Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on November 07, 2012, 05:05:AM
-
DS "Stan" Jones, present at scene when Sheila's body stage managed by police...
He arrived at the scene (WHF) at 9;16am, and spent 17 minutes milliong around before he went into the farmhouse at 9;33am. Within 1 minute of DS Jones and others entering the premises at 9;33am, DCI Harris, and DCS Gibbons both left the scene (9;34am:-
-
At 9;00am, police vehicle QK53 and its occupants eho carried out a training exercise inside the houise with the bodies of the five victims still in situ, went to the front of the premises (16 minutes before (9:16am) DS Jones arrived at the scene)...
-
It is worthy of note, that at 9;34am, DCS Gibbons left the scene, but for some reason at 10;51am, ( 1 hour and 17 minutes later) he returned to the scene in the company of Inspector Palmer, but both stayed for only 8 minutes (until 10;59am) before leaving again, and that this revisit to the scene by DCS Gibbons coincided with DS Jones and the occupants of a police vehicle (QK) leaving the scene on informatives at the same time - it becomes clear threrefore, that DS Jones knew what took place inside the premises when police carried out a training exercise with the bodies of the victims still in situ, a training exercise which had been ongoing since 9;00am, until 10;59am, same morning - because DS Jones left the scene in the very same vehicle (QK) at 10;59am, containing the group of training officers and DC Henderson (Vehicle that took DC Henderson away from the scene went directly to the house at 10;40am, and left 19 minutes later). DS Jones was taken to Jeremy's cottage in one of the QK vehicles which took part in these training exercises...
-
It is worthy of note, that at 9;34am, DCS Gibbons left the scene, but for some reason at 10;51am, ( 1 hour and 17 minutes later) he returned to the scene in the company of Inspector Palmer, but both stayed for only 8 minutes (until 10;59am) before leaving again, and that this revisit to the scene by DCS Gibbons coincided with DS Jones and the occupants of a police vehicle (QK) leaving the scene on informatives at the same time - it becomes clear threrefore, that DS Jones knew what took place inside the premises when police carried out a training exercise with the bodies of the victims still in situ, a training exercise which had been ongoing since 9;00am, until 10;59am, same morning - because DS Jones left the scene in the very same vehicle (QK) at 10;59am, containing the group of training officers and DC Henderson (Vehicle that took DC Henderson away from the scene went directly to the house at 10;40am, and left 19 minutes later). DS Jones was taken to Jeremy's cottage in one of the QK vehicles which took part in these training exercises...
DS Jones does not make a witness statement saying what he did at the scene during his first visit to the scene that morning between 9;16am and 10;59am, so what exactly did he do at the scene for one hour and 43 minutes, during his first visit there that date?
-
Ds Jones, then returns to the scene at 11:45am, (46 minutes after leaving with occupants of QK), and stays at the scene until 13;37pm, a periiod of two hours and two minutes (this was whenn he took possession of the four exhibits, SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ2 and the silencer SBJ/1...
-
The two visits to the scene on 7th August 1985, by DS Jones:-
(1) - 9;16am - 10;59am (one hour and fourty three minutes)...
(2) - 11;45am - 13;37pm (two hours and two minutes)...
Jones went to Jeremy's cottage in between the two aforementioned visits to the scene...
-
The two visits to the scene on 7th August 1985, by DS Jones:-
(1) - 9;16am - 10;59am (one hour and fourty three minutes)...
(2) - 11;45am - 13;37pm (two hours and two minutes)...
Jones went to Jeremy's cottage in between the two aforementioned visits to the scene...
None of the duties he performed in connection with the two visits to the scene on 7th August 1985 (above) are recorded in the dodgy pocketbook of DS Jones re-written pocketbook pertaining to the scene that day...
-
More importantly, there is nothing at all recorded in his dodgy pocketbook to say when he took possession of, or found the four exhibits at the scene bearing the identifying marks of SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and the silencer marked SBJ/1...
But what police records confirm is that DS Jones had a camera, and he took photographs at the scene, which were not listed in PC Birds so called MASTER COPY ALBUM containing 223 photographs - Jones took at least two photographs at the scene on 7th August 1985, (1) in the kitchen (SBJ/2) showing the state of the telepjhone on the kktchen worktop, and (2) another photograph which he took of the downstiars toilet (SBJ/3) where Anthony Pargeter normally kept his guns, accessories and silencer...
Interestingly enough, DS Jones is referred to in the above police records as a SOCO, but he was not...
-
More disturbingly, two further silencers found there way into police possession:-
These two additional parker hale silencers are at the heart of the silencer conspiracy, and once Jeremy was convicted of the murders, and before they were returned to David Boutflour, they were handed to a detective sergeant in the fraud office, because police were aware that a number of different silencers had been merged into one for use in helping to decure the convictions for these murders against Jeremy Bamber...
-
Two silencers handed into the police were handed over to a detective sergeant (collar number 162) in the fraud squad before both were handed back to David Boutflour, against signature, on the 20th May 1988, by DCS Ainsley against his signature (Head of the secind investigation). Hand written details on reciept confirm that police suspected that relatives and other police officers sought to merge different silencers into the same one...
-
Two silencers handed into the police were handed over to a detective sergeant (collar number 162) in the fraud squad before both were handed back to David Boutflour, against signature, on the 20th May 1988, by DCS Ainsley against his signature (Head of the secind investigation). Hand written details on reciept confirm that police suspected that relatives and other police officers sought to merge different silencers into the same one...
What details showed police suspected the relatives of anything?!
-
What details showed police suspected the relatives of anything?!
(1) DCI Jones threw relatives out of Witham police station, telling them not to come back trying to tell police how to go about doing their business, (2) police took blood samples from all relatives to eliminate possibilty that blood found in one of the silencers did not originate from anyone of them, (3) silencers owned by relatives and Ralph Bamber got mixed up and this caused police to seize all silencers and bring them all to court, whilst continuing to maintain there had been only one...
-
(1) DCI Jones threw relatives out of Witham police station, telling them not to come back trying to tell police how to go about doing their business, (2) police took blood samples from all relatives to eliminate possibilty that blood found in one of the silencers did not originate from anyone of them, (3) silencers owned by relatives and Ralph Bamber got mixed up and this caused police to seize all silencers and bring them all to court, whilst continuing to maintain there had been only one...
So, the police did a pretty good job eliminating the relatives from any wrong doing? Surely you can't have a conspiracy if they were suspicious of them????
-
So, the police did a pretty good job eliminating the relatives from any wrong doing? Surely you can't have a conspiracy if they were suspicious of them????
Relatives have not been eliminated from involvement in the silencer conspiracy, blood and paint was found inside and upon a silencer belonging to one of them, not inside the Bamber owned silencer - how did blood from Sheila, and paint from the aga find its way onto a silencer owned by one of the relatives?
-
(1) DCI Jones threw relatives out of Witham police station, telling them not to come back trying to tell police how to go about doing their business, (2) police took blood samples from all relatives to eliminate possibilty that blood found in one of the silencers did not originate from anyone of them, (3) silencers owned by relatives and Ralph Bamber got mixed up and this caused police to seize all silencers and bring them all to court, whilst continuing to maintain there had been only one...
Point(1) True Point(2) So, you accept that there was blood in one of the silencers... Point(3) Surely you are arguing against yourself here? They were suspicious so they called in the silencers but when they got them they used them to convict bamber?
-
Point(1) True Point(2) So, you accept that there was blood in one of the silencers... Point(3) Surely you are arguing against yourself here? They were suspicious so they called in the silencers but when they got them they used them to convict bamber?
I accept that by the time a silencer was examined at the lab' by blood expert, John Hayward, on 11th September 1985, that there was a presence of blood inside that particular silencer, but I do not know if it was blood from Sheila, or which originated from one of the other relat ives who had the same blood group activbity as Sheila - I also do not discount the possibility that any such blood found in that silencer at that time could have been, or was, or is, a mixture of different types of blood, from the parents, and rabbits blood, or blood from another animal, or animals. I am not happy with the blood experts explanation about why in his view the blood in that silencer was unqiue to Sheila - he claims that if the blood had been as a result of an intimate mixture of the parents bloods he would have expected to find June bambers AK 2-1 blood enzyme in the mixture of blood from the flake, but he got AK1, which he said makes it blood unique and exclusive to Sheila. The way I see it, and because animals share the same AK1 blood enzyme as that found in humans, and the fact that the lab' confirmed the presence of two lots of anim,als blood on / in that silencer, I think it was / is more likely that the AK1 part of the result originated from an animal, such as a rabbit / rat, or whatever...
Because of this, you can no longer seek to rely upon that part of the argument to justify saying the blood from the flake found inside the silencer originated exclusively from Sheila, because the remaining results (A, EAP BA HP 2-1) does not justify anyone being able to say that with any degree of certainty...
Next, there is no guarantee that the silencer sent to the lab' (SBJ/1, lab' item number 22) on 13th August 1985, and (DB/1, lab' item number 23) was / is the self same silencer which ended up becoming court exhibit 9 during the trial, bearing an identification mark of DRB/1. There is no way of distinguishing one of these silencers from the other simply by looking at the outside of the silencers, there are no serial numbers, it becomes a somewhat difficult task to sepaparte one from the otjher, and so on evening of 12th August 1985, when Peter Eaton handed over a silencer to DS Jones, how did he know to whom that silencer belonged? Not only that but if Peter Eaton handed over the only silencer in the case to the police on 12th August 1985, how come DS Jones took possession of the other silencer (SBJ/1) from the scene on 7th August 1985, along with three other exhibits marked SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4? Furthermore, how could Ann Eaton hand over a silencer to the police on 11th September 1985, and if she did hiow could that silencer which she handed over on that occasion, be the silencer which was already at the lab', where it had been ever since police sent it there on 30th August 1985?
(a) - What happened to the silencer which Ann Eaton handed over to the police on 11th September 1985?
(b) - What happened to the other silencer kept on top of DCI Jones desk at his office at Witham police station?
(c) - What happened to the silencer DI Cook kept in his possession for 17 days that he carried around everywhere?
How is it possible for these three different identical looking parker hale silencers to all be one and the same? To have blood inside them, paint upon them, be at the lab' and not at the lab' at the same time, and with the police producing three different identical looking parker hale silencers at court during the trial, and that there exists three different identifying marks, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, and three different lab' item reference numbers at one time or another, namely 22, 23 and then back to 22 again?
So, I don't really understand how you are trying to make out that I am arguing against myself...