Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on July 31, 2011, 08:50:PM
-
DS Jones tells COLP (1991) they spoke to Jeremy about silencer on evening, 9th August...
Now, if Essex police were speaking to Jeremy about the silencer on the evening of 9th August 1985, it must follow that they already had access to it, or possession of it, on the day before the relatives allegedly found it in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985?
How could DS Jones, and DCI Jones, have known about the only silencer in the case, the day before the relatives found it in the gun cupboard at whf?
They knew about it on 9th August 1985, because DS Jones found it (SBJ/1) at the scene, along with other exhibits, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
-
I'm afraid I can't read it. It looks like a prescription written by my doctor.
-
Top of third page "I had not drawn any significance in relation to the silencer",(and then)as I found the (which he has then crossed out).
-
Why does it have 1986 dates on it? You need one of these to translate it...
-
Why does it have 1986 dates on it? You need one of these to translate it...
Saying you need one of those to translate it when there is only one of those is very misleading. You imply you can get those anywhere and many exist when in fact only one exists. Typical pro Bamber twisting of the truth! ;D
-
Why does it have 1986 dates on it? You need one of these to translate it...
I'm not sure if cops wrote in cuneiform? ;D But yes. Why does it have 1986 on it? ???
-
Why does it have 1986 dates on it? You need one of these to translate it...
Saying you need one of those to translate it when there is only one of those is very misleading. You imply you can get those anywhere and many exist when in fact only one exists. Typical pro Bamber twisting of the truth! ;D
Well not really. If you take that view of this document, then you cannot use any of the documents which you refer to surely?
-
Well spotted Rochford! How odd ???
-
Well spotted Rochford! How odd ???
But notice that the date at the very top has been altered as well. frpm 1986 to 1985 or vice verse?
-
It is clear that Taff and Stan Jones both knew a silencer and sight existed by the 9th of august 1985.
However at that stage the case against JB is that these items had not been found.
So the natural questions an investigator would ask if these items had not been already found would be to ask JB if he knew where they were or if he had any idea where they would be.
The failure to ask about known missing but relevant (that they approached JB made the items relevant at that stage) items appears to me to be a give away of the truth. They did not ask because the items had already been found and were in police possession so there was no need to ask. Typically they do not commit to stating what they (the police knew or did not know) but the failure to ask the most logical and pertinent questions gives the truth away.
The same applies to the Pargetter rifle...no one is asked about where this weapon is etc during the EP investigation because there is no need to ask for EP already had that rifle and the silencer that went with it.
-
Mike
When did the note book emerge?
Was it during the COLP investigation or during the first trial?
-
Mike
When did the note book emerge?
Was it during the COLP investigation or during the first trial?
-----------------
COLP investigation, after/during 1991 - I didn't receive bundle of documents until 2003, which was after failed a[peal (2002), which included the pocketbook with the three different start dates on the front cover (49)...
-
Mike
When did the note book emerge?
Was it during the COLP investigation or during the first trial?
-----------------
COLP investigation, after/during 1991 - I didn't receive bundle of documents until 2003, which was after failed a[peal (2002), which included the pocketbook with the three different start dates on the front cover (49)...
As they were definately not available at the original trial then surely they should be regarded as new evidence. Would this be correct?
What is the date at the beginning of the notebook?
-
"They re-iterated the fact that Sheila was incapable of firing a gun."
Lets see...the use of the word "fact" indicates a deceptive mind". The relatives can only have expressed an opinion not a fact.
Firing a gun is not a difficult thing to do.
What is more telling though considering the case is that they say(according to stan jones) firing "a" gun and not firing "the" gun.
A gun could mean any gun.....
if the police at this stage were informing the relatives that only one gun had been used then we expect them to refer to "the" gun (Bamber rifle) to tie in. It would not matter about her being capable of firing other guns. The only gun that would be relevant and matter if she could fire it would be the Bamber rifle.
However , remember Pargetter was there and he knew his gun was there (and most likely knew it could have been fired) so by using "a gun" it allows for them to cater that she was incapable of firing either gun that was present and not just the Bamber rifle. This would indicate they all knew that Pargetter's rifle was at whf and could have been used.
Stan Jones would have known 2 rifles were found and may well have already concluded or knew that both had been used so fails to pick up on the issue of "a" gun and correct it to a specific "the" gun that would be correct as all that would matter in a single weapon crime was the ability to use the specific gun in question.
-
Content recorded in 9th August 1985, notes (attached above) confirm that police knew about the silencer by the evening of 9th August 1985, a day before the family claim to have found it in the gun cupboard, and three days before DS Jones allegedly received it from Peter Eaton...
Pull the other leg if police and relatives are saying they only found one silencer, and only knew about the existence of the silencer after Boutflour allegedly found it in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985? It is absolutely clear that police knew about the silencer at least the day before the relatives found it, and in any event one of the relatives (Anthony Pargeter) knew about the silencer from the previous week-end when he went to the same gun cupboard to look for his own gun and silencer, and found it there, along with the Bamber rifle, and silencer, and telescopic site?
What, therefore, was so surprising about Boutflour allegedly finding the silencer in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985?
We also know, because Pargeter made a statement to COLP in 1991, that Essex police visited him after the shootings and asked to check his .22 bolt action rifle to see if it had got any damage on it, yet there is no official statement from Essex police about when this took place, or who visited Pargeter, and who examined the rifle? It seems to me, that they must have gone to see Pargeter because it was his silencer that the police found and knew about at the scene by the evening of 9th August 1985...
...
-
Well as Robert and David Boutflour both had silencers of an identical type (save for internal baffles?) for .22 rifles then it can be assumed they both had such rifles so we would should expect the police to go check them out as well.
Oddly COLP dont seem to have done that in regards to the Boutflour weapons so some factor about the Pargetter rifle prompted the interest in it...basically that it was at whf and was in a state that could be used and from the bullet evidence it appears was most likely used.