theory.
Anyway there are another 70+ pieces of evidence in the COA. And that's just forensic!
-
You have never said how. Despite making the claim years ago.
How was AE supposed to have the idea & find out in hours?
'PC ROBERT CARR', [a Metropolitan police officerm at the time of these tragedies] at the beginning of the investigation 'he got involved'; and 'He' fed confidential/'sensitive' and 'operational' information 'to the relatives' on 'an hour to hour', 'daily', 'weekly', 'monthly', 'basis'.
-
NGB1066 explained how diluted period blood with a ratio of about 1:1,000,000 could have contaminated the silencer :o
I am sure I did not explain that!
-
Blood is on average 90 percent water (depending on how hydrated the individual is). ABO testing involves diluting the blood in even more water. People claiming water will nullify the blood test results are only demonstrating their incomprehension of the subject.
-
I am sure I did not explain that!
This is what you wrote.
Mike
It would not be necessary for blood to be dripped into the silencer for contamination to occur. It is very easy to dismantle the silencer without the use of tools. The baffle plates drop out of the tube. Blood in either fluid or dried form could then be placed onto or into a baffle plate. They are non specific, i.e. they can be reasembled and inserted back into the tube in any order. Therefore the presence of blood on an individual baffle plate when examined at the laboratory is not proof that the baffle plate was in that position when the blood came into contact with it. This may be important in relation to arguments about backspatter.
A reasonable ground can be an inference which may be drawn from the surrounding circumstances. In this case just dealing with the silencer evidence: i) JB denied being responsible for the murders therefore the defence case was that Sheila had to be responsible, ii) the rifle was discovered by police without the silencer fitted, iii) the silencer was subsequently said to have been found by a relative days later in a box in the cupboard under the stairs, iii) the silencer was removed from WHF, examined and handled by several of the relatives and retained by them for several days, iv) the FSS found blood inside the silencer which was either Sheila's or, less likely, a mixture of Nevill's and June's, v) items of Sheila' bloodstained underwear were removed by a relative from WHF, vi) although possible, the suggestion that Shela had used the rifle with the silencer fitted initially then removed it, placed it in the box in the cupboard and then shot herself, was an unlikely scenario, vi) the only other explanation for the presence of the blood inside the silencer was contamination, either accidental or deliberate.
Against that background Rivlin would have been perfectly entitled to raise the suggestion of contamination, even deliberate contamination, because that was an inference which might be drawn from the evidence. I would go further and say that if Jeremy had insisted Rivlin would have been under an obligation to put such allegations to witnesses and he would have been in breach of the Code of Conduct if he had refused to do so.
-
Bubo Bubo. Most if not all the AE notes can be found here.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1677.msg51388.html#msg51388 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1677.msg51388.html#msg51388)
Also notice in one of the notes, she is working out how much of her farmland is now owned by Jeremy and how much she owes.
Thanks for that. I would not trust a word she wrote so will not be reading them. Perhaps you could explain the source for these notes. They are her private property. Did the defence acquire these for trial or later appeals?
-
Ann Eaton still had a lampshade with Junes blood on it in 2001.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1986.0.html (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1986.0.html)
.
Thanks for that. In some respects this supports my claim that she was placed on the bed at some stage and that blood dripped. Some may have hit the lamp shade. AE may not have noticed this if the colours on the shade contained red. This is more likely under my claims than it is for the notion that she was shot in bed. She would not have blood on her hands from the injuries but if she touched them she would. She would hardly use the lamp as a point of leverage to exit the bed.
-
This is what you wrote.
'Did I ban you for the telling deliberate lies on this forum about me allegedly accusing me of 'falsifying ab witness statement, or 'other'...
I do not tell lies, I either tell the truth as I know it, or simply remain silent!
Remaining silent, is not an indication of guilt [depending upon vital circumstances, in each and every situation]...
There are extenuating circumstances in every case, or matter...
-
Thanks for that. I would not trust a word she wrote so will not be reading them. Perhaps you could explain the source for these notes. They are her private property. Did the defence acquire these for trial or later appeals?
COLP obtained them in 1991. Yes, they were used at the 2002 appeal. In relation to phone call times and the mess in the kitchen.
(https://i.ibb.co/djcCMjs/24-55-COLP-meet-the-Eatons0005.png)
-
This is what you wrote.
Given the miniscule quantities of blood found I believe EP got 'lucky'. (see my 4 points) They were forced to invent/create the flake when PJL's initial findings raised serious contradictory views as to the potential source of the blood obtained by his results.
-
COLP obtained them in 1991. Yes, they were used at the 2002 appeal. In relation to phone call times and the mess in the kitchen.
(https://i.ibb.co/djcCMjs/24-55-COLP-meet-the-Eatons0005.png)
It seems to me that she was possibly 'shitting' herself because she had to ensure that her notes tallied with her previous statements. This in my opinion is probably the reason for her stress and sleepless nights rather than old memories being stirred and causing distress. It still does not mean that these notes have any validity. Most of them probably support the trial verdict.
-
It seems to me that she was possibly 'shitting' herself because she had to ensure that her notes tallied with her previous statements. This in my opinion is probably the reason for her stress and sleepless nights rather than old memories being stirred and causing distress. It still does not mean that these notes have any validity. Most of them probably support the trial verdict.
You can actually learn a lot from these notes. One aspect being the crime scene information that is part true and part false. This same information is in Jeremys alleged confessions to Julie. Coincidentally the correct parts and factually incorrect parts.
We can also ascertain that Julie disclosed details about the bodies to Ann after the they visited the mortuary.
I find the claim that the police making her "relive" the events causing her emotional strain rather dubious. Considering she is living in the crime scene and preserving it. Moreover she had no problem taking the ITV camera crew round the house and going over the same event for a TV documentary.
-
You can actually learn a lot from these notes. One aspect being the crime scene information that is part true and part false. This same information is in Jeremys alleged confessions to Julie. Coincidentally the correct parts and factually incorrect parts.
We can also ascertain that Julie disclosed details about the bodies to Ann after the they visited the mortuary.
I find the claim that the police making her "relive" the events causing her emotional strain rather dubious. Considering she is living in the crime scene and preserving it. Moreover she had no problem taking the ITV camera crew round the house and going over the same event for a TV documentary.
Can you explain the first paragraph. We know JM told AE about the viewing of the bodies. What was said is dubious because they are both consummate liars IMO. I do not rule out some collusion between them shortly before JM came forward and in the lead up to trial.
-
Can you explain the first paragraph. We know JM told AE about the viewing of the bodies. What was said is dubious because they are both consummate liars IMO. I do not rule out some collusion between them shortly before JM came forward and in the lead up to trial.
For example, The twins being shot asleep is written in AEs notes. This is a fact of the crime that appears in Jeremy's alleged confession to Julie.
Also written is AEs notes is Sheila's body being found on the bed with the bible on her chest. This is a factual inaccuracy of the crime that also appears in Jeremy's alleged confession to Julie.
See the significance?
-
Things Julie could have only got from Bamber -
Low house insurance.
Bible by Sheila.
Sheila's shot locations.
Kitchen fight.
Twins asleep.
Sheila putting up no resistance.
Nevill's multiple shots.
June shot in bed.
Kitchen windows.
Portable phone.
Meissen clock.
Twins shot first.
Sheila shot last.
June's sleeping pills.
Sheila & the twins sleeping in different rooms on different nights.
Kitchen argument.
Shooting rabbits.
Sheila shot on parents bed.
Matthew Macdonald
-
Why would AE tell Julie anything? Julie would alert Bamber.
Julie & Bamber were not around most of the time. In London, Holland, Pevensey, Eastbourne etc. So no way AE could contact her.
-
For example, The twins being shot asleep is written in AEs notes. This is a fact of the crime that appears in Jeremy's alleged confession to Julie.
Also written is AEs notes is Sheila's body being found on the bed with the bible on her chest. This is a factual inaccuracy of the crime that also appears in Jeremy's alleged confession to Julie.
See the significance?
As I said there appears to be collusion. AE is feeding Julie with information given by SJ. When the twins were shot is anybody's guess. No one can say for sure, including the police.
-
Maybe Bamber gave Julie information.
They had been together for 18 months.
He did ring her 3 times in 7 hours & get a police car to pick her up. Then spend the next month with her.
-
As I said there appears to be collusion. AE is feeding Julie with information given by SJ. When the twins were shot is anybody's guess. No one can say for sure, including the police.
Perhaps you should read my take on JM again.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10693.msg493790.html#msg493790
It could be AE who spooked her.
-
Things Julie could have only got from Bamber -
Low house insurance.
Bible by Sheila.
Sheila's shot locations.
Kitchen fight.
Twins asleep.
Sheila putting up no resistance.
Nevill's multiple shots.
June shot in bed.
Kitchen windows.
Portable phone.
Meissen clock.
Twins shot first.
Sheila shot last.
June's sleeping pills.
Sheila & the twins sleeping in different rooms on different nights.
Kitchen argument.
Shooting rabbits.
Sheila shot on parents bed.
Matthew Macdonald
Half of this stuff is in AEs notes, she was listening over Bamber giving his statement. McDonald was brought up by RWB in a meeting with Barlow.
Adam you are a bit of a joke.
-
Half of this stuff is in AEs notes, she was listening over Bamber giving his statement. McDonald was brought up by RWB in a meeting with Barlow.
Adam you are a bit of a joke.
Diluted period blood.
David, you are a bit of a 'sick' joke.
Half the stuff. Exactly.
Why would AE tell Julie anything?
When would AE tell Julie anything? She was with Bamber for a month. Outside of Essex.
-
Perhaps you should read my take on JM again.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10693.msg493790.html#msg493790
It could be AE who spooked her.
Sherlock made some good observations, if you want to read.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg422542.html#msg422542 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg422542.html#msg422542)
-
Sherlock made some good observations, if you want to read.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg422542.html#msg422542 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg422542.html#msg422542)
NGB's posts from 2011. Sherlock's posts from 2017.
David you are a bit of a troll.
-
Can you explain the first paragraph. We know JM told AE about the viewing of the bodies. What was said is dubious because they are both consummate liars IMO. I do not rule out some collusion between them shortly before JM came forward and in the lead up to trial.
Exactly why would she not have? Forget what you claim to be their motives. Forget that you want to believe Julie did it for fun. Ann accompanied Julie to the mortuary. What, in God's name do you imagine a 20 year old would do having just viewed 5 murdered bodies, two of which were children. I imagine there to have been a rather greater chance of her being shaken to the core, than jumping up and down, waving her knickers in the air. You're quick enough to claim that I'm speaking psychobabble, yet see nothing wrong with making the sweeping claim that Ann and Julie "are both consummate liars". I guess you've twisted and moved around enough of what they've both said to make them such, purely because you want it to be true. I'm inclined to think you're going to tell us that you can prove that they worked out, between them, what Julie was going to say at trial.
-
Exactly why would she not have? Forget what you claim to be their motives. Forget that you want to believe Julie did it for fun. Ann accompanied Julie to the mortuary.
What, in God's name do you imagine a 20 year old would do having just viewed 5 murdered bodies, two of which were children. I imagine there to have been a rather greater chance of her being shaken to the core, than jumping up and down, waving her knickers in the air.
You're quick enough to claim that I'm speaking psychobabble, yet see nothing wrong with making the sweeping claim that Ann and Julie "are both consummate liars". I guess you've twisted and moved around enough of what they've both said to make them such, purely because you want it to be true. I'm inclined to think you're going to tell us that you can prove that they worked out, between them, what Julie was going to say at trial.
You make my point
I did not say they were anything but respectful. during the time they were together at the mortuary.
I did not say what I thought their motives were at that time merely that they had a good chance for a long chat.
I never said they had a knees up at JB's but people can go outside for a chat.
I believe they are consummate liars. That is not a fact it is an opinion that I hold.
This is what I actually said.
What about at the wake? I am sure their paths would have crossed several times before she went to the police. You just make stuff up. You have no evidence or qualifications to mind read all the actors in this drama. Many of your posts involve you psychoanalysing peoples thoughts and motives. That is ok when related to a piece of evidence but most is your psychobabble.
At this point I think you should inform the forum of your qualifications.
in what subjects are you qualified and at what establishment were these qualifications obtained. It would help your arguments if they were in Psychology or Human anthropology.
From you
Better to be qualified to understand what how people are most likely to act under given circumstances, than spout moronic facts which have been bent to how you'd have them be, eh?
Without qualifications you are no more qualified than the next poster.
So you see that your recent posts contain a stream of psychobabble you have created in your own mind based on things that I have not said.
-
You make my point
I did not say they were anything but respectful. during the time they were together at the mortuary.
I did not say what I thought their motives were at that time merely that they had a good chance for a long chat.
I never said they had a knees up at JB's but people can go outside for a chat.
I believe they are consummate liars. That is not a fact it is an opinion that I hold.
This is what I actually said.
What about at the wake? I am sure their paths would have crossed several times before she went to the police. You just make stuff up. You have no evidence or qualifications to mind read all the actors in this drama. Many of your posts involve you psychoanalysing peoples thoughts and motives. That is ok when related to a piece of evidence but most is your psychobabble.
At this point I think you should inform the forum of your qualifications.
in what subjects are you qualified and at what establishment were these qualifications obtained. It would help your arguments if they were in Psychology or Human anthropology.
From you
Better to be qualified to understand what how people are most likely to act under given circumstances, than spout moronic facts which have been bent to how you'd have them be, eh?
Without qualifications you are no more qualified than the next poster.
So you see that your recent posts contain a stream of psychobabble you have created in your own mind based on things that I have not said.
Yeh! I seem to recall, several years back, someone else demanding to know what my qualifications are. You're entitled to think what you like about what you believe I "should" do, but I'd also ask what gives you the right to ask it of me. With a good working knowledge of how many on this forum work, chances are, as you're clearly hostile, you'd say I was lying.
However, enough about me, eh? So you think they had time for a "good chance for a long chat". What would you suggest they chatted about? On the other hand, it probably doesn't matter, because if you knew you'd be likely to label them as liars.
-
Yeh! I seem to recall, several years back, someone else demanding to know what my qualifications are. You're entitled to think what you like about what you believe I "should" do, but I'd also ask what gives you the right to ask it of me. With a good working knowledge of how many on this forum work, chances are, as you're clearly hostile, you'd say I was lying.
However, enough about me, eh? So you think they had time for a "good chance for a long chat". What would you suggest they chatted about? On the other hand, it probably doesn't matter, because if you knew you'd be likely to label them as liars.
Here you go again. Now you can even read my mind to the extent that you can predict what I am going to say next. This is taking you into the realms of Madam Arcati
I would not suggest you do anything other than respond to posts rather than dream up psychobabble as part of your answers.
I believe AE was seeking to befriend JM in order to find negative information about JB which might help the Boutflour clan convince the EP about JB's guilt. Did I read somewhere that AE asked JM if JB had any injuries?
Since you now believe in guilt answer the riddle of the blue socks. Always assuming you understand the argument.
-
Perhaps you should read my take on JM again.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10693.msg493790.html#msg493790
It could be AE who spooked her.
Your analysis falls down because if you have decided to make a full and frank legal statement for whatever motives or pressure within you're not going to concoct a hitman story which would be checked for accuracy and found to be wanting.
-
Here you go again. Now you can even read my mind to the extent that you can predict what I am going to say next. This is taking you into the realms of Madam Arcati
I would not suggest you do anything other than respond to posts rather than dream up psychobabble as part of your answers.
I believe AE was seeking to befriend JM in order to find negative information about JB which might help the Boutflour clan convince the EP about JB's guilt. Did I read somewhere that AE asked JM if JB had any injuries?
Since you now believe in guilt answer the riddle of the blue socks. Always assuming you understand the argument.
Ooh! I do SO love riddles. Perhaps, as I know nothing about blue socks, you could put up a link, and I'll see if I can resolve it for you. I'll try to refrain from going into psychobabble as it's clearly something, from your response, which irritates you. Or should that be gives you the itch and causes you to scratch? Very inelegant.
-
Ooh! I do SO love riddles. Perhaps, as I know nothing about blue socks, you could put up a link, and I'll see if I can resolve it for you. I'll try to refrain from going into psychobabble as it's clearly something, from your response, which irritates you. Or should that be gives you the itch and causes you to scratch? Very inelegant.
You have a lot of catching up to do.
Although there was discussion around the finding of a SM DB1 on the day, the riddle of the blue socks starts here.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10740.60.html
Cambridge Cutie is looking at it and I am waiting for her/his reply.
Psychobabble does not make me itch. It irritates my brain waves to think that such rubbish can be used by posters to advance an argument, when they are not qualified psychologists.
Good luck
-
You have a lot of catching up to do.
Although there was discussion around the finding of a SM DB1 on the day, the riddle of the blue socks starts here.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10740.60.html
Cambridge Cutie is looking at it and I am waiting for her/his reply.
Psychobabble does not make me itch. It irritates my brain waves to think that such rubbish can be used by posters to advance an argument, when they are not qualified psychologists.
Good luck
May it continue to do so. With any luck you have enough basic intelligence to realize that it's not required for one to be "a qualified psychologist" for them to be qualified in other areas which require a working knowledge of psychology.
Thank-you for posting the link.
-
May it continue to do so. With any luck you have enough basic intelligence to realize that it's not required for one to be "a qualified psychologist" for them to be qualified in other areas which require a working knowledge of psychology.
Thank-you for posting the link.
In deed I do but they do not go round saying they are qualified as you did.
This is another part of the story/thread dealing with this issue.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10740.150.html
-
In deed I do but they do not go round saying they are qualified as you did.
This is another part of the story/thread dealing with this issue.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10740.150.html
So I now have to ask you to provide the evidence of me claiming I was/am a qualified psychologist.
-
So I now have to ask you to provide the evidence of me claiming I was/am a qualified psychologist.
You mean like this
"From what you say, you seem to think we're all puppets. That we have no emotions. You are correct in that they would have met at the funeral and the wake, although they probably weren't alone together in either of those places for long. It follows that, at a wake, even a tiny one held in JB's tiny cottage, people will have shared their thoughts and feelings. As they were mourning an entire family, which included two small boys, it's unlikely to have been a knees-up, don't you think? There will have been thoughts appropriate to the solemn occasion. Better to be qualified to understand what how people are most likely to act under given circumstances, than spout moronic facts which have been bent to how you'd have them be, eh?"
Get on with the riddle if you have the capacity. You are just looking for an argument rather than address the uncomfortable evidence I have presented that the police found DB1 on the day.
I will only respond to your posts that address this question and will not engage with your mischief making. I am interested in the facts of the case not the inner workings of your mind which are not about the case but how you cannot come to terms with your change in stance. I suggest this is what drives you.
-
You mean like this
"From what you say, you seem to think we're all puppets. That we have no emotions. You are correct in that they would have met at the funeral and the wake, although they probably weren't alone together in either of those places for long. It follows that, at a wake, even a tiny one held in JB's tiny cottage, people will have shared their thoughts and feelings. As they were mourning an entire family, which included two small boys, it's unlikely to have been a knees-up, don't you think? There will have been thoughts appropriate to the solemn occasion. Better to be qualified to understand what how people are most likely to act under given circumstances, than spout moronic facts which have been bent to how you'd have them be, eh?"
Get on with the riddle if you have the capacity. You are just looking for an argument rather than address the uncomfortable evidence I have presented that the police found DB1 on the day.
I will only respond to your posts that address this question and will not engage with your mischief making. I am interested in the facts of the case not the inner workings of your mind which are not about the case but how you cannot come to terms with your change in stance. I suggest this is what drives you.
So NOW who's putting their own interpretation on someone else's words, eh? Nowhere in that sentence do I make the claim of being "a qualified psychologist". Such are YOUR words, not mine. However, that I'm NOT -nor am I likely to be- "a qualified psychologist", it doesn't mean I'm not qualified to know "how most people would act under given circumstances". It's not particularly difficult. When the variables are removed, the alternatives/possibilities become limited.
That I'm "mischief making" is, AGAIN, something you've conjured up -I wonder what it is you seem convinced I'm making mischief of?- or perhaps it's been suggested to you? It sounds as if you may have been in contact with others who've overly concerned themselves with my "change of stance". As far as I can see, "socks" were mentioned once, in passing. For most people, there isn't anything sinister or suspicious in that. However, for a conspiracy theorist...........well, the world is their oyster, isn't it?
I really don't give a toss whether or not you respond to my posts -indeed, I'd encourage you not to- as the greater percentage of what you claim about me is what you appear to have made up and projected on to me. As we clearly have nothing to say, of value, to each other, may I suggest the use of the ignore facility.
-
You mean like this
"From what you say, you seem to think we're all puppets. That we have no emotions. You are correct in that they would have met at the funeral and the wake, although they probably weren't alone together in either of those places for long. It follows that, at a wake, even a tiny one held in JB's tiny cottage, people will have shared their thoughts and feelings. As they were mourning an entire family, which included two small boys, it's unlikely to have been a knees-up, don't you think? There will have been thoughts appropriate to the solemn occasion. Better to be qualified to understand what how people are most likely to act under given circumstances, than spout moronic facts which have been bent to how you'd have them be, eh?"
Get on with the riddle if you have the capacity. You are just looking for an argument rather than address the uncomfortable evidence I have presented that the police found DB1 on the day.
I will only respond to your posts that address this question and will not engage with your mischief making. I am interested in the facts of the case not the inner workings of your mind which are not about the case but how you cannot come to terms with your change in stance. I suggest this is what drives you.
Bubo ignore her. She lives in a dream world and likes to make up her version of events. She hasn’t got any qualifications but likes to try and make people think she has. Her days are spent tapping on the computer abusing people. It’s pathetic
-
Bubo ignore her. She lives in a dream world and likes to make up her version of events. She hasn’t got any qualifications but likes to try and make people think she has. Her days are spent tapping on the computer abusing people. It’s pathetic
And making false claims of knowing witnesses in this case.
-
So NOW who's putting their own interpretation on someone else's words, eh? Nowhere in that sentence do I make the claim of being "a qualified psychologist". Such are YOUR words, not mine. However, that I'm NOT -nor am I likely to be- "a qualified psychologist", it doesn't mean I'm not qualified to know "how most people would act under given circumstances". It's not particularly difficult. When the variables are removed, the alternatives/possibilities become limited.
That I'm "mischief making" is, AGAIN, something you've conjured up -I wonder what it is you seem convinced I'm making mischief of?- or perhaps it's been suggested to you? It sounds as if you may have been in contact with others who've overly concerned themselves with my "change of stance". As far as I can see, "socks" were mentioned once, in passing. For most people, there isn't anything sinister or suspicious in that. However, for a conspiracy theorist...........well, the world is their oyster, isn't it?
I really don't give a toss whether or not you respond to my posts -indeed, I'd encourage you not to- as the greater percentage of what you claim about me is what you appear to have made up and projected on to me. As we clearly have nothing to say, of value, to each other, may I suggest the use of the ignore facility.
It is clear you have no understanding of the evidence detail so you are prolonging this spat to absolve you from your ignorance when it comes to understanding this case. Solve the mystery of the blue socks and I might take you more seriously. You can or cannot take on this challenge that is your choice. Failure to counteract my points will prove your inadequacy in understanding case detail to forum readers. That will show that anything you may say has no weight or bearing because you cannot get to grips with the facts. Prove me wrong. I will let you have the last word which will give you some pleasure.
-
It is clear you have no understanding of the evidence detail so you are prolonging this spat to absolve you from your ignorance when it comes to understanding this case. Solve the mystery of the blue socks and I might take you more seriously. You can or cannot take on this challenge that is your choice. Failure to counteract my points will prove your inadequacy in understanding case detail to forum readers. That will show that anything you may say has no weight or bearing because you cannot get to grips with the facts. Prove me wrong. I will let you have the last word which will give you some pleasure.
Thank-you 8)
-
Bubo ignore her. She lives in a dream world and likes to make up her version of events. She hasn’t got any qualifications but likes to try and make people think she has. Her days are spent tapping on the computer abusing people. It’s pathetic
Oh dear me! Up jumps the forum goon/abuser in chief. Only to be expected. At least MY qualification are in my brain, not, like yours, in your ****
-
The stark truth is that 'David Boutflour' had access to 'the various crime scenes' within the farmhouse on 'Saturday, 10th August 1985'. But, not only that there was still bloodied items at various places where victims had been shot and effectively 'executed'. It is almost certain that neither 'He' or 'His Sister' [Ann Eaton] or his father [Robert Boutflour] had worn gloves when they went scavaging to Whitehouse farm on the 10th August, or on any other occasion during 1985. It is possible, that his hand(s) got contaminated with blood which originated from one, or more of the five victims, who had tragically died during the incident, and that whilst he was attempting to unscrew the metal end cap, of the silencer, so that he could look inside (it) at the 17 metal baffle plates. For what purpose he thought about doing this, he does 'not say'?
-
There is no reason on this earth that anyone would want to " dissect " a silencer. Why ?
-
The stark truth is that 'David Boutflour' had access to 'the various crime scenes' within the farmhouse on 'Saturday, 10th August 1985'. But, not only that there was still bloodied items at various places where victims had been shot and effectively 'executed'. It is almost certain that neither 'He' or 'His Sister' [Ann Eaton] or his father [Robert Boutflour] had worn gloves when they went scavaging to Whitehouse farm on the 10th August, or on any other occasion during 1985. It is possible, that his hand(s) got contaminated with blood which originated from one, or more of the five victims, who had tragically died during the incident, and that whilst he was attempting to unscrew the metal end cap, of the silencer, so that he could look inside (it) at the 17 metal baffle plates. For what purpose he thought about doing this, he does 'not say'?
I 'do not think that the jury were made aware of this fact during the trial' - if they had been made aware of this attempt by 'David Boutflour' to open up the silencer at the time he stumbled upon its existence in the gun cupboard on the 10th August 1985, I feel that some other members of the jury in addition to the two who returned 'a not guilty verdict' would have changed their minds resulting in 'a non conviction verdict' overall..
-
If you read the contents of these topics. It becomes rather apparent(to me anyway) that Ann Eaton is the culprit behind the contamination of the silencer.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9379.msg437329.html#msg437329 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9379.msg437329.html#msg437329)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1413.msg43843.html#msg43843 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1413.msg43843.html#msg43843)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1382.msg42941.html#msg42941 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1382.msg42941.html#msg42941)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10904.msg503850.html#msg503850 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10904.msg503850.html#msg503850)
-
If you read the contents of these topics. It becomes rather apparent(to me anyway) that Ann Eaton is the culprit behind the contamination of the silencer.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9379.msg437329.html#msg437329 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9379.msg437329.html#msg437329)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1413.msg43843.html#msg43843 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1413.msg43843.html#msg43843)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1382.msg42941.html#msg42941 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1382.msg42941.html#msg42941)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10904.msg503850.html#msg503850 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10904.msg503850.html#msg503850)
Were Peter Eaton, David Boutflour & Robert Boutflour not involved?
Or you saying Ann was the team leader?
-
Maybe AE as team leader took everyone out on an away day.
Lots of hugging trees, games & sausage rolls at lunch time.
-
If you read the contents of these topics. It becomes rather apparent(to me anyway) that Ann Eaton is the culprit behind the contamination of the silencer.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9379.msg437329.html#msg437329 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9379.msg437329.html#msg437329)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1413.msg43843.html#msg43843 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1413.msg43843.html#msg43843)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1931.msg59842.html#msg59842)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1382.msg42941.html#msg42941 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1382.msg42941.html#msg42941)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10904.msg503850.html#msg503850 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10904.msg503850.html#msg503850)
Good, thanks David.
As you know from PMs, I take a slightly different view, but I will look at these links (or re-look, as I probably have read them in the past).
-
Can I suggest we discuss the case and move well away from the immature behaviour that has recently been on display? IMO no one comes out of these spats without reputational damage. I am not a moderator but feel the forum has descended into a pit of vipers. Let’s keep it civil.
BLOOD WORKS
[/size]
I think this subject might be right up CC’s street.
I thought it might be useful to set out more clearly how I believe the SM came to have blood inside. I will set them out individually. I have already outlined my thinking on DB1 being found by DB on the day. It should be noted that this exhibit was on DB’s list, which was later headed N/R as outlined in the COLP DB interview. The COLP suggested this meant Not Required or Not Relevant. DB offered no explanation. I argue he was collecting items that were used or produced in the cover up otherwise they would have been assigned to other SOCO officers. Taff wanted them kept apart and I have set out the reasons for this before. The most important may have been a suspicion he held that it could have been contaminated by the TFG which might bring JB into the frame.
1 Sheila contaminated it by her actions.
This could have been caused by a nose bleed when adding or removing the SM blood drips on the SM or muzzle. Another possibility is that she had blood on her hand which transferred to the muzzle during handling. It is also possible some blood dripped onto the SM around the exit. It is also possible that SC ‘prodded dead victims putting blood on the muzzle.
2 The TFG unwittingly contaminated it.
If there was blood on the muzzle and maybe a small incursion into the barrel and they then fitted the SM to make at least one shot (say the first or second shot as outlined in evidence). The action would possibly cause minute particles/mist size droplets to be distributed on the baffle plates and inside the main SM’s barrel/bore as far as that noted in the evidence.
3 A deliberate action at the lab
They, MDF in particular, could have created a flake or they obtained it from the receptacle containing PV20 and blood. As noted by Taylor on his GER. (QC I believe this is another document dated 12/09/85). Since there is a distinct possibility that he swapped PV20 to help create the one-gun crime, the creation of a flake or a flake from the PV20 receptacle would hold no fear.
4 A mistake by MDF who test fired the rifle.
Though he says he did a pull through and found no blood he might have come to the conclusion that he had caused it when small quantities were found by testing for bloods. He may have test fired before the blood tests. A mistake by a ‘novice’? Any earlier contamination would be blasted into the SM. If he visually inspected, it before both the test fire and/or the pull through. It is unlikely he could see the blood because JH and PJL asserted that the blood was not visible to the naked eye.
This suggestion comes into play if 2 above is excluded.
I would suggest that you read this to engage with my thinking.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action\attach;topic=4779.0;attach=34386;image
It seems to me that in the initial stages the mixed group theory was a possibility. JH did not do the tests himself someone, initials ALB did the tests. JH presented on behalf of the FSS at trial.
Try reading this.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34390;image
and this
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34392;image
It could be argued that PJL’s first report was sent to the FSS. (It would have been seen as a matter of curtesy and professional behaviour) as well as presenting findings to the defence. JH said he needed two matching sources to confirm SC’s blood. Low and behold PJL’ s reasoning is undermined by the finding of a flake. This caused him to adjust his advice.
I have severe reservations about this as previously outlined. See this
SILENCER SAGA reply 2 Was there a flake of blood.
I have seen the McKenzie report which says the same. It is a pity I had not read this when first posting this suggestion.
The flake provided additional evidence to support an otherwise highly contestable finding from the SM bore and baffle plates. This is similar to JM’s testimony bolstering the SM evidence.
There many who say that these nuanced issues were used to mislead the Jury about the veracity of the blood evidence. The flake result was not easy to contest and could not be verified by a subsequent test because the all the flake was consumed in the original test. The testing method was called into question later.
The flake was not discovered by RC when he dismantled it and it is clear he was not seeking quick tests because he did not send it to the lab for another nine days. MF did not find the flake when according to some he dismantled it on 13/08/85, (some claim this is a lie and is connected to a forged HOLAB 5 form), was it him who found the flake? Did he dismantle it before passing it to JH and his team? In any case it would seem that neither RC or MF saw blood as would be the case, if it was invisible to the naked eye.
I do not know which if any of the four scenarios I favour but I feel it could be an amalgam of any 2 or 3 from the total. All these scenarios place blood on the muzzle and a strong likelihood that this fact resulted in stronger blood findings which were found on the female screw head. A condition that cannot occur in normal operating conditions. They (SM’s) are designed and built so as not to leak in this area.
I strongly agree with David1819’s take on the back spatter issue. For me the amount of material (blood) was very small indeed, some might say minute and there was no other material like bone or tissue which are characteristic elements of the phenomenon. The quantities were so small I cannot see how any deliberate attempt to introduce blood into the silencer could be achieved. It would be extremely difficult because the actor would have to apply such a small amount as that found in the testing. The flake is different in that making one would be more easily achieved.
While arguments such as this maybe wrong or right, there seems little possibility that this aspect will lead to a CCRC referral. The blood evidence is a dead end I am afraid.
I believe the CT should proceed with this case on the basis that it is a ‘frame up’ following a cover-up. A case could be constructed explaining the framing of JB as part of a whole new narrative, citing the lack of disclosure as a deliberate attempt to hide pertinent evidence and the mistakes that were made. The outcome of this behaviour eventually leading to the diabolical framing of an innocent man.
There is an interesting point in the Channel 5 programme and the killing of Billy Joe towards the end where a blood spatter specialist discusses the volume of blood that was present on Sion Jenkins. There were well over a hundred tiny spots in total but the volume total would be no greater than you would get from pricking you finger.
On this basis suggestion 2 above could be a strong contender for the blood in the SM
-
There is an interesting point in the Channel 5 programme and the killing of Billy Joe towards the end where a blood spatter specialist discusses the volume of blood that was present on Sion Jenkins. There were well over a hundred tiny spots in total but the volume total would be no greater than you would get from pricking you finger.
On this basis suggestion 2 above could be a strong contender for the blood in the SM
The problem with these suggestions is that the relatives reported the blood and paint before anyone else did.
Now, had the silencer been involved on August 7th, the blood on and inside the silencer will be completely dry, in such a dry state it is impossible to establish if it is blood or not, it would appear black like soot. The relatives had no testing equipment to determine what it was, yet they knew what it was. The inference being they contaminated it deliberately.
Moreover Ann Eaton's describes the blood as appearing like a "blob of Jam". Blood that is supposed to have been dried for four days does not appear anything like a "blob of Jam". Hence the blood is a fabrication, committed by those who reported it.
-
The problem with these suggestions is that the relatives reported the blood and paint before anyone else did.
Now, had the silencer been involved on August 7th, the blood on and inside the silencer will be completely dry, in such a dry state it is impossible to establish if it is blood or not, it would appear black like soot. The relatives had no testing equipment to determine what it was, yet they knew what it was. The inference being they contaminated it deliberately.
Moreover Ann Eaton's describes the blood as appearing like a "blob of Jam". Blood that is supposed to have been dried for four days does not appear anything like a "blob of Jam". Hence the blood is a fabrication, committed by those who reported it.
Only the test done by GH on the 13/07/85 is evidence of blood externally on the silencer DB1 that is evidential. They were only giving an opinion. Most of the lurid descriptions of the state of the SM that they say they found on 10/07/85 come from the family. This was all made up and like the rest of their evidence in relation to DRB1 was a confection to give this phantom an air of reality.
-
Only the test done by GH on the 13/07/85 is evidence of blood externally on the silencer DB1 that is evidential. They were only giving an opinion.
No, GH collected blood from inside also.
"Q: Thank you. Now may I please ask you about the blood you found or saw inside the sound moderator?
A: Yes.
Q: You obviously had to remove it by some means didn't you?
A: Yes I did.
Q: Could you describe the means you used?
A: Yes, with the aid of a low-powered microscope and lenghts of sterile white cotton thread moistened with distilled water, I inserted with fine forceps the damp threads into the bore of the sound moderator. And soaked up the blood that was in there. I allowed the threads to dry before doing further tests.
Q: May I ask you how far into the sound moderator did you go with your threads? How far do you believe?
A: I took some blood which I could actually see. Just on that inner surface approximately 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch. I didn't measure it at the time. "
Most of the lurid descriptions of the state of the SM that they say they found on 10/07/85 come from the family. This was all made up and like the rest of their evidence in relation to DRB1 was a confection to give this phantom an air of reality.
There is no documentary evidence anywhere to support this nonsense.
-
No, GH collected blood from inside also.
"Q: Thank you. Now may I please ask you about the blood you found or saw inside the sound moderator?
A: Yes.
Q: You obviously had to remove it by some means didn't you?
A: Yes I did.
Q: Could you describe the means you used?
A: Yes, with the aid of a low-powered microscope and lenghts of sterile white cotton thread moistened with distilled water, I inserted with fine forceps the damp threads into the bore of the sound moderator. And soaked up the blood that was in there. I allowed the threads to dry before doing further tests.
Q: May I ask you how far into the sound moderator did you go with your threads? How far do you believe?
A: I took some blood which I could actually see. Just on that inner surface approximately 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch. I didn't measure it at the time. "
There is no documentary evidence anywhere to support this nonsense.
We have had this argument before and I am not going to go searching for my previous answer but I seem to remember you using this same evidence before to suggest that blood was found in the silencer.
They came up with the blob, the mystery grey hair that then went missing, removing the blob with a razor blade. It was all done to give credence to them finding the silencer in the cupboard on 10/08/85.
She is talking from memory and had not noted the actual depth of the swabbing. It was over a year since she did it.
I did not measure it at the time. Hardly inside if it was visible from the outside
Did you not suggest that the family conceived and executed the blood in the SM plot between 10.00am 07/08/85 and 10/08/85.
I accused you of using the forum as a kind of computer game. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed to quote Theresa May.
You are re running an old argument just to be obnoxious.
I would ask posters to read from reply 45 to 119 on this thread which proves the statement above.
He is a naughty little boy playing games rather than engaging in serious debate. I'm putting him back on the naughty step with Adam
-
They came up with the blob, the mystery grey hair that then went missing, removing the blob with a razor blade.
That never happened. David Boutflour said it was "thick enough to peel off with a razor blade". He never stated he actually done it.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1997.0;attach=9962 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1997.0;attach=9962)
It was all done to give credence to them finding the silencer in the cupboard on 10/08/85.
It was all said because that is what happened.
-
I would have said that it was RWB who'd handled a razor judging by his " cut finger ". When handling such a blade, you can obtain a cut without realising because of the fineness of it. Did his blood then inadvertently enter the silencer ?
-
That never happened. David Boutflour said it was "thick enough to peel off with a razor blade". He never stated he actually done it.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1997.0;attach=9962 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1997.0;attach=9962)
It was all said because that is what happened.
Really? In his own fair hand and signed to confirm such?
-
Really? In his own fair hand and signed to confirm such?
They're COLP notes. Not sure if that's what you're referring to.
-
They're COLP notes. Not sure if that's what you're referring to.
Are they in DB's own hand and/or did he sign off? If the answer is yes to both has the doc been authenticated by an expert?
-
Are they in DB's own hand and/or did he sign off? If the answer is yes to both has the doc been authenticated by an expert?
All COLP notes are in the same handwriting. If you are suggesting that somebody copied the note-taker's handwriting, in order to create a story about a blob of blood, I doubt you will get far.
-
All COLP notes are in the same handwriting. If you are suggesting that somebody copied the note-taker's handwriting, in order to create a story about a blob of blood, I doubt you will get far.
I'm not suggesting anything. I am saying that a hand written document not in the author's hand and unsigned is not worth the paper its written on. Do you think the document David uploaded would stand up in a court of law if David Boutflour denied saying those words?
-
I'm not suggesting anything. I am saying that a hand written document not in the author's hand and unsigned is not worth the paper its written on. Do you think the document David uploaded would stand up in a court of law if David Boutflour denied saying those words?
If he wished to do so, then that would be his prerogative. But by default, the implications are that the note-taker for COLP made up the notes in question. Would that in turn imply that all other notes by the COLP note-taker were also invented?
-
If he wished to do so, then that would be his prerogative. But by default, the implications are that the note-taker for COLP made up the notes in question. Would that in turn imply that all other notes by the COLP note-taker were also invented?
Totally unreliable and not worth the paper.
Surely its common sense that if COLP was undertaking a proper robust investigation then interviewees need to write their version of events (notes) in their own words/hand and sign accordingly?
-
Totally unreliable and not worth the paper.
Surely its common sense that if COLP was undertaking a proper robust investigation then interviewees need to write their version of events (notes) in their own words/hand and sign accordingly?
You would need to take that up with COLP. I assume they interviewed witnesses one at a time, with a note taker present. Either the actual notes or photocopies of the notes were then retained in storage. Eventually, the notes were disclosed to the defence.
At some point, either upon release or at a later period, the notes would have been entered in to the archive and cross-referencing system used by the CT.
-
You would need to take that up with COLP. I assume they interviewed witnesses one at a time, with a note taker present. Either the actual notes or photocopies of the notes were then retained in storage. Eventually, the notes were disclosed to the defence.
At some point, either upon release or at a later period, the notes would have been entered in to the archive and cross-referencing system used by the CT.
On what basis have you made this assumption?
-
All COLP notes are in the same handwriting. If you are suggesting that somebody copied the note-taker's handwriting, in order to create a story about a blob of blood, I doubt you will get far.
The whole document can be found here.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1997.msg61037.html#msg61037 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1997.msg61037.html#msg61037)
-
The whole document can be found here.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1997.msg61037.html#msg61037 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1997.msg61037.html#msg61037)
The word document conjures up authenticity when the above is anything but.
-
On what basis have you made this assumption?
On the basis that all COLP notes that I have seen are in the same handwriting. The only other option that there could be, is that COLP took recordings that were later transcribed. I am not aware of any COLP recordings having been released to the defence. Therefore, in this scenario, I would expect it to be more likely that they were transcribed as part of the enquiry itself.
-
The word document conjures up authenticity when the above is anything but.
Are you inferring that all handwritten COLP notes should be dismissed?
-
On the basis that all COLP notes that I have seen are in the same handwriting. The only other option that there could be, is that COLP took recordings that were later transcribed. I am not aware of any COLP recordings having been released to the defence. Therefore, in this scenario, I would expect it to be more likely that they were transcribed as part of the enquiry itself.
DBs COLP statement was taken at his farm in Wix. Likewise AEs COLP statement was taken at WHF.
-
Are you inferring that all handwritten COLP notes should be dismissed?
If push came to shove do you think what you and David have presented would stand up in a court of law?
-
DBs COLP statement was taken at his farm in Wix. Likewise AEs COLP statement was taken at WHF.
What evidence exists that DB's/AE's COLP statements were taken at BAF/WHF?
-
If push came to shove do you think what you and David have presented would stand up in a court of law?
That would depend on whether notes taken as part of a police enquiry would stand up in a court of law. Essex Police continually issue generic statements whereby they make reference to enquiries having found no wrongdoing. I assume therefore that the enquiry attained some standing in and of itself. If the evidence gathered to carry out the enquiry will not stand up in a court of law, then perhaps the findings of the enquiry should be dismissed.
-
That would depend on whether notes taken as part of a police enquiry would stand up in a court of law. Essex Police continually issue generic statements whereby they make reference to enquiries having found no wrongdoing. I assume therefore that the enquiry attained some standing in and of itself. If the evidence gathered to carry out the enquiry will not stand up in a court of law, then perhaps the findings of the enquiry should be dismissed.
I can tell you for a fact unsigned hand-written notes written by some unknown individual are not going to stand up. Surely its obvious?
Who wrote the notes?
-
I can tell you for a fact unsigned hand-written notes written by some unknown individual are not going to stand up. Surely its obvious?
Who wrote the notes?
Are you implying that COLP used an 'unknown person' as note-taker? Or are you merely asking if I know the identity of their note-taker? Personally I do not know the identity.
-
I can tell you for a fact unsigned hand-written notes written by some unknown individual are not going to stand up. Surely its obvious?
They seemed to stand up as a basis for the enquiry. And the result of that enquiry, is touted by Essex Constabulary, as a reason why there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
-
Are you implying that COLP used an 'unknown person' as note-taker? Or are you merely asking if I know the identity of their note-taker? Personally I do not know the identity.
I am saying notes purporting to be from various individuals not in their hand and unsigned are simply not worth the paper.
Storm Eunice is getting a bit more feisty in SE Engalnd. I'm wondering if I should take out my SUP for some extreme boarding!!!
And in answer to your question the other day about US ale I'm not keen as I find them too hoppy. Quite like Sierra Nevada tho. Have recently sampled an old favourite 'Old Peculiar' by Theakston. How about you?
-
They seemed to stand up as a basis for the enquiry. And the result of that enquiry, is touted by Essex Constabulary, as a reason why there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
Lets see if they stand the test of time!
-
I am saying notes purporting to be from various individuals not in their hand and unsigned are simply not worth the paper.
Storm Eunice is getting a bit more feisty in SE Engalnd. I'm wondering if I should take out my SUP for some extreme boarding!!!
And in answer to your question the other day about US ale I'm not keen as I find them too hoppy. Quite like Sierra Nevada tho. Have recently sampled an old favourite 'Old Peculiar' by Theakston. How about you?
Southerners are getting a taste of what we had in November. I hope everyone remains safe. Up here we had houses shedding walls of bricks. Fences were down all over the place.
Sierra Nevada is good. There is also Lagunita's (I think that's what it's called) and Anchor Brewing Co do some nice ones.
-
In addition, not a massive fan of Old Peculiar.
-
Southerners are getting a taste of what we had in November. I hope everyone remains safe. Up here we had houses shedding walls of bricks. Fences were down all over the place.
Sierra Nevada is good. There is also Lagunita's (I think that's what it's called) and Anchor Brewing Co do some nice ones.
Yes I was really into Lagunita a few years ago when it first came to market in the UK. Are you more lager, ale, pale ale, IPA? Which are your favourites?
-
Yes I was really into Lagunita a few years ago when it first came to market in the UK. Are you more lager, ale, pale ale, IPA? Which are your favourites?
I shifted from lager to ales during my 40's. What I like about the American beers is that they almost seem to be a hybrid between ale and lager. Regarding 'traditional' ales, I like quite a few. Marston's Old Empire IPA (think that's right) and Brew Dog Punk IPA being a couple of examples. Kentish Ale and Jaipur also nice. Also Banana Bread Beer is surprisingly nice.
-
I shifted from lager to ales during my 40's. What I like about the American beers is that they almost seem to be a hybrid between ale and lager. Regarding 'traditional' ales, I like quite a few. Empire IPA and Brew Dog Punk IPA being a couple of examples. Kentish Ale and Jaipur also nice. Also Banana Bread Beer is surprisingly nice.
Jaipur is superb. I had a few bottles of Banana Bread recently having not had any for years and really enjoyed. Have you tried Little Creatures? McEwans Champion is nice at 7.3% abv ;) I used to try loads of different ones and keep notes :'( but that was in the days of off licences. Supermarkets don't tend to carry such a range and/or don't change the range that often.
-
Just a couple of points on the COLP enquiry. I cannot discuss my favourite alcoholic beverage went TT 20 years ago. As far as being an interviewee in the enquiry, surely you would wish to see a transcript of your interview (if taped) or some typed document to ensure you are not being misrepresented. Having a solicitor present might look as if you had something to hide but also a possibility. DB had a police federation representative at his.
Although it concluded no evidence of wrong doing we know that DB lied to the enquiry with regard to finding DB1. I will not re-debate this aspect, my views are already set out clearly. He made 2 witness statements on the same day. One was used at trial the other for the enquiry. They had different contents.
-
Jaipur is superb. I had a few bottles of Banana Bread recently having not had any for years and really enjoyed. Have you tried Little Creatures? McEwans Champion is nice at 7.3% abv ;) I used to try loads of different ones and keep notes :'( but that was in the days of off licences. Supermarkets don't tend to carry such a range and/or don't change the range that often.
Not sure, little creatures does ring a bell. I sometimes have the McEwan's one but I ration buying it. Tbh, we used to get 3 for £5 from Tesco's but it means choices are repetitive. Good deal though.
-
Just a couple of points on the COLP enquiry. I cannot discuss my favourite alcoholic beverage went TT 20 years ago. As far as being an interviewee in the enquiry, surely you would wish to see a transcript of your interview (if taped) or some typed document to ensure you are not being misrepresented. Having a solicitor present might look as if you had something to hide but also a possibility. DB had a police federation representative at his.
Although it concluded no evidence of wrong doing we know that DB lied to the enquiry with regard to finding DB1. I will not re-debate this aspect, my views are already set out clearly. He made 2 witness statements on the same day. One was used at trial the other for the enquiry. They had different contents.
Life's too short to be sensible/tt.
If witness statements, COLP notes etc do not follow a similar format to the following then frankly they mean sfa.
https://www.cheshire.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/images/cheshire/dashcam/dashcam-example-statement.pdf
As far as I can see the only reliable evidence about DB and the finding of the silencer are the various docu/dramas as these contain audio visuals of the man himself.
What evidence exists that a police federation rep was present when DB provided non-trial testimony?
-
Life's too short to be sensible/tt.
If witness statements, COLP notes etc do not follow a similar format to the following then frankly they mean sfa.
https://www.cheshire.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/images/cheshire/dashcam/dashcam-example-statement.pdf
As far as I can see the only reliable evidence about DB and the finding of the silencer are the various docu/dramas as these contain audio visuals of the man himself.
What evidence exists that a police federation rep was present when DB provided non-trial testimony?
I mean DB not DRB. It is stated in the introduction of his taped interview with COLP. Full transcript available.
-
I mean DB not DRB. It is stated in the introduction of his taped interview with COLP. Full transcript available.
Oh ok. Getting mixed up like the exhibit labels!
-
If witness statements, COLP notes etc do not follow a similar format to the following then frankly they mean sfa.
https://www.cheshire.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/images/cheshire/dashcam/dashcam-example-statement.pdf
You are assuming such practices 36 years ago followed this pro-forma. Maybe some 'looser' regime applied at that time and rigour was applied later, following legal issue problems.
-
Oh ok. Getting mixed up like the exhibit labels!
I am not taking the bait. You know full well what I mean or is it just a joke? Still working on your explanation to the riddle of the blue socks?
-
You are assuming such practices 36 years ago followed this pro-forma. Maybe some 'looser' regime applied at that time and rigour was applied later, following legal issue problems.
Look at the date of the rule at the top of the statement.
-
I am not taking the bait. You know full well what I mean or is it just a joke? Still working on your explanation to the riddle of the blue socks?
I genuinely thought you were referring to DB. That's why I asked about the police fed as it didn't make sense in connections with DB. The riddle of the blue socks is too complicated :'(
-
Look at the date of the rule at the top of the statement.
It is a proforma for witness statements and identifies the appropriate legal statutes that it conforms to. People in their COLP interviews were not making witness statements but were being questioned to aid a police enquiry. What were the legal rules for such an undertaking or was it just a matter of helping police with their enquiries? I believe such enquiries are usually taken in the form of notes and if applicable people questioned may be asked subsequently to provide a witness statement to the effect of what they had said. Only if anything they said is needed for legal purposes. If there were no legal issues forthcoming, say tampering with evidence or making false statements then no witness statements would be needed and we would just be left with the notes.
Perhaps ngb can offer advice on this aspect.
-
I genuinely thought you were referring to DB. That's why I asked about the police fed as it didn't make sense in connections with DB. The riddle of the blue socks is too complicated :'(
I admit it is tricky. You can always read my posts and if still unsure what I am stating you can pm me and I will explain. NGB said it was well argued by the way.
-
FROM BUBO
Can I suggest we discuss the case and move well away from the immature behaviour that has recently been on display? IMO no one comes out of these spats without reputational damage. I am not a moderator but feel the forum has descended into a pit of vipers. Let’s keep it civil.
BLOOD WORKS
[/size]
I think this subject might be right up CC’s street.
I thought it might be useful to set out more clearly how I believe the SM came to have blood inside. I will set them out individually. I have already outlined my thinking on DB1 being found by DB on the day. It should be noted that this exhibit was on DB’s list, which was later headed N/R as outlined in the COLP DB interview. The COLP suggested this meant Not Required or Not Relevant. DB offered no explanation. I argue he was collecting items that were used or produced in the cover up otherwise they would have been assigned to other SOCO officers. Taff wanted them kept apart and I have set out the reasons for this before. The most important may have been a suspicion he held that it could have been contaminated by the TFG which might bring JB into the frame.
1 Sheila contaminated it by her actions.
This could have been caused by a nose bleed when adding or removing the SM blood drips on the SM or muzzle. Another possibility is that she had blood on her hand which transferred to the muzzle during handling. It is also possible some blood dripped onto the SM around the exit. It is also possible that SC ‘prodded dead victims putting blood on the muzzle.
2 The TFG unwittingly contaminated it.
If there was blood on the muzzle and maybe a small incursion into the barrel and they then fitted the SM to make at least one shot (say the first or second shot as outlined in evidence). The action would possibly cause minute particles/mist size droplets to be distributed on the baffle plates and inside the main SM’s barrel/bore as far as that noted in the evidence.
3 A deliberate action at the lab
They, MDF in particular, could have created a flake or they obtained it from the receptacle containing PV20 and blood. As noted by Taylor on his GER. (QC I believe this is another document dated 12/09/85). Since there is a distinct possibility that he swapped PV20 to help create the one-gun crime, the creation of a flake or a flake from the PV20 receptacle would hold no fear.
4 A mistake by MDF who test fired the rifle.
Though he says he did a pull through and found no blood he might have come to the conclusion that he had caused it when small quantities were found by testing for bloods. He may have test fired before the blood tests. A mistake by a ‘novice’? Any earlier contamination would be blasted into the SM. If he visually inspected, it before both the test fire and/or the pull through. It is unlikely he could see the blood because JH and PJL asserted that the blood was not visible to the naked eye.
This suggestion comes into play if 2 above is excluded.
I would suggest that you read this to engage with my thinking.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action\attach;topic=4779.0;attach=34386;image
It seems to me that in the initial stages the mixed group theory was a possibility. JH did not do the tests himself someone, initials ALB did the tests. JH presented on behalf of the FSS at trial.
Try reading this.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34390;image
and this
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34392;image
It could be argued that PJL’s first report was sent to the FSS. (It would have been seen as a matter of curtesy and professional behaviour) as well as presenting findings to the defence. JH said he needed two matching sources to confirm SC’s blood. Low and behold PJL’ s reasoning is undermined by the finding of a flake. This caused him to adjust his advice.
I have severe reservations about this as previously outlined. See this
SILENCER SAGA reply 2 Was there a flake of blood.
I have seen the McKenzie report which says the same. It is a pity I had not read this when first posting this suggestion.
The flake provided additional evidence to support an otherwise highly contestable finding from the SM bore and baffle plates. This is similar to JM’s testimony bolstering the SM evidence.
There many who say that these nuanced issues were used to mislead the Jury about the veracity of the blood evidence. The flake result was not easy to contest and could not be verified by a subsequent test because the all the flake was consumed in the original test. The testing method was called into question later.
The flake was not discovered by RC when he dismantled it and it is clear he was not seeking quick tests because he did not send it to the lab for another nine days. MF did not find the flake when according to some he dismantled it on 13/08/85, (some claim this is a lie and is connected to a forged HOLAB 5 form), was it him who found the flake? Did he dismantle it before passing it to JH and his team? In any case it would seem that neither RC or MF saw blood as would be the case, if it was invisible to the naked eye.
I do not know which if any of the four scenarios I favour but I feel it could be an amalgam of any 2 or 3 from the total. All these scenarios place blood on the muzzle and a strong likelihood that this fact resulted in stronger blood findings which were found on the female screw head. A condition that cannot occur in normal operating conditions. They (SM’s) are designed and built so as not to leak in this area.
I strongly agree with David1819’s take on the back spatter issue. For me the amount of material (blood) was very small indeed, some might say minute and there was no other material like bone or tissue which are characteristic elements of the phenomenon. The quantities were so small I cannot see how any deliberate attempt to introduce blood into the silencer could be achieved. It would be extremely difficult because the actor would have to apply such a small amount as that found in the testing. The flake is different in that making one would be more easily achieved.
While arguments such as this maybe wrong or right, there seems little possibility that this aspect will lead to a CCRC referral. The blood evidence is a dead end I am afraid.
I believe the CT should proceed with this case on the basis that it is a ‘frame up’ following a cover-up. A case could be constructed explaining the framing of JB as part of a whole new narrative, citing the lack of disclosure as a deliberate attempt to hide pertinent evidence and the mistakes that were made. The outcome of this behaviour eventually leading to the diabolical framing of an innocent man.
There is an interesting point in the Channel 5 programme and the killing of Billy Joe towards the end where a blood spatter specialist discusses the volume of blood that was present on Sion Jenkins. There were well over a hundred tiny spots in total but the volume total would be no greater than you would get from pricking you finger.
-
FROM BUBO
Can I suggest we discuss the case and move well away from the immature behaviour that has recently been on display? IMO no one comes out of these spats without reputational damage. I am not a moderator but feel the forum has descended into a pit of vipers. Let’s keep it civil.
BLOOD WORKS
[/size]
I think this subject might be right up CC’s street.
I thought it might be useful to set out more clearly how I believe the SM came to have blood inside. I will set them out individually. I have already outlined my thinking on DB1 being found by DB on the day. It should be noted that this exhibit was on DB’s list, which was later headed N/R as outlined in the COLP DB interview. The COLP suggested this meant Not Required or Not Relevant. DB offered no explanation. I argue he was collecting items that were used or produced in the cover up otherwise they would have been assigned to other SOCO officers. Taff wanted them kept apart and I have set out the reasons for this before. The most important may have been a suspicion he held that it could have been contaminated by the TFG which might bring JB into the frame.
1 Sheila contaminated it by her actions.
This could have been caused by a nose bleed when adding or removing the SM blood drips on the SM or muzzle. Another possibility is that she had blood on her hand which transferred to the muzzle during handling. It is also possible some blood dripped onto the SM around the exit. It is also possible that SC ‘prodded dead victims putting blood on the muzzle.
2 The TFG unwittingly contaminated it.
If there was blood on the muzzle and maybe a small incursion into the barrel and they then fitted the SM to make at least one shot (say the first or second shot as outlined in evidence). The action would possibly cause minute particles/mist size droplets to be distributed on the baffle plates and inside the main SM’s barrel/bore as far as that noted in the evidence.
3 A deliberate action at the lab
They, MDF in particular, could have created a flake or they obtained it from the receptacle containing PV20 and blood. As noted by Taylor on his GER. (QC I believe this is another document dated 12/09/85). Since there is a distinct possibility that he swapped PV20 to help create the one-gun crime, the creation of a flake or a flake from the PV20 receptacle would hold no fear.
4 A mistake by MDF who test fired the rifle.
Though he says he did a pull through and found no blood he might have come to the conclusion that he had caused it when small quantities were found by testing for bloods. He may have test fired before the blood tests. A mistake by a ‘novice’? Any earlier contamination would be blasted into the SM. If he visually inspected, it before both the test fire and/or the pull through. It is unlikely he could see the blood because JH and PJL asserted that the blood was not visible to the naked eye.
This suggestion comes into play if 2 above is excluded.
I would suggest that you read this to engage with my thinking.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action\attach;topic=4779.0;attach=34386;image
It seems to me that in the initial stages the mixed group theory was a possibility. JH did not do the tests himself someone, initials ALB did the tests. JH presented on behalf of the FSS at trial.
Try reading this.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34390;image
and this
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4779.0;attach=34392;image
It could be argued that PJL’s first report was sent to the FSS. (It would have been seen as a matter of curtesy and professional behaviour) as well as presenting findings to the defence. JH said he needed two matching sources to confirm SC’s blood. Low and behold PJL’ s reasoning is undermined by the finding of a flake. This caused him to adjust his advice.
I have severe reservations about this as previously outlined. See this
SILENCER SAGA reply 2 Was there a flake of blood.
I have seen the McKenzie report which says the same. It is a pity I had not read this when first posting this suggestion.
The flake provided additional evidence to support an otherwise highly contestable finding from the SM bore and baffle plates. This is similar to JM’s testimony bolstering the SM evidence.
There many who say that these nuanced issues were used to mislead the Jury about the veracity of the blood evidence. The flake result was not easy to contest and could not be verified by a subsequent test because the all the flake was consumed in the original test. The testing method was called into question later.
The flake was not discovered by RC when he dismantled it and it is clear he was not seeking quick tests because he did not send it to the lab for another nine days. MF did not find the flake when according to some he dismantled it on 13/08/85, (some claim this is a lie and is connected to a forged HOLAB 5 form), was it him who found the flake? Did he dismantle it before passing it to JH and his team? In any case it would seem that neither RC or MF saw blood as would be the case, if it was invisible to the naked eye.
I do not know which if any of the four scenarios I favour but I feel it could be an amalgam of any 2 or 3 from the total. All these scenarios place blood on the muzzle and a strong likelihood that this fact resulted in stronger blood findings which were found on the female screw head. A condition that cannot occur in normal operating conditions. They (SM’s) are designed and built so as not to leak in this area.
I strongly agree with David1819’s take on the back spatter issue. For me the amount of material (blood) was very small indeed, some might say minute and there was no other material like bone or tissue which are characteristic elements of the phenomenon. The quantities were so small I cannot see how any deliberate attempt to introduce blood into the silencer could be achieved. It would be extremely difficult because the actor would have to apply such a small amount as that found in the testing. The flake is different in that making one would be more easily achieved.
While arguments such as this maybe wrong or right, there seems little possibility that this aspect will lead to a CCRC referral. The blood evidence is a dead end I am afraid.
I believe the CT should proceed with this case on the basis that it is a ‘frame up’ following a cover-up. A case could be constructed explaining the framing of JB as part of a whole new narrative, citing the lack of disclosure as a deliberate attempt to hide pertinent evidence and the mistakes that were made. The outcome of this behaviour eventually leading to the diabolical framing of an innocent man.
There is an interesting point in the Channel 5 programme and the killing of Billy Joe towards the end where a blood spatter specialist discusses the volume of blood that was present on Sion Jenkins. There were well over a hundred tiny spots in total but the volume total would be no greater than you would get from pricking you finger.
1. According to FSS and Dr Lincoln's (for the defence) examination, evidence of blood was found as far down as far as the 8th baffle. How would blood enter such a small aperture and present the way in which it did as far down as the 8th baffle from accidental contamination by Sheila? Why would Sheila use the silencer and then replace it in a box/bag at the back of the cupboard?
2. As far as I know the TFG did not carry out any test fires and even if they did how would dry blood end up presenting as claimed and as far down as the 8th baffle?
3. There is absolutely no evidence that any shot was fired from any other firearm other than the Anshutz 525 rifle. Why/how would the lab conspire?
4. I'm not really sure what you mean in 4? Malcolm Fletcher claims he carried out a pull-through on the rifle and found no trace of blood. Glynnis Howard found traces of blood and the paint on the outside of the silencer, and just inside the opening, on 13th Aug which was long before Malcolm Fletcher was involved.
-
1. According to FSS and Dr Lincoln's (for the defence) examination, evidence of blood was found as far down as far as the 8th baffle. How would blood enter such a small aperture and present the way in which it did as far down as the 8th baffle from accidental contamination by Sheila? Why would Sheila use the silencer and then replace it in a box/bag at the back of the cupboard?
2. As far as I know the TFG did not carry out any test fires and even if they did how would dry blood end up presenting as claimed and as far down as the 8th baffle?
3. There is absolutely no evidence that any shot was fired from any other firearm other than the Anshutz 525 rifle. Why/how would the lab conspire?
4. I'm not really sure what you mean in 4? Malcolm Fletcher claims he carried out a pull-through on the rifle and found no trace of blood. Glynnis Howard found traces of blood and the paint on the outside of the silencer, and just inside the opening, on 13th Aug which was long before Malcolm Fletcher was involved.
I do not believe it would be impossible for any wet blood to go as far as the 8th baffle. In the Sion Jenkins case a mere expulsion of the dead Billy J’s breath managed to spray the whole of the front of his fleece and his shoe with miniscule droplets. If there was a small amount of wet blood in or around the muzzle area the gasses forced through the barrel would be sufficient to cause a similar spray/mist effect over a distance of say 6 inches.
The TFG had to perform at least one test fire to obtain a replacement cartridge case for the round they fired at June. This was why when there were 30 rounds loose on the kitchen top MF only received 29. They held back the lone round that was still in its tray.
This casing DRH43 was missed and is said to have been found on 08/07/85 lodged at the base of the wardrobe on June’s side of the bed.
Of course there is no evidence that any other rifle being fired, it is under wraps. There is however some pretty strong evidence that PV20 was swapped for this very reason. MF did the swap IMO because the original had rifling marks consistent with the Brno. He could have incorrectly calibrated the scales or entered a wrong figure on the paperwork. I believe this was a deliberate act, not human error. If you read his paperwork the exact document escapes me and in it he says he could not say whether PV20 was fired from the rifle18 (The Anschutz). Was he covering himself?
Found it
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4019.0;attach=29505;image
Sheila did not replace the SM in the cupboard it was collected by David Bird at the crime scene on the day.
Sheila could have handled the SM and by some means contaminated the screw end. This would mean the muzzle was clean but the blood she transferred to the SM could have been blasted into the SM.
I believe though I cannot say with full confidence that small amounts of dried blood on the muzzle or just inside the barrel or indeed the screw thread, could also be blasted into the silencer as tiny fragments of dust.
This being the case if a test fire was performed using the silencer before the pull through. MF would have accidently contaminated the silencer. Since the blood was invisible to the naked eye he may not have regarded or anticipated that this was a potential problem. He could have claimed to have done the pull through to cover up this mistake.
Holly Goodhead often posted about his lack of expertise which was to have owned an air rifle when younger. He was said to be too incompetent to be dealing with the complicated ballistics element which was a major part of the case.
WARNING CONSPIRACY ALERT.
At the time of JB’s trial the Home secretary was Douglas Hurd. It was he who had ultimate responsibility for the issuing of PII certificates linked to this case. This same man imposed a whole life tariff on JB without consultation and without notifying JB.
At this time the FSS Huntingdon was run by the Home Office under the Home Secretary Douglas Hurd. Politicians tend to steer clear of involvement in legal matters as far as possible because Judges tend to give them short shrift for interfering with the judiciary but it cannot be ruled out that the Home Office was involved in other aspects of this case than those quoted above.
One of the problems of arguing for guilt is that things have changed since most of the documents you use as evidence, (I accept that they are) is that we have moved on. Although full disclosure is still to be made, more documents have trickled out or have been disclosed. Photography is unrecognisable from the Hasselblad and celluloid of the 1980’s. We no longer need the strength of a Tarzan to carry a large plastic brick on our shoulders to take videos.
It is possible from documentation released and technology as well as new forensics that a new and possibly (not probably) different set of evidence has emerged that is worthy of a submission to the CCRC. We await the outcome.
The original narrative which exists to this day was gifted to the police by the physical elements of the case in that they had complete control over what happened when the TFG went in and the detail of what they found. Any mistakes they may (not probably) have made could be hidden.
In most criminal cases and public events, the narrative is held by the police but only initially. Other witnesses to events can tell a different story about what they say happened and heard and their take on proceedings. The most important chunk in this case, is and always has been held by the police.
That is why access to the original four murders and suicide case file is so important.
I do not say my narrative must be believed but right or wrong I do believe it is possible (not probable) that something akin to this happened. I can live in a dream world if that is what you think it is. I will remain the fantasist and conspiritard. you believe me to be.
-
Oh ok. Getting mixed up like the exhibit labels!
That's exactly what EP did ! Some items were even minus exhibit labels.
-
That's exactly what EP did ! Some items were even minus exhibit labels.
And signatures too !
-
I do not believe it would be impossible for any wet blood to go as far as the 8th baffle. In the Sion Jenkins case a mere expulsion of the dead Billy J’s breath manged to spray the whole of the front of his fleece and his shoe with miniscule droplets. If there was a small amount of wet blood in or around the muzzle area the gasses forced through the barrel would be sufficient to cause a similar spray/mist effect over a distance of say 6 inches.
The TFG had to perform at least one test fire to obtain a replacement cartridge case for the round they fired at June. This was why when there were 30 rounds loose on the kitchen top MF only received 29. They held back the lone round that was still in its tray.
This casing DRH43 was missed and is said to have been found on 08/07/85 lodged at the base of the wardrobe on June’s side of the bed.
Of course there is no evidence that any other rifle being fired, it is under wraps. There is however some pretty strong evidence that PV20 was swapped for this very reason. MF did the swap IMO because the original had rifling marks consistent with the Brno. He could have incorrectly calibrated the scales or entered a wrong figure on the paperwork. I believe this was a deliberate act not human error. If you read his paperwork the exact document escapes me and in it he says he could not say whether PV20 was fired from the rifle18 (The Anschutz). Was he covering himself?
Found it
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4019.0;attach=29505;image
Sheila did not replace the SM in the cupboard it was collected by David Bird at the crime scene on the day.
Sheila could have handled the SM and by some means contaminated the screw end. This would mean the muzzle was clean but the blood she transferred to the SM could have been blasted into the SM.
I believe though I cannot say with full confidence that small amounts of dried blood on the muzzle or just inside the barrel or indeed the screw thread, could also be blasted into the silencer as tiny fragments of dust.
This being the case if a test fire was performed using the silencer before the pull through. MF would have accidently contaminated the silencer. Since the blood was invisible to the naked eye he may not have regarded or anticipated that this was a potential problem. He could have claimed to have done the pull through to cover up this mistake.
Holly Goodhead often posted about his lack of expertise which was to have owned an air rifle when younger. He was said to be too incompetent to be dealing with the complicated ballistics element which was a major part of the case.
WARNING CONSPIRACY ALERT.
At the time of JB’s trial the Home secretary was Douglas Hurd. It was he who had ultimate responsibility for the issuing of PII certificates linked to this case. This same man imposed a whole life tariff on JB without consultation and without notifying JB.
At this time the FSS Huntingdon was run by the Home Office under the Home Secretary Douglas Hurd. Politicians tend to steer clear of involvement in legal matters as far as possible because Judges tend to give them short shrift for interfering with the judiciary but it cannot be ruled out that the Home Office was involved in other aspects of this case than those quoted above.
One of the problems of arguing for guilt is that things have changed since most of the documents you use as evidence, (I accept that they are) is that we have moved on. Although full disclosure is still to be made, more documents have trickled out or have been disclosed. Photography is unrecognisable from the Hasselblad and celluloid of the 1980’s. We no longer need the strength of a Tarzan to carry a large plastic brick on our shoulders to take videos.
It is possible from documentation released and technology as well as new forensics that a new and possibly (not probably) different set of evidence has emerged that is worthy of a submission to the CCRC. We await the outcome.
The original narrative which exists to this day was gifted to the police by the physical elements of the case in that they had complete control over what happened when the TFG went in and the detail of what they found. Any mistakes they may (not probably) have made could be hidden.
In most criminal cases and public events, the narrative is held by the police but only initially. Other witnesses to events can tell a different story about what they say happened and heard and their take on proceedings. The most important chunk in this case, is and always has been held by the police.
That is why access to the original four murders and suicide case file is so important.
I do not say my narrative must be believed but right or wrong I do believe it is possible (not probable) that something akin to this happened. I can live in a dream world if that is what you think it is. I will remain the fantasist and conspiritard. you believe me to be.
Does anyone really believe this scenario now?
-
Does anyone really believe this scenario now?
Are you referring to the section you highlighted?
-
I do not believe it would be impossible for any wet blood to go as far as the 8th baffle. In the Sion Jenkins case a mere expulsion of the dead Billy J’s breath manged to spray the whole of the front of his fleece and his shoe with miniscule droplets. If there was a small amount of wet blood in or around the muzzle area the gasses forced through the barrel would be sufficient to cause a similar spray/mist effect over a distance of say 6 inches.
The TFG had to perform at least one test fire to obtain a replacement cartridge case for the round they fired at June. This was why when there were 30 rounds loose on the kitchen top MF only received 29. They held back the lone round that was still in its tray.
This casing DRH43 was missed and is said to have been found on 08/07/85 lodged at the base of the wardrobe on June’s side of the bed.
Of course there is no evidence that any other rifle being fired, it is under wraps. There is however some pretty strong evidence that PV20 was swapped for this very reason. MF did the swap IMO because the original had rifling marks consistent with the Brno. He could have incorrectly calibrated the scales or entered a wrong figure on the paperwork. I believe this was a deliberate act not human error. If you read his paperwork the exact document escapes me and in it he says he could not say whether PV20 was fired from the rifle18 (The Anschutz). Was he covering himself?
Found it
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4019.0;attach=29505;image
Sheila did not replace the SM in the cupboard it was collected by David Bird at the crime scene on the day.
Sheila could have handled the SM and by some means contaminated the screw end. This would mean the muzzle was clean but the blood she transferred to the SM could have been blasted into the SM.
I believe though I cannot say with full confidence that small amounts of dried blood on the muzzle or just inside the barrel or indeed the screw thread, could also be blasted into the silencer as tiny fragments of dust.
This being the case if a test fire was performed using the silencer before the pull through. MF would have accidently contaminated the silencer. Since the blood was invisible to the naked eye he may not have regarded or anticipated that this was a potential problem. He could have claimed to have done the pull through to cover up this mistake.
Holly Goodhead often posted about his lack of expertise which was to have owned an air rifle when younger. He was said to be too incompetent to be dealing with the complicated ballistics element which was a major part of the case.
WARNING CONSPIRACY ALERT.
At the time of JB’s trial the Home secretary was Douglas Hurd. It was he who had ultimate responsibility for the issuing of PII certificates linked to this case. This same man imposed a whole life tariff on JB without consultation and without notifying JB.
At this time the FSS Huntingdon was run by the Home Office under the Home Secretary Douglas Hurd. Politicians tend to steer clear of involvement in legal matters as far as possible because Judges tend to give them short shrift for interfering with the judiciary but it cannot be ruled out that the Home Office was involved in other aspects of this case than those quoted above.
One of the problems of arguing for guilt is that things have changed since most of the documents you use as evidence, (I accept that they are) is that we have moved on. Although full disclosure is still to be made, more documents have trickled out or have been disclosed. Photography is unrecognisable from the Hasselblad and celluloid of the 1980’s. We no longer need the strength of a Tarzan to carry a large plastic brick on our shoulders to take videos.
It is possible from documentation released and technology as well as new forensics that a new and possibly (not probably) different set of evidence has emerged that is worthy of a submission to the CCRC. We await the outcome.
The original narrative which exists to this day was gifted to the police by the physical elements of the case in that they had complete control over what happened when the TFG went in and the detail of what they found. Any mistakes they may (not probably) have made could be hidden.
In most criminal cases and public events, the narrative is held by the police but only initially. Other witnesses to events can tell a different story about what they say happened and heard and their take on proceedings. The most important chunk in this case, is and always has been held by the police.
That is why access to the original four murders and suicide case file is so important.
I do not say my narrative must be believed but right or wrong I do believe it is possible (not probable) that something akin to this happened. I can live in a dream world if that is what you think it is. I will remain the fantasist and conspiritard. you believe me to be.
The blood evidence in the two cases: SJ and JB are two completely different propositions. In the SJ case its about blood being exhaled into the open atmosphere producing particles so fine they were not visible to the naked eye. In JB's case its about blood entering a small aperture into a silencer from a contact gunshot wound which resulted in a blood flake measuring 1/2". The blood in JB's case was not fine dust invisible to the naked eye as you describe.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that TFG shot June. This is off the richter scale madness.
The TFG didn't fire any shots. 29 cartridges were found on the work surface. 1 cartdrige was found in the box on the work surface. Casing DH/43 was found underneath the wardrobe on 9th Aug. No bullets were swapped. The silencer was found by the relatives on 10th Aug along with all the other firearms and associated equipment eg ammunition, scope/sights.
If you want to rewrite history you need all the parts to come together into a seamless narrative and I'm afriad they do not even resemble a poorly stiched patchwork! I am sorry I do not wish to sound rude but your posts are all over the place and only seem to make sense to you.
Now Douglas Hurd is part of the conspiracy ::)
-
Are you referring to the section you highlighted?
Yes.
-
Yes.
Well it seems the judiciary believed hence his conviction was quashed.
-
The blood evidence in the two cases: SJ and JB are two completely different propositions. In the SJ case its about blood being exhaled into the open atmosphere producing particles so fine they were not visible to the naked eye. In JB's case its about blood entering a small aperture into a silencer from a contact gunshot wound which resulted in a blood flake measuring 1/2". The blood in JB's case was not fine dust invisible to the naked eye as you describe.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that TFG shot June. This is off the richter scale madness.
The TFG didn't fire any shots. 29 cartridges were found on the work surface. 1 cartdrige was found in the box on the work surface. Casing DH/43 was found underneath the wardrobe on 9th Aug. No bullets were swapped. The silencer was found by the relatives on 10th Aug along with all the other firearms and associated equipment eg ammunition, scope/sights.
If you want to rewrite history you need all the parts to come together into a seamless narrative and I'm afriad they do not even resemble a poorly stiched patchwork! I am sorry I do not wish to sound rude but your posts are all over the place and only seem to make sense to you.
Now Douglas Hurd is part of the conspiracy ::)
Can you explain what happened to round 30. It did not arrive with the other 29 sent to MF. Nit picking again with the finding of DRH43. So I will return the compliment. round 30 was in a tray not a box. I concede it might have been the 9th, I was working from memory. This indicates a sloppy SOCO operation if they had not found the appropriate number of cases at the first time of asking.
Explain the different weight ratio for PV20 or do you believe it is one of the many examples of human error in this case.
Prove the TFG didn't fire any shots.
Explain why RC did not find the flake when he dismantled the SM on the 21st August. If it was loose as described it would have fallen out. At 1/2 an inch how could he have missed it. Show your evidence for its size I believe (from memory) it was about half that size, I will check it out later.
I do not say it was dust for all cases. It would possibly only have been dust if the blood had dried. If it was wet the same basic principles apply. Air/gasses forcing wet blood into the SM. Remember in the SJ case the amount required would be about as much as you would get if you pricked your finger.
Why was there no bone or tissue in the supposed back spatter as is most usual with this phenomenon.
I did not say it was necessarily the dust that caused the contamination and JB's blood expert said it was invisible to the naked eye on any of the baffles or on the inside of the SM.
You say you cannot take me seriously so I will ask you again to explain the riddle of the blue socks. I asked you months ago and you said you were working on it or it was too tricky. Maybe I would be more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you could answer this very important question, not misquote what I say and produce documentation for your assertions where appropriate.
-
The match head sized blood flake was found in the sound moderator on the 12th September 1985.
Time you went to spec savers or do you use oversize matches? You are not even accurate about one of the most important pieces of evidence.
-
The match head sized blood flake was found in the sound moderator on the 12th September 1985.
Time you went to spec savers or do you use oversize matches? You are not even accurate about one of the most important pieces of evidence.
453. We have set out at paragraphs 75 to 80 a summary of the evidence at trial relating to the scientific examination of the moderator. The critical part of that evidence was the analysis of the flake of dried blood found inside the sound moderator. The evidence was given by Mr Hayward, a biologist who was working at the Forensic Science Laboratory at the time of the examination although he was in private practice by the date of trial. In his evidence he described how he had found "a considerable amount of blood" inside the moderator deposited in the spaces to the sides of the baffles around the edge of the silencer.He was asked if he had tested "any" of that blood. He said that he had and that it was human blood. He said that he had obtained grouping reactions for group A, EAP BA, AK I, Hp 2-1. He had done a PGM grouping test but it gave negative results. He said that these grouping results were consistent with the blood coming from Sheila Caffell but not solely from any of the others who had been shot.
464. Mr Webster made a number of points:
i) He suggested that the flake, which was a quarter of an inch across, might not have been a flake of blood but a flake of soot splattered with blood that had been mistaken by Mr Hayward for a flake of blood. His one basis for this rather surprising suggestion was that he had noted a flake of soot on one of the baffles.
-
Can you explain what happened to round 30. It did not arrive with the other 29 sent to MF. Nit picking again with the finding of DRH43. So I will return the compliment. round 30 was in a tray not a box. I concede it might have been the 9th, I was working from memory. This indicates a sloppy SOCO operation if they had not found the appropriate number of cases at the first time of asking.
Explain the different weight ratio for PV20 or do you believe it is one of the many examples of human error in this case.
Prove the TFG didn't fire any shots.
Explain why RC did not find the flake when he dismantled the SM on the 21st August. If it was loose as described it would have fallen out. At 1/2 an inch how could he have missed it. Show your evidence for its size I believe (from memory) it was about half that size, I will check it out later.
I do not say it was dust for all cases. It would possibly only have been dust if the blood had dried. If it was wet the same basic principles apply. Air/gasses forcing wet blood into the SM. Remember in the SJ case the amount required would be about as much as you would get if you pricked your finger.
Why was there no bone or tissue in the supposed back spatter as is most usual with this phenomenon.
I did not say it was necessarily the dust that caused the contamination and JB's blood expert said it was invisible to the naked eye on any of the baffles or on the inside of the SM.
You say you cannot take me seriously so I will ask you again to explain the riddle of the blue socks.I asked you months ago and you said you were working on it or it was too tricky. Maybe I would be more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you could answer this very important question, not misquote what I say and produce documentation for your assertions where appropriate.
I am not able to take your posts seriously as they deviate so far away from all the known facts. You have clearly made up your mind that the case involves multiple conspiracies. Why should I spend my time trying to convince you otherwise? If you want to believe 'the riddle of the blue socks' its up to you.
As far as I am concerned the case is simple. All concerned (including the police surgeon and pathologist) thought it was murder/suicide other than DS Jones until DCI Ainsley took over and then the blood/silencer and Julie Mugford's testimony emerged. If you and others are unable or unwilling to see the wood for the trees then maybe a group booking for specsavers is required.
-
Does Bubo Bubo still think the relatives found a silencer covered in rabbit blood and ketchup on August 10th?
-
Does Bubo Bubo still think the relatives found a silencer covered in rabbit blood and ketchup on August 10th?
You are repeating a previous misquote. Please post the relevant statements, withdraw or I will report you to the moderator. I have previously refuted these claims and yet you repeat them
-
Stop misrepresenting my views. I said that some argue that it was rabbit blood. I never said I thought it was rabbit blood. NGB please note this behaviour he keeps doing it. I said the stains were not blood and suggested other items that produce red stains. I did not say what I thought it actually was.
"This just means its a non blood stain not that it is paint. Like the brown stain which is also KM negative. She does not even suggest what made the stain and if it was paint it would need to be ingrained and she would have mentioned this aspect. Beetroot juice? tomato sauce? red wine? raspberry juice? lipstick? Need I go on?"
"The SM DB1 was subjected to a lot of scientific tests and at least one dismantling. These activities had produced no evidence of worth apart from GH’s declaration that the blood was human in origin. Some claim it could have been rabbit because of a shared enzyme. No flake was found, even though it was said to be loose between baffles, when dismantled by RC."
You are a nasty piece of work. You cannot gainsay my arguments and resort to misrepresenting my views.
I will ask for you to be banned if you keep this behaviour going.
Evidence refuting his claims. I asked if he could be banned if it continued. If he has not withdrawn these accusations within 24 hours he should be banned. He is a nasty poster.
He is also encouraging others to spread this 'fake' information as the next post shows.
-
I like Ketchup. Either Heinz or Batts.
-
David, do you have a measured / considered response for Bubo? I know you like 'banter' on the forum but there can be a fine line between banter and what can be interpreted as goading towards some members. I also can be goading towards you but if I didn't agree with Bubo, I would probably choose a different strategy when posting to him. It's horses for courses to some extent on here.
-
David, do you have a measured / considered response for Bubo? I know you like 'banter' on the forum but there can be a fine line between banter and what can be interpreted as goading towards some members. I also can be goading towards you but if I didn't agree with Bubo, I would probably choose a different strategy when posting to him. It's horses for courses to some extent on here.
I agree Roch.
-
He was rude to Cambridgecutie:
I do not understand why I am answering this painfully puerile post.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Now let's have a truce for goodness' sake, at least until ngb1066 comes out of hospital.
-
He was rude to Cambridgecutie:
I do not understand why I am answering this painfully puerile post.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Now let's have a truce for goodness' sake, at least until ngb1066 comes out of hospital.
You need to get your facts straight my friend. A search of the forum for the word puerile appears three times against my identity.
One was in response to CC but I was refering to Adam at that time as the wording shows.
The second time I used it was to Germane. I had just explained why LM may not have had JJ's DNA on his clothing. His response completely ignored the previous posting and repeated the original question. I deemed the post puerile.
The third time was to David1819 himself addressing the very issue I am complaining about. Copy of January 27th post below.
'This was because you were continually misrepresenting my arguments. Some of these were so puerile it was obvious they were to goad rather than address the issues. What's more I did not repeat these same insults every few days. I can do without the bible quotes thanks. From the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. James 3.10
Keep out please Steve I am sure the moderators would agree.
-
You are repeating a previous misquote. Please post the relevant statements, withdraw or I will report you to the moderator. I have previously refuted these claims and yet you repeat them
How Am I misquoting you?
For Christ's sake FO. You are a misleading bastard. She did not know how far in she swabbed. It is widely known that it could also have been rabbit blood. You are an utter disgrace and like many others I would be glad to see the back of you. Go and join the other Troll (Adam) under the rickety rackety bridge.
This just means its a non blood stain not that it is paint. Like the brown stain which is also KM negative. She does not even suggest what made the stain and if it was paint it would need to be ingrained and she would have mentioned this aspect. Beetroot juice? tomato sauce? red wine? raspberry juice? lipstick? Need I go on?
What do you then believe was the red KM negative mark on August 14th? That the police later swapped for red mantle shelf paint?
-
David, bear in mind that if you are riling up several members, it's not going to do any harm to tone down some of your posting.
-
The riddle of the Blue Socks explained
As for the ‘Riddle of the blue socks’ it looks like some posters are using my conspiracy issues as a get out. Is it a question of lack of understanding? It looks like they are refusing to engage with this because I have raised a fundamental problem with the validity of the finding of the first SM DB1.
Here I set out what I believe happened. I trust it is clear and easily understood
There were a pair of blue socks clearly identifiable in crime scene photos. It would seem obvious that the defence may ask questions with regard to them. Someone had to have made a witness statement or raised documentation relating to the find.
This person was DB who made a witness statement on 24/10/85 in which he says they were retrieved 11/09/85. From the floor of the main bedroom and he handed then to Davidson. This is 33 days after the incident.
What the COLP did not realise was that these particular socks were from the main bedroom and not some welly warmers from an outside building. Are we to believe there were two pairs of blue socks both numbered DB6. They probably were not shown the photographs of his finds in situ. Nor were they aware of the following.
During the week of the murders the police burned a lot of ‘gear’ which was described as bedding and the destruction of which was authorised by JB. Over the weekend that followed JB burnt his parent clothes.=
In the early part of that same week AE removed some blood stained clothes which were stood in buckets of water. She eventually disposed of these items and tidied the property even using her children to help with making beds etc.
To me it seems inconceivable that she would have left a pair of blood stained blue socks in the middle of the bedroom floor. The police had handed back the running of the property on 09/08/85.=
If indeed the police had not taken them she would rightly assume that they were not wanted by the police and dumped them. Of course she may have been a collector of bloodied or blue socks and added them to her collection.
I would ‘bet the house’ they did not have a copy of the other statement of the same date showing only DB6 blue socks. At the COLP interview DB presented a witness statement which was discussed with him. If you read the transcript of the taped interview it is clear that this statement differs in one major respect from the other one mentioned above. It is also dated 24/10/85 however, he now lists another six items. DB1 to DB7 are noted. and of what evidential value did he expect the police would gain from items in an outbuilding.
Furthermore DB7 tampons in a box were in the main house not an outbuilding.
DB1 was received by JH from MF on 12/09/85. DB2 – DB6 were received on 20/09/85. These are shown on his specimen testing list along with some results. Surely the error if it was one, with regard to its reference number should have been recognised by this time. Some 36 days since it was found? They should have been referring to it as DRB1 by this time. It may have been corrected/and changed on typed lists but this is a handwritten list.
As part of the enquiry he is asked about these items. When discussing this he refers to DB1 as a soil sample and when questioned why he has recorded it twice in his pocket book he says it was an aberration. Since DB6 blue socks was his sixth find why is he collecting socks from inside the farm building when his trial witness statement says he only found DB6 on 11/09/85.
If as he claims in his original statement that he passed DB6 socks to Davidson (was he even at WHF that day) why did he not also hand DB1 –DB5 to him as well because they had to have been collected before the socks given their reference numbers.
There appears to be no reference of a soil sample being sent to the laboratory for testing though since he recorded it twice in his pocket book it is likely that one was collected.
The first entry for the soil sample looks for all the world to have been squeezed in at the bottom of the page. He had to do this because of the other finds he said he made were recorded later along with the other soil sample entry. The only way this could be recorded or seen to be recorded as DB1 was if it preceded the other entries.
This whole charade was devised to hide the fact that he collected DB1 – DB7 on the day including the incriminating fire debris DB2. And the very important DB1.
Other questioning at the COLP interview shows that they were concerned with other documents which they had difficulty in understanding and they seem to question their authenticity. Without these other documents it is difficult to understand the questioning. There are no references to photographs. Some were marked NR. The interrogators suggested that this meant Not required or Not relevant.
They were given this title because Taff did not want them sent to the laboratory because they were involved in the cover-up and he did not wish them to seem to have been found by the SOCO team and mixed in with the original enquiries documentation.
It maybe that Ainsley wanted and called for all finds to be sent for testing not realising that DB1 – DB7 should be held back.
These facts lead me to the following conclusions. The COLP were deliberately mislead and DB lied to the enquiry. Despite attempts to suggest to the enquiry that DB1 may have been found by DRH his breakdown when he gave evidence to the enquiry suggests that there was a great reluctance among the interviewees to be the finder of DB1. DRH could not have found it because the SM would be recorded as DRHnnn) In the end they used SJ to be the collector as part of a visit to the family.
IMO there were two ‘Red Herrings’ of how the SM was found. The first possibly used in the cover-up phase, which consisted of SJ returning to the farm on the first day to collect it and passing it to RWC who used this fact for attaching the label with SBJ’s initials.
This could be true and the other DB finds may also have been collected in order to remove cover-up associated items from the scene as quickly as possible. What if any other items did SJ retrieve?
The other is the Crown case finding of DRB1 by the family. This is part of the framing phase. It was testified that the Eatons handed it to SBJ at their home. They had to manipulate dates of them finding it to before it was taken to the laboratory because they could not alter the Laboratory’s records.
They actually handed in a SM in September as the records show. This is when the JB’s SM was sent to the laboratory to be swapped for the AP SM once it had been processed in the same manner as the original.
There were two silencers involved in this case not one as the Crown case stated. This should not stand.
-
Well,Bill Robertson also gives evidence of two silencers being involved in his latest article which Roch has posted today.Bill is more interested in showing whose blood was found inside,which was hidden at the trial.No doubt you will read the article your self Bubo,suffice to say he agrees with you,but dosent go into detail about exhibit numbers etc.
-
Well not so comprehensivelly anyway.
-
The riddle of the Blue Socks explained
As for the ‘Riddle of the blue socks’ it looks like some posters are using my conspiracy issues as a get out. Is it a question of lack of understanding? It looks like they are refusing to engage with this because I have raised a fundamental problem with the validity of the finding of the first SM DB1.
Here I set out what I believe happened. I trust it is clear and easily understood
There were a pair of blue socks clearly identifiable in crime scene photos. It would seem obvious that the defence may ask questions with regard to them. Someone had to have made a witness statement or raised documentation relating to the find.
This person was DB who made a witness statement on 24/10/85 in which he says they were retrieved 11/09/85. From the floor of the main bedroom and he handed then to Davidson. This is 33 days after the incident.
What the COLP did not realise was that these particular socks were from the main bedroom and not some welly warmers from an outside building. Are we to believe there were two pairs of blue socks both numbered DB6. They probably were not shown the photographs of his finds in situ. Nor were they aware of the following.
During the week of the murders the police burned a lot of ‘gear’ which was described as bedding and the destruction of which was authorised by JB. Over the weekend that followed JB burnt his parent clothes.=
In the early part of that same week AE removed some blood stained clothes which were stood in buckets of water. She eventually disposed of these items and tidied the property even using her children to help with making beds etc.
To me it seems inconceivable that she would have left a pair of blood stained blue socks in the middle of the bedroom floor. The police had handed back the running of the property on 09/08/85.=
If indeed the police had not taken them she would rightly assume that they were not wanted by the police and dumped them. Of course she may have been a collector of bloodied or blue socks and added them to her collection.
I would ‘bet the house’ they did not have a copy of the other statement of the same date showing only DB6 blue socks. At the COLP interview DB presented a witness statement which was discussed with him. If you read the transcript of the taped interview it is clear that this statement differs in one major respect from the other one mentioned above. It is also dated 24/10/85 however, he now lists another six items. DB1 to DB7 are noted. and of what evidential value did he expect the police would gain from items in an outbuilding.
Furthermore DB7 tampons in a box were in the main house not an outbuilding.
DB1 was received by JH from MF on 12/09/85. DB2 – DB6 were received on 20/09/85. These are shown on his specimen testing list along with some results. Surely the error if it was one, with regard to its reference number should have been recognised by this time. Some 36 days since it was found? They should have been referring to it as DRB1 by this time. It may have been corrected/and changed on typed lists but this is a handwritten list.
As part of the enquiry he is asked about these items. When discussing this he refers to DB1 as a soil sample and when questioned why he has recorded it twice in his pocket book he says it was an aberration. Since DB6 blue socks was his sixth find why is he collecting socks from inside the farm building when his trial witness statement says he only found DB6 on 11/09/85.
If as he claims in his original statement that he passed DB6 socks to Davidson (was he even at WHF that day) why did he not also hand DB1 –DB5 to him as well because they had to have been collected before the socks given their reference numbers.
There appears to be no reference of a soil sample being sent to the laboratory for testing though since he recorded it twice in his pocket book it is likely that one was collected.
The first entry for the soil sample looks for all the world to have been squeezed in at the bottom of the page. He had to do this because of the other finds he said he made were recorded later along with the other soil sample entry. The only way this could be recorded or seen to be recorded as DB1 was if it preceded the other entries.
This whole charade was devised to hide the fact that he collected DB1 – DB7 on the day including the incriminating fire debris DB2. And the very important DB1.
Other questioning at the COLP interview shows that they were concerned with other documents which they had difficulty in understanding and they seem to question their authenticity. Without these other documents it is difficult to understand the questioning. There are no references to photographs. Some were marked NR. The interrogators suggested that this meant Not required or Not relevant.
They were given this title because Taff did not want them sent to the laboratory because they were involved in the cover-up and he did not wish them to seem to have been found by the SOCO team and mixed in with the original enquiries documentation.
It maybe that Ainsley wanted and called for all finds to be sent for testing not realising that DB1 – DB7 should be held back.
These facts lead me to the following conclusions. The COLP were deliberately mislead and DB lied to the enquiry. Despite attempts to suggest to the enquiry that DB1 may have been found by DRH his breakdown when he gave evidence to the enquiry suggests that there was a great reluctance among the interviewees to be the finder of DB1. DRH could not have found it because the SM would be recorded as DRHnnn) In the end they used SJ to be the collector as part of a visit to the family.
IMO there were two ‘Red Herrings’ of how the SM was found. The first possibly used in the cover-up phase, which consisted of SJ returning to the farm on the first day to collect it and passing it to RWC who used this fact for attaching the label with SBJ’s initials.
This could be true and the other DB finds may also have been collected in order to remove cover-up associated items from the scene as quickly as possible. What if any other items did SJ retrieve?
The other is the Crown case finding of DRB1 by the family. This is part of the framing phase. It was testified that the Eatons handed it to SBJ at their home. They had to manipulate dates of them finding it to before it was taken to the laboratory because they could not alter the Laboratory’s records.
They actually handed in a SM in September as the records show. This is when the JB’s SM was sent to the laboratory to be swapped for the AP SM once it had been processed in the same manner as the original.
There were two silencers involved in this case not one as the Crown case stated. This should not stand.
I wonder what became of the blue socks.
-
I wonder what became of the blue socks.
They were sent to the lab, blood tested and referred to at trial. The blood was found to match June's groupings.
-
They were sent to the lab, blood tested and referred to at trial. The blood was found to match June's groupings.
You replied to the wrong post 😏
-
We can see the police identified exhbits by officers' initials followed by a number eg DRH/1 denotes DC David Robert Hammersley with the 1 representing the first exhibit he seized ie the casing by Sheila's head.
When exhibits are then checked into the FSS they are given a new unique identifying number by FSS. In the case of the blue socks identified by PC David Bird the socks went from DB/6 (police identification) to 86 (FSS identification).
The socks were blood tested and found to match June's groupings all of which was adjudicated on at trial.
I don't see anything remotely contentious about the above?
-
You replied to the wrong post 😏
Did I?
The post I've just made is in response to Bubo bubo's.
-
We can see the police identified exhbits by officers' initials followed by a number eg DRH/1 denotes DC David Robert Hammersley with the 1 representing the first exhibit he seized ie the casing by Sheila's head.
When exhibits are then checked into the FSS they are given a new unique identifying number by FSS. In the case of the blue socks identified by PC David Bird the socks went from DB/6 (police identification) to 86 (FSS identification).
The socks were blood tested and found to match June's groupings all of which was adjudicated on at trial.
I don't see anything remotely contentious about the above?
So, here we have the opportunity to test the reliability and the integrity of the claim made by relatives, police and Home Office scientists, that there was only one silencer in the case, a silencer that was unique to the .22 semi-automatic Anshuzt rifle belonging to 'Neville Bamber' - Well, the silencer that went to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 13th August 1985, it had the exhibit reference 'SBJ/1' with the accompanying item number of 22. At that stage, no evidence was disclosed which identified the next item bearing no. 23, or by that stage the relevant exhibit reference, belonging to item no. 23?
We need to then take into account, that after the submission of the silencer ['SBJ/1'] item no. 22 to the lab' at Huntingdon, on the 13th August 1985 to be examined by 'Glynis Howard', it was returned into the possession of 'Di Cook' after the expert had carried out a brief examination of it, without noticing a significant amount of red paint, deeply ingrained into the knurled metal end cap of the silencer in question. Thereafter, we are being asked to believe that rather than return the silencer back to a police storeroom, confirmable by reference to a record document known as 'the storeroom register', a storeroom under lock and key, but that he kept the silencer, with a signed exhibit label bearing 'his own' and 'Glynis Howards' signatures attached to the said silencer, in his coat pocket. He kept 'it' there [in his coat pocket] for the next consecutive 17 days, without it being protected by any protective covering. Indeed, when 'Di Cook' arrived at the lab' [Huntingdon] on the 13th August 1985, that the silencer in question ('SBJ/1') item no. 22, which he handed over to 'Glynis Howard' that there was no protective covering in place upon and around the silencer. Pay attention to the fact that neither 'Di Cook', nor 'Glynis Howard' or any other person mentions such a covering when it arrived at the lab' and then left there after a brief examination on the same date!
-
What happened to the kitchen roll which 'Peter Eaton' allegedly handed over to 'DS Jones' at the 'Eaton residence' on the evening of 12th August 1985.
-
Did I?
The post I've just made is in response to Bubo bubo's.
Can you explain how the socks were still in the main bedroom on 11/09/85, 33 days after the event and why did he (DB) make two statements on the same day with very different contents? Why did he tell the COLP enquiry that he found the socks in an outbuilding but the one given at trial says they were in the main bedroom?
-
Can you explain how the socks were still in the main bedroom on 11/09/85, 33 days after the event and why did he (DB) make two statements on the same day with very different contents? Why did he tell the COLP enquiry that he found the socks in an outbuilding but the one given at trial says they were in the main bedroom?
I don't believe the police left a pair of bloodstained socks hanging around inside the property as it would have potentially been distressing for the surviving family to witness. Part of the police objective was to clean up to avoid the family having to.
The socks were found in the main bedroom and photographed on 7th August. When the case was thought to be murder/suicide only a limited number of exhibits were forensically examined (blood tested). Why the need to spend money examining the socks when it was obvious the blood on the carpet and socks originated from the same person? The carpet samples from the main bedroom were examined along with Sheila's nightdress, the rifle and silencer on or around 13th Aug. You can see the socks were examined at a much later stage based on the exhibit number allocated by the lab.
When the case changed to murder all exhibits were examined in preparation for trial.
-
I don't believe the police left a pair of bloodstained socks hanging around inside the property as it would have potentially been distressing for the surviving family to witness. Part of the police objective was to clean up to avoid the family having to.
The socks were found in the main bedroom and photographed on 7th August. When the case was thought to be murder/suicide only a limited number of exhibits were forensically examined (blood tested). Why the need to spend money examining the socks when it was obvious the blood on the carpet and socks originated from the same person? The carpet samples from the main bedroom were examined along with Sheila's nightdress, the rifle and silencer on or around 13th Aug. You can see the socks were examined at a much later stage based on the exhibit number allocated by the lab.
When the case changed to murder all exhibits were examined in preparation for trial.
ANSWER THE WHOLE QUESTION.
Why and how were the socks collected on11/09/85 in the Main bedroom? When they were sent to the laboratory is incidental. One of the two different statements says that is when they were collected and passed to Davidson. Both statements cannot be true. This is direct evidence of the police manipulating evidence.
-
" distressing for the surviving family to witness " ??? Why, when AE hadn't appeared distressed while rinsing out bloodied clothes from a bucket ? Making up beds that two children were murdered in ?
Actually going into the place at all before the deceased were even buried ? Distressed my eye !
-
ANSWER THE WHOLE QUESTION.
Why and how were the socks collected on11/09/85 in the Main bedroom? When they were sent to the laboratory is incidental. One of the two different statements says that is when they were collected and passed to Davidson. Both statements cannot be true. This is direct evidence of the police manipulating evidence.
I DONT DANCE TO YOUR TUNE but for the record you want to believe there's some conspiracy to be had with the blue socks when in reality none exists.
Some ambiguious/sloppy paperwork does not amount to a conspiracy. The socks were photographed at the soc on 7th Aug and adjudicated on at trial by way of photos and blood test results.
They were removed from the main bedroom along with various other exhibits prior to the police releasing the property back to the family. When the case was thought to be murder/suicide only a select few exhibits were forwarded to FSS namely the rifle, silencer, SC's nightdress and two carpet samples from the main bedroom. When the case turned to murder many exhibits were forwarded including the socks. There was no need for the police/fss to start analysing soil samples, gloves in outbuildings, Mr Bamber's car, Bambers bathrobe, blue socks etc when the case was treated as murder/suicide. The socks were tested and the blood found to match June's groupings all of which was adjudicated on at trial.
-
" distressing for the surviving family to witness " ??? Why, when AE hadn't appeared distressed while rinsing out bloodied clothes from a bucket ? Making up beds that two children were murdered in ?
Actually going into the place at all before the deceased were even buried ? Distressed my eye !
Surely even you can see the difference between the buckets of stained clothing that had nothing to do with the murders and items that became bloodstained during the murders?
All bloodstaining was removed by the police prior to the keys being handed over to the family.
I believe Bamber also went into the farmhouse prior to the murder so what's your point?
-
I DONT DANCE TO YOUR TUNE but for the record you want to believe there's some conspiracy to be had with the blue socks when in reality none exists.
Some ambiguious/sloppy paperwork does not amount to a conspiracy. The socks were photographed at the soc on 7th Aug and adjudicated on at trial by way of photos and blood test results.
They were removed from the main bedroom along with various other exhibits prior to the police releasing the property back to the family. When the case was thought to be murder/suicide only a select few exhibits were forwarded to FSS namely the rifle, silencer, SC's nightdress and two carpet samples from the main bedroom. When the case turned to murder many exhibits were forwarded including the socks. There was no need for the police/fss to start analysing soil samples, gloves in outbuildings, Mr Bamber's car, Bambers bathrobe, blue socks etc when the case was treated as murder/suicide. The socks were tested and the blood found to match June's groupings all of which was adjudicated on at trial.
The issue is not the socks. They are illustrative of the subterfuge that was used. The issue is that they made two different witness statements on the same day with different contents. Why two statements ? why different contents? How were another pair of blue socks found when DB went to collect the soil sample. You can dance around this all you like. They hid the finding of the SM DB1.
-
The issue is not the socks. They are illustrative of the subterfuge that was used. The issue is that they made two different witness statements on the same day with different contents. Why two statements ? why different contents? How were another pair of blue socks found when DB went to collect the soil sample. You can dance around this all you like. They hid the finding of the SM DB1.
That's your theory for which you have not a scrap of evidence hence you seize on sloppy/ambigious paperwork to make a mountain out of a molehill.
-
Documentry evidence exists 'which confirms that there were two key Silencers' used to get 'Jeremy Bamber convicted' ...
First thing you have to take into account, is that there exist a variety of different exhibit references pertaining to a silencer [ 'SBJ/1', 'DB/1' and 'DRB/1'] which is a simplified version of the fabricated script, but if the truth be known, at one time or another (after 11th September 1985), one of the two Silencers were being referred to by exhibit references, 'AE/1' and subsequently, 'CAE/1'...
-
Documentry evidence exists 'which confirms that there were two key Silencers' used to get 'Jeremy Bamber convicted' ...
Pause, for a moment, and consider, 'HOW' could a single silencer, be awarded two different item no's ('22 and 23') in the lab' register?
-
That's your theory for which you have not a scrap of evidence hence you seize on sloppy/ambigious paperwork to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Now you are reaching for the guilters get out clause, Human Error. Why did DB construct two different witness statements on the same day with different contents? He must have had a very poor short term memory? What other items did he collect on the day from the farmhouse? What were his DB1 to DB5 before he found the socks. Are you really asking members to believe that a pair of blood stained blue socks remained in situ for 33 days.
I do have evidence. I have one statement on this site which says he found only DB6 on the 11/09/85. You are now saying they were collected on the day to save the family from distress. I have a taped transcript of his COLP interview in which a second statement is described with the same date but different contents. I have his pocket book containing evidence that he collected a soil sample on the same day that he found the socks twice.
I thought you more wise than to try to undermine real evidence which shows witness statement manipulation. The evidence also shows that he could not have collected the socks 33 days after the event.
In order to dismiss this you have to produce a cogent statement which accounts for all these discrepancies and which most would support.
-
Pause, for a moment, and consider, 'HOW' could a single silencer, be awarded two different item no's ('22 and 23') in the lab' register?, an possi ly be reference to the one ixenfjtify of
The official police / official CPS version of the events, was that (is this) that only 9ne silencer sS deco dred from
-
Now you are reaching for the guilters get out clause, Human Error. Why did DB construct two different witness statements on the same day with different contents? He must have had a very poor short term memory? What other items did he collect on the day from the farmhouse? What were his DB1 to DB5 before he found the socks. Are you really asking members to believe that a pair of blood stained blue socks remained in situ for 33 days.
I do have evidence. I have one statement on this site which says he found only DB6 on the 11/09/85. You are now saying they were collected on the day to save the family from distress. I have a taped transcript of his COLP interview in which a second statement is described with the same date but different contents. I have his pocket book containing evidence that he collected a soil sample on the same day that he found the socks twice.
I thought you more wise than to try to undermine real evidence which shows witness statement manipulation. The evidence also shows that he could not have collected the socks 33 days after the event.
In order to dismiss this you have to produce a cogent statement which accounts for all these discrepancies and which most would support.
Life's too short. I could spend my entire life as a keyboard warrior attempting to show others the errors of their ways whether it be the Bamber case or the anti-vac brigade, to what end?
Ask yourself this: even if the socks hold the sort of significance you believe them to hold how could this assist Bamber with the CCRC/CoA?
-
Documentry evidence exists 'which confirms that there were two key Silencers' used to get 'Jeremy Bamber convicted' ...
First thing you have to take into account, is that there exist a variety of different exhibit references pertaining to a silencer [ 'SBJ/1', 'DB/1' and 'DRB/1'] which is a simplified version of the fabricated script, but if the truth be known, at one time or another (after 11th September 1985), one of the two Silencers were being referred to by exhibit references, 'AE/1' and subsequently, 'CAE/1'...
Even if the above holds the sort of significance you believe it to hold how could this assist Bamber with the CCRC/CoA?
-
The official police / official CPS version of the events, was that (is this) that only 9ne silencer sS deco dred from
Even if the above holds the sort of significance you believe it to hold how could this assist Bamber with the CCRC/CoA?
-
Pause, for a moment, and consider, 'HOW' could a single silencer, be awarded two different item no's ('22 and 23') in the lab' register?
Maybe you need to do the same: pause, for a moment, and consider, 'HOW' could the above assist Bamber with the CCRC/CoA?
-
Life's too short. I could spend my entire life as a keyboard warrior attempting to show others the errors of their ways whether it be the Bamber case or the anti-vac brigade, to what end?
Ask yourself this: even if the socks hold the sort of significance you believe them to hold how could this assist Bamber with the CCRC/CoA?
I am no legal expert. The Crowns case was built around two pillars. SC's blood in the Bamber owned SM and the testimony of JM.
If it is proved that another silencer belonging to another family member was present and that this fact was hidden from the Jury the logic, as I see it, is that the conviction has to be set aside. What emanates from this is questionable. Retrial, acquittal.
-
Maybe you need to do the same: pause, for a moment, and consider, 'HOW' could the above assist Bamber with the CCRC/CoA?
The `CCRC' is 'not fit for purpose', and the 'COA' [system] depends upon whether or not, any appellant gets their appeal heard and judged by 'A LORD CHIEF JUSTICE' in court no. 4' [ Oh] and let me confirm, that I have been fortunate enough to have the experience of my case being heard by a lord Chief justice, They (it) agreed that the sentence given to me (all those years ago - the early 1970's) was interpreted wrongly! As a result of that judge, I was 'falsely imprisoned' for almost 'one and a half years' [or there abouts)] and I have yet to be financially compensated for me having been falsely incarcerated. So, please, do not fool yourself into believing that 'I do not know what I am talking about', or that 'I need to pause for thought, I have already contemplated that exercise. We are talking about a compensation spanning all the way back to the early 1970's until the present day (March, 2022), so, this means that the level of compensation that I was was due to receive, has already after one year incurred interest! Furthermore, with the passing of time, let's say in years since them, any such award attracts compound interest. This compound interest, turns into a multiplicity of compound interest once the failure to lawfully pay the compensation level (immediately) once the delay transpires into a delay of 3years, or greater, the debt owed attracts a further imposition of compound interest!
It is (due to) my experience(s) that 'many Magistrates', 'many Crown Court Judges' that 'many High Court Judges' or 'those on the verge' of becoming the 'Lord Chief Justice' (in time) always look after those operating within and on behalf of the 'Criminal Justice System' [family]..
I do not need, 'to pause for thought' , since 'I have lived' and 'so far existed' despite [me] having been a victim of this /that regime throughout the past 53 years!
-
THE SILENCER SAGA PART 1
Like many Jeremy supporters I have spent hours pondering the Silencer evidence. When I first started my investigations I took a completely neutral stance. I started with the notion that both the police and Jeremy were telling the truth and that somehow quite by chance in a psychotic episode Sheila had framed Jeremy by her actions in creating the crime scene.
There are three possibilities for the blood inside the SM. It was caused by back spatter (many feel this though possible unlikely with the Anschutz for technical reasons). The other two are contamination either accidental or deliberate.
I considered the accidental contamination in some detail. My most favoured possibility was a nose bleed from an unknown event. Whilst fitting or removing the silencer with the butt on the ground, blood entered as it dripped from her nose. Many other suggestions have been proposed.
Deliberate contamination would require intimate knowledge and access to the silencer as well as blood which matched Sheila’s serologically.
When it was found is also a key issue to be considered. Various suggestions have been made in addition to the Crowns narrative.
Jeremy in his Tumbler article suggests that a silencer was found a month later than that stated (11/09/85) and that another silencer was found on the day.
The relatives say they found a silencer 11/08/85.
What is more, John Hayward received the silencer on (12/09/85) from MF and it was still being referred to as DB1. Despite its enumeration changing over time SJ1, DRB1. There is no chain of custody available to help unravel what actually happened to it. In such circumstances it is possible that it moved between the police and relatives without any paperwork
Examples of this may be as follows.
They collected JB’s SM on the day but upon examination they returned it to the cupboard in its box before returning the keys to the family on 09/07/85. They were sure it was not used.
The family presented the SM to the police as they claim but it was rejected and returned. Only later did they recreate the finding including paperwork when they wanted to frame JB.
We know the police were most interested in it from a finger print perspective. In addition to routine tests it was tested for prints by superglue fuming. We also know that RC dismantled it on 21/08/85 and no blood flake was recorded as being found.
However, I do believe that a silencer was used and most probably discarded sometime during the events. Some damage to the thread of a rifle suggests a possible cross threading. I find its number illuminating DB1 (David Bird?) and the next item DB2 Fire debris. Two key pieces of evidence from the kitchen which must have been in close proximity to share consecutive numbers.
All these facts/issues give rise to a whole host of potential scenarios and many, especially by MT, have been suggested. Back in May 2012 I believed that the silencer was genuine (accidentally contaminated) but was found after Julie had come forward. This would make it a ‘suspicious’ item from a legal angle. I wrote the following.
The silencer could be a complete fabrication but I think not. If the police wanted to get evidence against Jeremy in the first instance there were other easier means that they could have used. They could have found a blood stained casing lodged in a piece of clothing. In any case if Jeremy's info is right they would certainly have ensured that it was logged/booked in on the right date. It needed two blood types and the paint from the mantelpiece and it would have to have been done well after the event. Not impossible but difficult. The same goes for the family, for them it would be even harder and they could not be sure that the police would not see it as a "ringer". I believe they were motivated in the first instance to get justice for their dead loved ones though that may have changed. They wanted closure that the police did not provide with their "theory".
So I think the silencer was genuine though today it is probably worthless as a piece of evidence after all the examinations. The problem was it was found too late but I believe the family pressured the police to use it. They were prepared to lie about all the issues around its discovery and its condition. Given that they probably knew that other evidence had been corrupted they could make Essex Police look like a "right Shower" and as it looked ok as a piece of evidence I'm sure the police decided to use it at trial as per perfect crime scenario.
For the record my views on silencer are:
1 It was found late
2 It was recreated because it had lost its potency through one reason or another.
3 It was enhanced in some way
4 It was manufactured to be a killer of an exhibit.
5 It was accidentally created in some way.
The reality is that it could be the work of just one individual, be it a policeman or a relative. It might just involve one of each. As long as they remain silent we may never know the whole truth about it. On the other hand, it could be genuine, though it is looking less so. More of the police pieces of the jigsaw are required.
It is clear I was far from certain at that time as to what the real truth of the silencer actually was.
My supposition was/is that the silencer was denuded of its visual and technical characteristics. Probably GH had removed most of if not all of the paint, if indeed there was any in the first instance. She had also tested the external and visible blood. It had been covered in fingerprinting dust and the superglue treatment would likely have impacted the appearance.
Could it be exhibited at trial in this state?
What struck me the most was the fact that after all this manipulation and treatment it could still yield a blood evidence result that could identify the basic ABO grouping. Not only that but in this case other elements such as enzymes had also been captured. I was and still am sceptical that this was possible.
I was pleased when posters on red discussed this aspect in detail. HG on red suggested repeating the conditions endured by the SM to see if a full blood reading could be obtained.
Number two above was looking a stronger candidate.
I decided to look at other aspects of the case since like so much of this case it appeared futile to pursue the SM story without access to more evidential documents.
Mike disagrees.
-
The blood was first reported by the relatives. This is prior to the silencer being in the possession of the police and the lab staff. This narrows down the contamination to them and them ONLY.
Absolute rubbish.
1. The relatives claim re the blood was restricted to the outside. If the blood on the outside was incriminating then why was JB not charged earlier? The incriminating 'evidence' involves the so-called 'blood flake' found inside said to match SC's blood groups. FSS claim to be the first observers of this 'evidence'.
2. There is no reliable evidence of what the relatives observed on the OUTSIDE of the silencer when they found it and before handing it to DS Jones since they did not make witness stats until over a month later. In fact AE's wit stat dated 14th Aug does not make any reference to the silencer at all. Which is quite remarkable given her fondness for record keeping via her card system! When asked at COLP why she omitted the silencer she replied that DS Jones was not convinced of the relevance of their find!
(AE and Daniella Weiss are two peas in a pod)
3. You are unable to distinguish between the fabrication on the OUTSIDE and the fabrication on the INSIDE. JB would never have been found guilty based on the blood on the outside, proved only as blood and human in orgin, scratches and paint. He was charged and subsequently found guilty based on the so-called 'blood flake' which never was.
Even when JB's conviction is overturned based on the unravelling and demolition of the above you will still be beating the drum about AE wringing SC's knickers, stained with menstrual blood and left soaking in a bucket of water, into the silencer :(