Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on July 30, 2022, 12:40:AM
-
Let's start here with 'what I perceive to be compelling evidence', proving that 'one of the two bullet wounds inflicted' into 'Sheila Caffells' neck region, that 'a Silencer was fitted to the barrel of the gun' which 'Cops' and lab' Experts 'failed to recognise'...
The proof is this ...
Most of the blood which poured out of the lower entry wound in question (did so) as the flat surface of the silencer and the fleshy region immediately in the vicinity of that particular wound separated almost as quickly as when contact between both occurred - once the shot was fired, and infact whoever was involved in these overall circumstances of this episode, and the way in which 'Sheilas' death was treated as a suicide, when the dust eventually panned out !!!
-
With '100% certainty', the 'silencer' in question, 'was not the same' [one] that 'David Boutflour' claims that 'he had found' at 'the crime scene' on 'the 10th August 1985'.
But, 'it was not!
-
..The 'intended seizure' and 'recovery of that silencer' by 'DS Jones' must have given 'himself', cause for 'concern' since, 'he gasped out aloud' when 'Miller' gave him [those / these] instructions, [ by requesting ''DSJones'] to go on 'that very same day' [12th August 1985], to 'collect [it] the aforementioned 'SILENCER', from 'the 'Eaton' household, by [him] 'blurting out' , the following 'reactionary' sentence! He 'gasped out' in 'a totally unexpected fashion', and 'in' a somewhat 'uncredelous manner' [in response] to 'Millers' instruction' - 'WHAT SILENCER'?
'WHAT SILENCER'..
-
'WHAT SILENCER' ?
'WHAT SILENCER' ??
'WHAT SILENCER' ???
'He Said', in response to an instruction that /which was part and parcel of the duties he was expected to accept and comply with?
'Wny would' ( and 'he did' ) ''DS Jones' respond, in 'such a manner' to a request from a ' senior empowered employee in the same police force, who was, or whom may have been acting within the power and status of his career position, which comes with certain responsibilities, in / on the 'pretense', or 'otherwise', 'talking', 'speaking', 'instructing his workforce' (the workforce 'under his/her control')?
-
'WHAT SILENCER' ?
'WHAT SILENCER' ??
'WHAT SILENCER' ???
'Why would' ( and 'he did' ) ''DS Jones' respond, in 'such a manner' to a request from a ' senior empowered employee in the same police force, who was, or whom may have been acting within the power and status of his career position, which comes with certain responsibilities, in / on the 'pretense', or 'otherwise', 'talking', 'speaking', 'instructing his workforce' (the workforce 'under his/her control')?
'What do you think'?
-
Because of 'officially disclosed police documentation', 'DS Jones' only thought that the silencer he collected [from] at the crime scene on the first morning ('7th August 1985') of the police operation (SC/688/85), existed from the scene - he was not aware by that stage that the. 22 semi-automatic rifle also had a silencer for that gun!
-
'Ds Jones' is logged in, at the scene performing 'Informatives' with 'DI Cook' according to one version of a police radio message logs content , when he was supposed to still be at 'Jeremys cottage'!
-
'Ds Jones' is logged in, at the scene performing 'Informatives' with 'DI Cook' according to one version of a police radio message logs content , when he was supposed to stillbe at Jeremys'cottage!
But, according to the contents of unsigned witness statements, 'DS Jones' was still at 'Jeremys cottage' and he supposedly was still there to enable himself to meet 'Ann Eaton' and 'Julie Mugford' who had travelled there, separately!
-
'How' could 'DS Jones' be in two different places [the 'Crime scene' and at 'Jeremys cottage'], at 'one' and 'the same time'?
-
'How' could 'DS Jones' be in two different places [the 'Crime scene' and at 'Jeremys cottage'], at 'one' and 'the same time'?
In unsigned witness statements made in the name of 'DS Jones', it doesn't even make 'any mention' of 'DS Jones' leaving 'Jeremys cottage' to go back to the scene! Additionally, in a police radio message log, it states that 'DS Jones' telephoned 'DC Clark' from the crime scene! But, why the need to telephone 'DC Clark' if they were both together at 'Jeremys cottage'?
-
It was whilst 'DS Jones' was at the scene, with 'DI Cook' that he took possession of 'Anthony Pargeters' .22 bolt action rifle with its silencer fitted onto the end of the guns barrel! It was found and located in the downstairs bathroom/toilet. Before seizing it (them) he took photographs of the .22 bolt action rifle and its silencer there in that downstairs room. From there, he went into the kitchen and took a photograph of a fourth item 'in situ' there. Then he took the rifle with its silencer, and the camera with which he had taken three pictures by use of, and left the scene to return to ' Witham police station'. When he arrived back at 'DCI Jones office' there, he left the rifle with its silencer, and the camera with which he had taken three 'proof photographs' at the scene upon his 'senior officers office desk' [which was where 'DCI Jones' had 'told him to put it'...
-
These are the true circumstances regarding how the police came to be in possession of the very first silencer ( sometimes referred to, by the exhi it references 'SBJ/1' [lab' item number 22], 'SJ/1'[lab item number 22] and or 'DB/1'[lab item number 23]...
-
These are the true circumstances regarding how the police came to be in possession of the very first silencer ( sometimes referred to, by the exhi it references 'SBJ/1' [lab' item number 22], 'SJ/1'[lab item number 22] and or 'DB/1'[lab item number 23]...
This silencer 'SBJ/1'/'SJ/1', was only taken to ' Huntingdon Lab' once - which was on the '13th August 1985'...
-
This silencer 'SBJ/1'/'SJ/1', was only taken to ' Huntingdon Lab' once - which was on the '13th August 1985'...
The reason why this / that silencer ['SBJ/1'/'SJ/1'] which ever exhibit reference you may choose for whatever reasons, 'it' was 'always going to be', and 'remain', lab' item 'no. 22'..
An item received at the lab' retains its lab' item no. [22] which '[was received at lab' item(s) being 'referred to at a later date' , which has a lab' item number, of say '23', cannot be 'a reference to the 'same silencer' (22) received at the lab' previously. on the '13th August 1985', and there exist good reason to support that which I will speak about [next]...
-
An item received at the lab' retains its lab' item no. [22] which '[was received at lab' item(s) being 'referred to at a later date' , which has a lab' item number, of say '23', cannot be 'a reference to the 'same silencer' (22) received at the lab' previously. on the '13th August 1985', and there exist good reason to support that which I will speak about [next]...
Such is the way that all lab' items are received at the lab' in sequential order, that it becomes an easy task to check and to make sure that evidence being relied upon in a prosecution was received and dealt with correctly. I have to say [that in the instant case] that somebody has been tampering with the system, not only by attributing the reco ery, find and production to the lab' for examination, by assigning an item different exhibit references, but that an attempt has been made to try and conceal the wrong that has been applied, by going a step further and altering [the lab'] 'item number' for that exhibit!
But, they did not bargain for somebody like me, who has been through the same abominable practice, that cops, the cps, and in many instances, the judicial system chooses to pretend that nothing untoward has occurred ['BUT BELIEVE ME IT DOES AND HAS TAKEN PLACE]...
-
Such is the way that all lab' items are received at the lab' in sequential order, that it becomes an easy task to check and to make sure that evidence being relied upon in a prosecution was received and dealt with correctly. I have to say [that in the instant case] that somebody has been tampering with the system, not only by attributing the reco ery, find and production to the lab' for examination, by assigning an item different exhibit references, but that an attempt has been made to try and conceal the wrong that has been applied, by going a step further and altering [the lab'] 'item number' for that exhibit!
But, they did not bargain for somebody like me, who has been through the same abominable practice, that cops, the cps, and in many instances, the judicial system chooses to pretend that nothing untoward has occurred ['BUT BELIEVE ME IT DOES AND HAS TAKEN PLACE]...
What these so called public servants appear to be doing, amounts to a criminal offence on their part, for every single deception and fraud, they get themselves involved with. Worse still, for these ungodly practices to be swept into its admissibility, they have to involve other people to be able to dishonestly hoodwink, the public, defendants, juries - so it amounts to these or those who continue to introduce false evidence, - [that] - they are 'conspiring to pervert the course of justice'. So 'who are the real criminals'?
-
There was no silencer fitted to the end of the .22 semi-automatic rifle, irrespective if someone fired shots [with it] during the tragedy, or not!
-
Such is the way that all lab' items are received at the lab' in sequential order, that it becomes an easy task to check and to make sure that evidence being relied upon in a prosecution was received and dealt with correctly. I have to say [that in the instant case] that somebody has been tampering with the system, not only by attributing the reco ery, find and production to the lab' for examination, by assigning an item different exhibit references, but that an attempt has been made to try and conceal the wrong that has been applied, by going a step further and altering [the lab'] 'item number' for that exhibit!
Those involved in these practices were many in the instant case!
-
What these so called public servants appear to be doing, amounts to a criminal offence on their part, for every single deception and fraud, they get themselves involved with. Worse still, for these ungodly practices to be swept into its admissibility, they have to involve other people to be able to dishonestly hoodwink, the public, defendants, juries - so it amounts to these or those who continue to introduce false evidence, - [that] - they are 'conspiring to pervert the course of justice'. So 'who are the real criminals'?
Such is the way that all lab' items are received at the lab' in sequential order, that it becomes an easy task to check and to make sure that evidence being relied upon in a prosecution was received and dealt with correctly. I have to say [that in the instant case] that somebody has been tampering with the system, [ on other occasions]not only by attributing 'the recovery', 'find' and 'production to the lab' for examinations, by 'assigning an item different exhibit references, but that an attempt has [also] been made to try and conceal the wrong that has been applied, by 'going a step further' and 'altering' [the lab'] 'item number' for 'that exhibit'!
But, they did not bargain for somebody like me, who has been through the same abominable practice, that cops, the cps, and in many instances, the judicial system chooses to pretend that nothing untoward has occurred ['BUT BELIEVE ME IT DOES AND HAS TAKEN PLACE]...
-
But, they did not bargain for somebody like me, who has been through the same abominable practice, that cops, the cps, and in many instances, the judicial system chooses to pretend that nothing untoward has occurred ['BUT BELIEVE ME IT DOES AND HAS TAKEN PLACE]...
It was as a result of official complaints lodged by myself in the mid 1980's, that led to the uncovering of police officers being involved in 'pocketbook entry frauds' and the making of false witness statements created by someone else and tended into evidence! Eventually the investigation into these matters conducted by 'Greater Manchester police' resulted favourably with regards to the overturning of the inquest verdicts of the 96 Liverpool fans, at ' Hillsborough stadium'. I was right in making those complaints, just like I am right now, regarding the tampering with items of evidential value, being interfered with, as part of a widespread practice where exhibit references, and lab' item numbers get altered..
-
Here are pieces of evidential value, which has either different 'exhibit references', or 'different lab item numbers' for the same item', at 'different stages of the same investigation' or 'all three variations at one and the same time', or 'in accumulative steps'
Silencer lab item no. 22
Silencer lab item no. 23
Silencer 'SBJ/1'
Silencer 'SJ/1'
Silencer 'DB/1'
Silencer 'DRB/1'
Above sent and received at lab' on the following dates
13th August 1985
30th August 1985
20th September 1985
Silencer handed over to police by different people on different occasions
'Peter Eaton' on 12th August 1985
'Ann Eaton' on 11th September 1985
Different number of internal baffle plates inside silencer
'SBJ/1' - 17 baffles
'SJ/1' -17 baffles
'DB/1' - (was 'a flake of dried blood' recovered by 'David Boutflour'
'DRB/1 - 15 baffles
Cloth pull through of .22 semi-automatic rifle
'Lab item reference number [sequence] altered'
'Cloth pull-through was placed inside the inner barrel of .22 semi-automatic rifle, after it had been fired using test fired rounds of ammunition'
'The transformation of a crime scene bullet'
'Crime scene bullet [PV/20 - refers to shooting of 'Sheila Caffell'] was originally 'a fragmented bullet, which miraculously turned into a whole bullet'
'Individual exhibit references' and 'lab item numbers' are 'missing', or 'have been ignored', 'altogether', resulting in the following..
'Two of the 29 live rounds of .22 [ Ely manufacturered] ammunition that were test fired in the .22 semi-automatic rifle, remain unaccounted for'
'The .22 semi-automatic rifles metal end cap' without any 'exhibit reference' and or 'lab item number', even though it must have been scientifically examined and checked for 'damage', 'contamination with blood' and 'red paint particles' from 'scratched kitchen aga suround' at 'the scene' (scant information regarding, 'who found' or 'recovered this metal end cap', the 'circumstances it was recovered in', leading to 'the possibility' that exhibit 'DB/1'[lab item number 23] was infact, references to the metal endcap that normally fitted onto the end of the .22 semi-automatic rifles barrel'...
'who examined the silencer' [first and foremost] and ['potentially'] found 'blood inside between baffle plates' and 'crushed red paint particles' in the knurled pattern of the silencers metal end cap'..
'David Boutflour'?
And 'as yet', an 'unidentified relative'?
'DI Cook'?
'John Haywood'?
'Glynis Howard'?
'Brian Elliot'?
'Malcolm Fletcher'?
'A total absence' of any 'diagrams', 'photographs' or 'documentation' from the lab' concerning 'the size', 'shape' and all relevant measurements' of 'lab items of evidential value' at 'the time it was received', 'found', or 'it was 'metamophosized' into 'a different piece of scientific evidence'..
'With no reference' or 'mention to' [of] 'blood found inside the dismantled silencer', and 'red paint particles' on ' the outside of the silencer' at the point of discovery [by 'whom', or 'whoever' and even 'whenever'] prior to the flake ['not a number of different flakes'] being made into a solution'! The 'flake itself' did 'not have its own exhibit reference' or 'a lab item number' before 'it's evolution' of 'becoming a solution', from which 'blood group results' were 'subsequently obtained' in 'imaginary circumstances'. There did not exist 'an exhibit reference ' or 'a lab item number' for 'the flake', the original solution the flake was allegedly made into' or 'the additional five separate potions of fluid' it got turned into' as 'derived from the original flake', so that tests could be conducted with regards to individual blood group testing, on different days [12th, 13th, 18th and the 19th September 1985]. None of the obtained blood group results obtained on the aforementioned dates, had 'exhibit references' or 'lab item numbers' - it was a 'Mickey Mouse' approach 'to serious' and 'important issues' which made it almost astonishingly impossible' for any other 'expert witness' to 'follow' and 'investigate thoroughly' and 'correctly'...