Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on February 13, 2011, 04:54:PM
-
Silencer Dates?
7th August 1985 - SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 found at scene by DS "Stan" Jones
(Item SBJ/1, must have been found at the scene, on same date by DS Jones)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9th August 1985 - DS Jones and DCI Jones speak to Jeremy about whether silencer was on gun?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10th August 1985 - Relatives find silencer in gun cupboard
12th August 1985 - Peter Eaton hands silencer over to DS Jones
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13th August 1985 - silencer (SBJ/1 Lab' item number 22) taken to Lab' to be examined by Glynis Howard
(No paint noticed on silencer at this time)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15th August 1985 - silencer is fingerprinted by oblique light test
23rd August 1985 - silencer is fingerprinted by super-glue treatment
(silencer coated in super-glue residue after exposure to cynoacrylate fumes)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29th August 1985 - Cook dismantles silencer, rebuilds it and screws it to guns barrel
(no blood seen or found in silencer which Cook (SOC) dismantled and rebuilt)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30th August 1985 - silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) submitted to Lab'
(Blood group activity obtained from small flake found inside silencer, producing, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1)...
(First reference to paint on end of silencers end cap, introduced onto General Examination record at this time)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11th September 1985 - Relatives find silencer in gun cupboard at whf
(David Boutfloyur contacts Essex police to inform them that he has found a silencer in the gun cupboard at whf)
(Ann Eaton hands silencer to Essex police)
13th September 1985 - DS Eastwood and DS Davidson fingerprint silencer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26th September 1985 - silencer (DRB/1) submitted to Lab'
-
If relatives only found one silencer in the gun cupboard, it could not have been found there, on both the 10th August 1985, and on 11th August 1985. The same silencer could not also have been handed over to the police on two separate occasions, namely, on 12th August 1985 by Peter Eaton to DS Stan Jones, and also on 11th September 1985, by Ann Eaton, to DC Oakey, or to DC Jones. The same silencer could not have been at the lab' from 30th August 1985, onward, and be sent to the lab' on 26th September 1985...
There appears to have been three different identical looking silencers:-
SBJ/1 Lab' item number 22
DB/1 Lab' item number 23
DRB/1
Which for one reason or another, the police and the relatives hav sought to merge into one silencer (only)...
-
So there are actually 6 silencers?
4 silencers found on 07/08/85 - SBJ/1, 2, 3 and 4
SBJ1 lab tested 13th 15th 23rd 08/85
Results of SBJ 2, 3 + 4 are?
1 silencer found 10/08/85
Given to police 12/08/85
Does this become DB1 lab tested DB1 on 30/08/85?
1 silencer found 11/09/85
This becomes DRB1 lab tested 26/09/85
Seems to be long gaps between possession of evidence and submission to lab...
Silencer dismantled 29/08/05 by Cook
Only silencer not in lab on 29/08/05 is DB1.
May I clarify - is this the ONLY silencer that tested positive for human DNA?
-
And is DB/1 the only silencer marked by the paint sample matching the mantlepiece?
-
So there are actually 6 silencers?
4 silencers found on 07/08/85 - SBJ/1, 2, 3 and 4
SBJ1 lab tested 13th 15th 23rd 08/85
Results of SBJ 2, 3 + 4 are?
1 silencer found 10/08/85
Given to police 12/08/85
Does this become DB1 lab tested DB1 on 30/08/85?
1 silencer found 11/09/85
This becomes DRB1 lab tested 26/09/85
Seems to be long gaps between possession of evidence and submission to lab...
Silencer dismantled 29/08/05 by Cook
Only silencer not in lab on 29/08/05 is DB1.
May I clarify - is this the ONLY silencer that tested positive for human DNA?
---------------------------------------------------------
No, not six silencers...
DS Jones took possession of four exhibits from the scene on the 7th August 1985, two from the downstairs toilet and two others from the kitchen, these were given, DRB/2 - item from downstairs toilet, DRB/3 and DRB/4, other items from the kitchen and of course, if he took possession of those three items from the scene on 7th August 1985, he must also have taken possession of item SBJ/1 from the scene that same morning - SBJ/1 being the identifying mark of the silencer which was sent to the Lab' on 13th August 1985...
Items marked, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4, are listed in the original Property Register, in connection with the initial investigation that was being carried out under SC/688/85, or in other words, four murders and a suicide. However, once the nature of the investigation changed into five murders under SC/786/85, these exhibits and their corresponding exhibits reference's numbers, DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4, were not carried over into the new property registers, which were created so that Jeremy could be prosecuted as the killer...
It was known, that a silencer and .22 bolt action rifle belonging to another relative (Anthony Pargeter) was normally kept in the downstairs toilet, and indeed, Jeremy even listed this weapon on a list he was asked to draught up, of firearms inside the farmhouse that the police should know about before they went in, and so to all intents and purposes, this other .22 rifle and its silencer should have been there in the toilet. Since, exhibit DRB/2 was found in the same downstairs toilet, on 7th August 1985, by DS Jones, and the identifying mark of the first silencer that was sent to the Lab' on 13th August 1985, was SBJ/1, which was a silencer, it must follow that DS Jones took possession of a silencer from the downstairs toilet on 7th August 1985, and that this was covered up by the police and relatives, so that the Bamber silencer which was normally kept in the gun cupboard, and which was not found there until 11th September 1985, could be introduced in its place, to make out that there was only one silencer in police possession in connection with this investigation, not two or three different ones...
When DS Jones was interviewed by COLP in 1991, he told them that he and DCI Jones had gone to see Jeremy at his cottage, 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, to speak to him about whether or not the silencer was fitted to the gun on the evening prior to the shootings? What this demonstrates is that the police knew about a silencer, the day before David Boutflour allegedly found one in the gun cupboard at whf on Saturday, 10th August 1985, which was not actually or supposedly handed over to the police until the evening of 12th August 1985...
How did the police, know about the silencer on 9th August 1985, to enable DS Jones and DCI jones to question Jeremy about it, on 9th August 1985, unless the police already had a silencer in their possession by that stage?
SBJ/1, was therefore the silencer belonging to Anthony Pargeter, and this was the silencer which was actually sent to the Lab' to be checked by Glynis Howard on 13th August 1985...
--------------------------------------------
It may well be that peter Eaton handed over a silencer to the police on 12th August 1985, but this could not have been the Bamber silencer, since it was not found in the gun cupboard until 11th September 1985. Therefore, if Peter Eaton handed over a silencer to DS Jones on the evening of 12th August 1985, that silencer must have belonged to one of the other relatives, namely one of the Boutflours, whic eventually was dismantled and rebuilt by Cook on 29th August 1985, and subsequently screwed onto the barrel of the bloodstained Bamber rifle, before being submitted to the Lab' on 30th August 1985, under the identifying mark DB/1...
Paint from the aga in the kitchen at whf was found upon this (DB/1) silencer, and the flake of blood which was supposedly found inside a silencer once it had been submitted to the lab' on 30th August 1985, must have been found inside this silencer (DB/1) because the Bamber silencer had not yet been discovered and would not be discovered inside the gun cupboard until 11th September 1985...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the flake was found inside silencer DB/1, it was examined with a view to producing blood group results, which were obtained between 12th and 19th September 1985...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bamber silencer (DRB/1) which was not found in the gun cupboard until 11th September 1985, was not actually submitted to the Lab' until 26th September 1985, much too late for the blood group activity which was obtained from the examination of the flake found in the other silencer (DB/1), to be remotely associated with it, or to it...
----------------------------------------
-
Thanks for that. Lots to take on board there so I'll have to take my time! As you may have gathered from my posts, at present I view the silencer as the key so I really do want to understand.
Two immediate questions - did DRB 1, 2, 3 and 4 become SBJ 1,2 3, and 4 with the change from charge change from suicide + murders to murder?
What items were DRB 2, 3 and 4?
-
I thought that items DRB/2 and DRB/3 were collected from Ann Eaton by Oakey on 11th September.
-
http://www.freejeremybamber.com/files/B27.pdf
-
What does DRB stand for? Come to that, what does DRH stand for as well?
-
Thanks for that. Lots to take on board there so I'll have to take my time! As you may have gathered from my posts, at present I view the silencer as the key so I really do want to understand.
Two immediate questions - did DRB 1, 2, 3 and 4 become SBJ 1,2 3, and 4 with the change from charge change from suicide + murders to murder?
What items were DRB 2, 3 and 4?
------------------------------------
No, items SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, which were recorded in the original file under SC/688/85, disappeared altogether from the new file under SC/786/85...
In my view they disappeared because they showed or establish a link between the silencer SBJ/1 and DS Jones finding it at the scene on 7th August 1985...
SBJ/1 was the silencer which DS Jones found at the scene, in particular in the downstairs toilet, on 7th August 1985...
-
Thanks for that. Lots to take on board there so I'll have to take my time! As you may have gathered from my posts, at present I view the silencer as the key so I really do want to understand.
Two immediate questions - did DRB 1, 2, 3 and 4 become SBJ 1,2 3, and 4 with the change from charge change from suicide + murders to murder?
What items were DRB 2, 3 and 4?
------------------------------------------
These were items which were found in the gun cupboard along with the Bamber silencer (DRB/1), which originally had Ann Eaton's identifying marks, CAE/?, CAE/? and CAE/?
These exhibit references were subsequently altered to DRB/2, DRB/3 and DRB/4, once the nature of the investigation altered, from SC/688/85 into SC/786/85 - in the new file, Ann Eaton did not have any exhibits bearing her own identifying mark, CAE/? In the old file, she did not have an exhibit bearing the exhibit reference CAE/1 - which effectively was the silencer that her brother David Boutflour found in the gun cupboard at whf on 11th September 1985, and which she handed over to the police on that same date...
They lied about when the Bamber silencer (DRB/1) was found in the gun cupboard, by falsely claiming it was found on 10th August 1985, instead of the correct date it was found, which was 11th September 1985...
Thus the silencer (SBJ/1 - lab' item number 22 which was submitted to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and the other silencer, DB/1 - lab' item number 23, became merged together with the Bamber silencer (DRB/1) and the evidence doctored to promote the idea that there was only one silencer, not at least three different ones...
-
My head is spinning with all these SJBs, DRBs, and DRH's, not to mention the AEs ........... ;D
-
There will be those amongst us, who do not buy into the three different silencers scenario, those who continue to believe that Silencer SBJ/1, was the same silencer as DB/1 which in turn was the same silencer as DRB/1, but I would ask those persons to question how the police could have known about a silencer by 9th August 1985, to enable DS Jones and DCI Jones to question Jeremy about the silencer at his cottage in Goldhanger, on 9th August 1985, if the relatives did not find the silencer until 10th August 1985, or 11th September 1985? If the relatives did not find the silencer in the gun cupboard until 10th August 1985 and they did not hand it over to DS Jones by 12th August 1985, why would DS Jones be speaking to Jeremy about it on 9th August 1985? It doesn't add up or make any sense, to believe in that scenario, since, the police obviously knew about the silencer before the relatives found it in the gun cupboard, whether or not, they found it there on 10th August 1985, or 11th September 1985...
If the relatives found a silencer in the gun cupboard, they could only have found it there on one occasion, not two separate occasions, and they could only have handed it over to the police on one occasion, not two different ones, and why do two different relatives hand the silencer over to two different police officers on two different dates? On the other hand it remains possible that Ann Eaton handed the silencer she handed over to the police, to DS Jones, not to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, and that they suggested it had been handed over to DC Oakey as part of the cover up regarding how these different silencers all became merged into one and the same silencer...
Even more puzzling, is that if these (SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1) were all the same silencer, how one (DB/1) could be submitted to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and yet another (DRB/1) still be in the possession of the police, which was not submitted to the lab' to be checked for fibers until 26th September 1985? How could the same silencer be in two different places at the same time? How could silencer DB/1 be at the Lab' from 30th August 1985, to enable the ballistic expert to discover the crucial flake of blood trapped between baffles one and two, whilst silencer DRB/1, was still in the possession of the police, where it would remain until 26th September 1985?
You only then have to look at the position of the baffle plates as shown by reference to the photographs of the silencer which Cook (SOC) dismantled and rebuilt on 29th August 1985, against the position of the baffle plates by the time of another forensic examination performed by Glynis Howard on 29th April 1986, to realize that the baffle plates had changed position within the confines of the silencers tubing? Downward facing on 29th August 1985, upward facing by 29th April 1986?
If all of these silencers (SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1) were one and the same, then somebody tampered with the silencer, no doubt about it...
It was introduced to allow the prosecution to wrongly allege that the silencer was fitted to the gun at the time Sheila Caffell was shot and killed, and that whoever killed her, removed it from the end of the guns barrel after she was dead, and took it away to conceal it in the gun cupboard, where David Boutflour so conveniently found it at some point afterwards...
The prosecution alleged that with the silencer fitted to the end of the guns barrel, the weapon would have been too long to allow Sheila an opportunity to shoot herself by use of it, even if she had wanted to...
But if the silencer evidence was compromised, the case against Jeremy collapses...
-
My head is spinning with all these SJBs, DRBs, and DRH's, not to mention the AEs ........... ;D
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you can jest all you want about this, but it ws under these conditions and circumstances, that Essex police and the relatives pulled off a naughty one, regarding the three different identical looking Parker hale silencers by tampering with the evidence to make them all into one and the same silencer, where SBJ/1, and DB/1, and DRB/1, all became one and the same silencer...
In the meantime...
None of the relatives made a witness statement or signed an exhibit label for the silencer, until on and after 12th September 1985...
-
apologies for going off topic here. question for mike tesko: when nevilles body was discovered was he wearing socks?
-
My head is spinning with all these SJBs, DRBs, and DRH's, not to mention the AEs ........... ;D
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you can jest all you want about this, but it ws under these conditions and circumstances, that Essex police and the relatives pulled off a naughty one, regarding the three different identical looking Parker hale silencers by tampering with the evidence to make them all into one and the same silencer, where SBJ/1, and DB/1, and DRB/1, all became one and the same silencer...
In the meantime...
None of the relatives made a witness statement or signed an exhibit label for the silencer, until on and after 12th September 1985...
I'm sort of jesting but not really - my head really is spinning with all this info. I recall there were problems in the appeal with items having different references attached to them, so perhaps there was a problem with the silencer being relabelled too.
-
My head is spinning with all these SJBs, DRBs, and DRH's, not to mention the AEs ........... ;D
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you can jest all you want about this, but it ws under these conditions and circumstances, that Essex police and the relatives pulled off a naughty one, regarding the three different identical looking Parker hale silencers by tampering with the evidence to make them all into one and the same silencer, where SBJ/1, and DB/1, and DRB/1, all became one and the same silencer...
In the meantime...
None of the relatives made a witness statement or signed an exhibit label for the silencer, until on and after 12th September 1985...
This is where I go off-message, and the general public would as well.
Of course I believe there are rogue coppers. Of course I believe most families had a bad 'un in the mix.
But I cannot believe that every police officer and soc agent within a murder squad conspired with all the members of a family to frame 1 family member for 5 murders so that the rest of the family could get the loot.
Secrets are dangerous. The more people who are told/in on it, the more likely it is to come out. Only a few got rich. What was the motivation of the others? This would mean that they were planning this on Sept 9th when questioning JB about silencers, just days after the murders.
-
My head is spinning with all these SJBs, DRBs, and DRH's, not to mention the AEs ........... ;D
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you can jest all you want about this, but it ws under these conditions and circumstances, that Essex police and the relatives pulled off a naughty one, regarding the three different identical looking Parker hale silencers by tampering with the evidence to make them all into one and the same silencer, where SBJ/1, and DB/1, and DRB/1, all became one and the same silencer...
In the meantime...
None of the relatives made a witness statement or signed an exhibit label for the silencer, until on and after 12th September 1985...
This is where I go off-message, and the general public would as well.
Of course I believe there are rogue coppers. Of course I believe most families had a bad 'un in the mix.
But I cannot believe that every police officer and soc agent within a murder squad conspired with all the members of a family to frame 1 family member for 5 murders so that the rest of the family could get the loot.
Secrets are dangerous. The more people who are told/in on it, the more likely it is to come out. Only a few got rich. What was the motivation of the others? This would mean that they were planning this on Sept 9th when questioning JB about silencers, just days after the murders.
-----------------------------
Ok, then go along with the one silencer scenario, and ask yourself, how the same silencer could be found in the same gun cupboard on two different dates, and be handed over to the police by two different people, and be at the lab' on and from 30th August 1985, yet still be in the possession of the police, until 26th September 1985?
By the way, police were talking to Jeremy about the silencer on 9th August 1985, not 9th September 1985 - how did the police know about the silencer, on 9th August 1985, before the relatives allegedly found it, on 10th August 1985, which they allegedly did not hand over to the police, until 12th August 1985?
-
apologies for going off topic here. question for mike tesko: when nevilles body was discovered was he wearing socks?
......................
No...
-
My head is spinning with all these SJBs, DRBs, and DRH's, not to mention the AEs ........... ;D
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you can jest all you want about this, but it ws under these conditions and circumstances, that Essex police and the relatives pulled off a naughty one, regarding the three different identical looking Parker hale silencers by tampering with the evidence to make them all into one and the same silencer, where SBJ/1, and DB/1, and DRB/1, all became one and the same silencer...
In the meantime...
None of the relatives made a witness statement or signed an exhibit label for the silencer, until on and after 12th September 1985...
This is where I go off-message, and the general public would as well.
Of course I believe there are rogue coppers. Of course I believe most families had a bad 'un in the mix.
But I cannot believe that every police officer and soc agent within a murder squad conspired with all the members of a family to frame 1 family member for 5 murders so that the rest of the family could get the loot.
Secrets are dangerous. The more people who are told/in on it, the more likely it is to come out. Only a few got rich. What was the motivation of the others? This would mean that they were planning this on Sept 9th when questioning JB about silencers, just days after the murders.
-----------------------------
Ok, then go along with the one silencer scenario, and ask yourself, how the same silencer could be found in the same gun cupboard on two different dates, and be handed over to the police by two different people, and be at the lab' on and from 30th August 1985, yet still be in the possession of the police, until 26th September 1985?
By the way, police were talking to Jeremy about the silencer on 9th August 1985, not 9th September 1985 - how did the police know about the silencer, on 9th August 1985, before the relatives allegedly found it, on 10th August 1985, which they allegedly did not hand over to the police, until 12th August 1985?
I meant to put 9th Aug because it highlights my problem - just days after the murder the conspiracy began but why?
I really am assessing everything about the silencers and remaining open minded about that. Cataloguing is an important part of my professional life, and when it goes wrong it can be difficult to track - nowhere near as serious as someone losing 25 years of freedom.
But it would mean lots of things had gone wrong.
2 silencers assigned to a case that no longer existed (the suicide/murders) have been where for 25 years? A police evidence box? These are systemically culled, as we know. A SOC lab? Ditto. If returned to the owners/estate due to having no bearing on the eventual case they would have been receipted to prevent any accusation of loss or theft.
This isn't everyone who has anything to do with the case lying through the teeth to cover up for someone else - that's what I'm dismissing not all the information you have laid out so painstakingly. That I appreciate greatly, and I see the concerns.
It may be a bad admin error with terrible consequences. No jest at all.
Putting on my cataloguing head to see if I can come up with something constructive.
-
My head is spinning with all these SJBs, DRBs, and DRH's, not to mention the AEs ........... ;D
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you can jest all you want about this, but it ws under these conditions and circumstances, that Essex police and the relatives pulled off a naughty one, regarding the three different identical looking Parker hale silencers by tampering with the evidence to make them all into one and the same silencer, where SBJ/1, and DB/1, and DRB/1, all became one and the same silencer...
In the meantime...
None of the relatives made a witness statement or signed an exhibit label for the silencer, until on and after 12th September 1985...
This is where I go off-message, and the general public would as well.
Of course I believe there are rogue coppers. Of course I believe most families had a bad 'un in the mix.
But I cannot believe that every police officer and soc agent within a murder squad conspired with all the members of a family to frame 1 family member for 5 murders so that the rest of the family could get the loot.
Secrets are dangerous. The more people who are told/in on it, the more likely it is to come out. Only a few got rich. What was the motivation of the others? This would mean that they were planning this on Sept 9th when questioning JB about silencers, just days after the murders.
-----------------------------
Ok, then go along with the one silencer scenario, and ask yourself, how the same silencer could be found in the same gun cupboard on two different dates, and be handed over to the police by two different people, and be at the lab' on and from 30th August 1985, yet still be in the possession of the police, until 26th September 1985?
By the way, police were talking to Jeremy about the silencer on 9th August 1985, not 9th September 1985 - how did the police know about the silencer, on 9th August 1985, before the relatives allegedly found it, on 10th August 1985, which they allegedly did not hand over to the police, until 12th August 1985?
I meant to put 9th Aug because it highlights my problem - just days after the murder the conspiracy began but why?
I really am assessing everything about the silencers and remaining open minded about that. Cataloguing is an important part of my professional life, and when it goes wrong it can be difficult to track - nowhere near as serious as someone losing 25 years of freedom.
But it would mean lots of things had gone wrong.
2 silencers assigned to a case that no longer existed (the suicide/murders) have been where for 25 years? A police evidence box? These are systemically culled, as we know. A SOC lab? Ditto. If returned to the owners/estate due to having no bearing on the eventual case they would have been receipted to prevent any accusation of loss or theft.
This isn't everyone who has anything to do with the case lying through the teeth to cover up for someone else - that's what I'm dismissing not all the information you have laid out so painstakingly. That I appreciate greatly, and I see the concerns.
It may be a bad admin error with terrible consequences. No jest at all.
Putting on my cataloguing head to see if I can come up with something constructive.
----------------------------------------------
The blood evidence, and the paint evidence, were wrongly attributed to th Bamber silencer (DRB/1) which was not found until 11th September 1985, and not forwarded to the lab' to be checked for fibers until 26th September 1985 - all the lab' records have been altered and the exhibit references for the silencer on different Lab' documents have been changed, from SBJ/1 into DB/1 into DRB/1...
There is another problem with the silencer evidence...
If there was only one silencer, and SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 are all one and the same silencer, it was coated from head to foot in super-glue residue, which would have effected any blood grouping activity that might be obtained from the silencer...
A police report exists that was written up by DI Cook (SOC) to DCS Ainsley, once the new investigation got under way, in which Cook draws Ainsleys attention to the fact that the silencer was exposed to super-glue treatment on 23rd August 12985, and that it was known that cynoacrylate fumes were harmful to scientific tests, including blood grouping - but Cook told Ainsley in that report that the blood had been found and analysed before the silencer had been exposed to super glue treatment (on 23rd August 1985), yet this was a lie, if there was only one silencer, because it was not until 30th August 1985, when cook sent the silencer (DB/1) to the lab' that the ballistic expert dismantled it, and allegedly found the flake of blood that turned out to be type A, EAP Ba, AK1 and HP 2-1...
Now, if the silencer that was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, was the same silencer that got exposed to super-glue treatment on 23rd August 12985, it was known by Cook (SOC) that the cynoacrylate fumes which the silencer had been exposed to, was harmful to scientific tests such as blood grouping but he chose not to mention this to the scientists who examined the blood and who obtained the results spoken about...
My point is this...
Was the silencer (DB/1) that was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, coated in super-glue residue?
If it was, would the scientists at the lab' know it was?
How would it be possible, for the harmful cynoacrylate fumes not to be harmful to the blood grouping activity which was obtained for use to support the prosecution case, in this matter? If Cook (SOC) knew about the harmful effects that exposure of the silencer to cynoacrylate fumes would have upon blood grouping tests carried out upon the silencer, should he have informed the court when he testified that he knew about the harmful effects which exposure of the cynoacryaltae fumes to the silencer might have upon any blood grouping that was found or obtained from the super-glue coated silencer?
Did he even tell the court, or was it disclosed prior to the time of the trial in October 1986, that the silencer had been exposed to super-glue treatment at all?
No...
What about the senior officer Mick Ainsley, who he wrote to memo to, why didn't he take steps to inform the defense that the silencer had been exposed to superglue treatment on 23rd August 1985, and that the blood found in the silencer was not found there before the superglue treatment had been performed, but afterwards, seven days afterwards to be precise...
Did Cook (SOC) or Ainsley tell the scientists at the Lab' that the silencer had been exposed to superglue treatment, and that cynoacrylate fumes were harmful to scientific tests, such as blood grouping, and if they had what would have happened?
Why did Cook mislead Ainsley by telling him in his memo that blood had been found in the silencer before it had been exposed to the harmful cynoacrylate fumes? When clearly the blood was not found until afterwards?
What are the harmful effects which cyoacrylate fumes has upon scientific tests such a s blood grouping?
Would such effects be sufficient to negate any value that was gleaned in favor of the prosecutions case during and since the time of the trial?
-----------------------------------------------
Then let us move on to the silencer which was examined for dna as part of the CCRC's 2002 appeal - was this silencer coated in super-glue residue? If it was, how could they obtain dna profiles from the silencer? Would the harmful cynoarcylate fumes which Cook talks about in his memo to Ainsley, have prevented any dna being found inside or upon the silencer, in question?
-------------------------------------------------------
Big point....
A silencer was exposed to superglue treatment on 23rd August 1985, any blood group activity obtained from that silencer, after this date, should have had a warning attached to it, that it was known that cynoacryklate fumes were known to be harmful to scientific tests, including blood grouping...
This warning was not given to the jury at the time of Jeremy's trial...
-
So every log amendment/reassignment - the official sequencing chains - must be tracked to definitively see which piece of evidence becomes which and what goes missing.
Are you saying this can't be done because the documents have met with disclosure refusal under pii?
-
So every log amendment/reassignment - the official sequencing chains - must be tracked to definitively see which piece of evidence becomes which and what goes missing.
Are you saying this can't be done because the documents have met with disclosure refusal under pii?
I don't envy someone that job. There's a huge amount of stuff in the appeal document about swabs from Sheila's hands and the problems associated with the documentation and reference numbers. That was bad enough!
-
So every log amendment/reassignment - the official sequencing chains - must be tracked to definitively see which piece of evidence becomes which and what goes missing.
Are you saying this can't be done because the documents have met with disclosure refusal under pii?
---------------------------------------
No, I am saying that we have the documents which have all been altered in sequence, where SBJ/1 becomes DB/1, and DB/1 then becomes DRB/1, and so on, and so forth, even to the point where scientists and experts are referring to the silencer with the wrong exhibit reference for the silencer, on the date they refer to it...
An example of this, is where on 13th August 1985, Glynis Howard, examined a silencer bearing the identifying mark, SBJ/1, yet she makes a statement declaring that the silencer she examined on 13th August 1985, had the identifying mark DRB/ 1, which could not possibly be true, because the silencer changed exhibit references on and by 30th August 1985, from SBJ/1 to DB/1, so how could Howard refer to the exhibit reference DRB/1 as the silencer she examined on 13th August 12985, because at that stage it did not exist?
They doctored the witness statements...
-
Doctored...
Do you mean there was authorisation (printed somewhere?) to amend all previous records so that they tallyed with reassigned numbers in the amended case i.e. from suicide/murders to murders?
or
There's one awful moment when an individual assigns the wrong 'new' catalogue to an item so it becomes that item ever after? i.e. a should become b and c should become d, but a becomes d? If so, what did the other item (c) become?
or
They went back over all the various pieces of evidence and gave them all the same number, so one item now represents the provenance of all? Is this your three silencers become one? if so, do you have more log images?
Running out of time tonight, but have plenty available Wednesday so will look then with an open mind and objective eye.
-
Have printed reams of material re the silencer/s.
If anyone has copies of logs not on this site, can they scan them please? or recommend other sites/links.
Want to make sure I include everything that's out there.
-
Doctored...
Do you mean there was authorisation (printed somewhere?) to amend all previous records so that they tallyed with reassigned numbers in the amended case i.e. from suicide/murders to murders?
or
There's one awful moment when an individual assigns the wrong 'new' catalogue to an item so it becomes that item ever after? i.e. a should become b and c should become d, but a becomes d? If so, what did the other item (c) become?
or
They went back over all the various pieces of evidence and gave them all the same number, so one item now represents the provenance of all? Is this your three silencers become one? if so, do you have more log images?
Running out of time tonight, but have plenty available Wednesday so will look then with an open mind and objective eye.
-----------------------------------
Take a look at this lot, instructions for alterations to statements, and exhibit references...
Instructions of PI "Bob" Miller, to other police officers for them to make necessary alterations to statements, for incorporation into new file (SC/786/85)...
-
Many thanks Mike.
-
What does DRB stand for? Come to that, what does DRH stand for as well?
All such letter combinations are the initials of someone. For example SBJ corresponds to S B Jones, DRH corresponds to D R Hammersley, and DRB corresponds to David Robert Boutflour. The appended number is supposed to reflect the order in which items of evidence are obtained.
-
This is where I go off-message, and the general public would as well.
Of course I believe there are rogue coppers. Of course I believe most families had a bad 'un in the mix.
But I cannot believe that every police officer and soc agent within a murder squad conspired with all the members of a family to frame 1 family member for 5 murders so that the rest of the family could get the loot.
Secrets are dangerous. The more people who are told/in on it, the more likely it is to come out. Only a few got rich. What was the motivation of the others? This would mean that they were planning this on Sept 9th when questioning JB about silencers, just days after the murders.
+1
My thoughts exactly and I've said it somewhere before on this site. I fully accept that there are bent coppers and groups of coppers.. but the bigger the lies, secrets and cover ups the harder it is to contain and keep the story the same.
With the size of corruption you are talking about you have to ensure that everyone concerned stays happy for the rest of their life otherwise they beome a liabilty. Disgruntled employees, officers that don;t make the promotion, disciplined officers and become a liabilty as they know something of the cover up and secrets. Many people who become part of a cover up, fraud etc keep copies of damning documents as insurance... in a cover up no ones safe as there is always going to be a time when a scapegoat is needed.
I read a book on the Hell's Angel's a while back called... "3 can keep a secret when 2 are dead"... of all the cover ups it only takes one person to blow it wide open!
-
What does DRB stand for? Come to that, what does DRH stand for as well?
All such letter combinations are the initials of someone. For example SBJ corresponds to S B Jones, DRH corresponds to D R Hammersley, and DRB corresponds to David Robert Boutflour. The appended number is supposed to reflect the order in which items of evidence are obtained.
Thank you Reader. That will help me make more sense of the references. Cheers. ;D
-
Look up what Exhibit SBJ/1 was, or could have been (DS Stan Brian Jones), and take into account the fact that on 7th August 1985, he took possession of four exhibits from the scene, including SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
SBJ/1, had to be a silencer which DS Jones recovered from the scene, on 7th August 1985...
-
Look up what Exhibit DB/1 was, or could have been (PC David Bird)), and take into account the fact that he took possession of several exhibits from the scene, including DB/2, DB/3, DB/4, DB/5, DB/6, DB/7, DB/8 and DB/9...
Was DB/1 a silencer which came into the possession of PC David Bird, who took pictures of it, before it was submitted to the lab' ion 30th August 1985?
-
Look up what Exhibit DRB/1 was, or could have been (David Robert Boutflour), and take into account the fact that he took possession of several exhibits from the scene on 11th September 1985, which had originally been given exhibit references associated with his sister Ann Eaton, under the identifying mark of CAE/1, CAE/2, CAE/3 and CAE/4...
-
Mike - I see youre cloudy brain is at it again !!!
Mike lets pretend you own a rifle - how many silencers would you own ????
There was ONE rifle, and ONE silencer.
MIke, the person who commited this crime, broke into the house, and was disturbed by Mr Bamber. A fight/struggle took place and eventually Mr bamber was shot dead.
The killer then went upstairs, shot Mrs bamber in her bed, then at the rear bedroom he shot the twins, and lastly the daughter.
He then left the gun on her body, arranged the bible at appropiate chapter, and left.
There was no blood of any significance on or in the silencer, because it was not used.
Mr bamber was shot dead first, there is no other way. The killer could not of killed everyone else first as Mr Bamber would of had time to get any one of his 12 bores, .410 or any other weapon and fight back, as it was he fought with the only thing he had, himself.
If you brush away all the chaff and what if's, what abouts, and perhaps you are left with a simple answer - either jeremy bamber killed his family, or someone else did outside the family. That is what the courts have always concidered, and whilst there is no 3rd person in the frame, they are left with only one answer.
"Courting" the press is not always a good idea - "Doth he complain too loud" - Had JB pled guilty he would of been out now, possibly after 2/3rds of his sentence as it was a descretionary sentence, with a 25 rec - In 1988 life sentence prisoners were afforded "mantotory" sentences aswell, but not when JB was sentenced.
-
Mike - I see youre cloudy brain is at it again !!!
Mike lets pretend you own a rifle - how many silencers would you own ????
There was ONE rifle, and ONE silencer.
MIke, the person who commited this crime, broke into the house, and was disturbed by Mr Bamber. A fight/struggle took place and eventually Mr bamber was shot dead.
The killer then went upstairs, shot Mrs bamber in her bed, then at the rear bedroom he shot the twins, and lastly the daughter.
He then left the gun on her body, arranged the bible at appropiate chapter, and left.
There was no blood of any significance on or in the silencer, because it was not used.
Mr bamber was shot dead first, there is no other way. The killer could not of killed everyone else first as Mr Bamber would of had time to get any one of his 12 bores, .410 or any other weapon and fight back, as it was he fought with the only thing he had, himself.
If you brush away all the chaff and what if's, what abouts, and perhaps you are left with a simple answer - either jeremy bamber killed his family, or someone else did outside the family. That is what the courts have always concidered, and whilst there is no 3rd person in the frame, they are left with only one answer.
"Courting" the press is not always a good idea - "Doth he complain too loud" - Had JB pled guilty he would of been out now, possibly after 2/3rds of his sentence as it was a descretionary sentence, with a 25 rec - In 1988 life sentence prisoners were afforded "mantotory" sentences aswell, but not when JB was sentenced.
---------------------------------
Get your facts right...
-
Look up what Exhibit DB/1 was, or could have been (PC David Bird)), and take into account the fact that he took possession of several exhibits from the scene, including DB/2, DB/3, DB/4, DB/5, DB/6, DB/7, DB/8 and DB/9...
Was DB/1 a silencer which came into the possession of PC David Bird, who took pictures of it, before it was submitted to the lab' ion 30th August 1985?
Mike, still following the silencers...
Has 'the file' been officially asked to identify the exhibits DB1 etc?
-
Look up what Exhibit DB/1 was, or could have been (PC David Bird)), and take into account the fact that he took possession of several exhibits from the scene, including DB/2, DB/3, DB/4, DB/5, DB/6, DB/7, DB/8 and DB/9...
Was DB/1 a silencer which came into the possession of PC David Bird, who took pictures of it, before it was submitted to the lab' ion 30th August 1985?
Mike, still following the silencers...
Has 'the file' been officially asked to identify the exhibits DB1 etc?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the week-end I will try to gather as many documents relating to the silencers, which I have in my possession, to show how the exhibit references have been altered with a view to making out a false case that all these different silencers, were subsequently merged into one and the same silencer...
Perhaps this image may be of some help in helping you and others to understand how some of these three silencers could have been different internally?
-
MIke, get youre facts right.
The shotgun was at sotherbys (being sold ?)
2 x sound moderators were found at davids
i gun was at the repairers in colchester
and
the rifle was on shelias body
You posted that, now if you are a man you will appoligies NOW
You have lost all credibility and i will invite the members of this site to decide for themselves
DO NOT TAKE US AS IDIOTS
-
MIke, get youre facts right.
The shotgun was at sotherbys (being sold ?)
2 x sound moderators were found at davids
i gun was at the repairers in colchester
and
the rifle was on shelias body
You posted that, now if you are a man you will appoligies NOW
You have lost all credibility and i will invite the members of this site to decide for themselves
DO NOT TAKE US AS IDIOTS
---------------------------------------
Shotgun was at Sotherby's?
Well, as you say, leave it up to the others to make up their own minds, so I suppose that shotgun was not at the scene when it was photographed outside the gun cupboard in the downstairs office on 7th August 1985, oh and the witness statements I have got from the police, saying how they searched the gun cupboard on the morning of 7th August 1985, and how they removed the shotgun, is also a pack of lies...
Look at the picture, PC Bird (SOC) took this picture on 7th August 1985, so I don't see how it could have been at Sotherby's, as claimed by you at that time...
If my credibility has been destroyed because I say the shotgun was at the scene, and I produce a photograph which shows the shotgun was at the scene, on 7th August 1985, where does that place you?
You don't have anything at all, to disprove what I have been saying, you don't have any evidence at all to show that two silencers were at Boutflours home and that the police seized them from there, or when?
You need to be speaking with Essex police if you know anything at all about two silencers being at Boutflours house, and give an explanation about how these two silencers found their way into the possession of the police prior to 11th September 1985...
Based on what you have been saying, you know full well that there were three different silencers, not just the one....
-
Re this picture
Can we clarify this picture - this looks like an understairs cupboard, NOT a gun cupboard that is a condition for licence.
I'll try and check licence conditions pre 85.
-
I think what is meant by Gun cupboard is it was sometimes where the guns got put (and I realise that doesnt follow what the license requires.)
I have a tax disc holder on my bike, but I often just leave it in my wallet... not meant to and traffic wardens would pull me up for it... but it still happens non the less.
The Mrs has a cassarole dish that she grows plants in... its really meant for cassaroles.. but we keep plants in it. These things often happen.
:)
-
The Mrs has a cassarole dish that she grows plants in... its really meant for cassaroles.. but we keep plants in it. These things often happen.
:)
have had a few but am cracking up at that ;D
-
Re this picture
Can we clarify this picture - this looks like an understairs cupboard, NOT a gun cupboard that is a condition for licence.
I'll try and check licence conditions pre 85.
----------------------------------------------
Yes, this is a cupboard in the downstairs office where guns and ammunition, and the Bamber silencer, was normally kept...
-
Re this picture
Can we clarify this picture - this looks like an understairs cupboard, NOT a gun cupboard that is a condition for licence.
I'll try and check licence conditions pre 85.
----------------------------------------------
Yes, this is a cupboard in the downstairs office where guns and ammunition, and the Bamber silencer, was normally kept...
Apologies, hadn't caught up with other threads!
So, both police and family say they each found a silencer here? Or is one party saying they found a silencer in the 'proper' gun cupboard?
-
Re this picture
Can we clarify this picture - this looks like an understairs cupboard, NOT a gun cupboard that is a condition for licence.
I'll try and check licence conditions pre 85.
----------------------------------------------
Yes, this is a cupboard in the downstairs office where guns and ammunition, and the Bamber silencer, was normally kept...
Apologies, hadn't caught up with other threads!
So, both police and family say they each found a silencer here? Or is one party saying they found a silencer in the 'proper' gun cupboard?
For clarity... I think we should the places as follows..
Gun Cupbaord - Understairs i.e. photo above.
Gun Cabinet - License requirement for storing guns and ammunition.
-
Re this picture
Can we clarify this picture - this looks like an understairs cupboard, NOT a gun cupboard that is a condition for licence.
I'll try and check licence conditions pre 85.
----------------------------------------------
Yes, this is a cupboard in the downstairs office where guns and ammunition, and the Bamber silencer, was normally kept...
Apologies, hadn't caught up with other threads!
So, both police and family say they each found a silencer here? Or is one party saying they found a silencer in the 'proper' gun cupboard?
For clarity... I think we should the places as follows..
Gun Cupbaord - Understairs i.e. photo above.
Gun Cabinet - License requirement for storing guns and ammunition.
+1
-
Re this picture
Can we clarify this picture - this looks like an understairs cupboard, NOT a gun cupboard that is a condition for licence.
I'll try and check licence conditions pre 85.
----------------------------------------------
Yes, this is a cupboard in the downstairs office where guns and ammunition, and the Bamber silencer, was normally kept...
Apologies, hadn't caught up with other threads!
So, both police and family say they each found a silencer here? Or is one party saying they found a silencer in the 'proper' gun cupboard?
For clarity... I think we should the places as follows..
Gun Cupbaord - Understairs i.e. photo above.
Gun Cabinet - License requirement for storing guns and ammunition.
+1
-----------------------------------------------
First dated statement, made by David Boutflour, dated, 12th September 1985, about finding silencer in gun cupboard:-