Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on February 13, 2013, 07:08:AM
-
The Big Lie
Prosecutions case was that a sound moderator (silencer) was fitted to the barrel of the anshulz rifle at the time Sheila Caffell was shot under the chin and killed, and that the killer removed it after he had killed her and took it all the way downstairs, to hide / conceal it in the gun cupboard in the downstairs office, before returning back upstairs to stage manage her body to make it appear as though she had taken her own life, after she had killed the others. Prosecution called witnesses to suggest that with the sound moderator fitted to the guns barrel the overall length of the gun would have been too long to allow Sheila to shoot herself even if she had wanted to, and that this in itself proves that she was murdered...
-----------------------
I say:-
Claim that the gun would have been too long with a sound moderator fitted to its barrel to prevent Sheila shooting herself is total and absolute bunkem - tests carried out at Birdwell armoury under scrutiny or working knowlege of Ewen Smith (Now a CCRC Commisioner) prove that length of weapon would not serve to prevent it being used by Sheila to shoot herself under the chin...
The problem connected to this statement of mine, is that according to the police and prosecutions case, no sound moderator was found at the scene by the police, and if this were / ios true, desoite it being possible for Sheila to have technically shot herself under the chin by the gun with a sound moderator fitted, somebody would have needed to unscrew it from the barrel of the gun and conceal it elsewhere in the farmhouse. I do not accept that proposition to be true, since police did seize a sound moderator from the scene that morning under an exhibit reference of SBJ/1. This sound moderator was one of four exhibits seized by DS "Stan" Jones at the scene on the morning of 7th August 1985, the circumstances of which have been covered up, and presented as though its find and seizure on that occasion never took place or occurred, but I can assure everybody that it did...
DS "Stan" Jones, took possession of four exhibits from the scene that particular morning:-
SBJ/1 - sound moderator
SBJ/2
SBJ/3
SBJ/4
-
Sheila could have adopted a leaning forward position whilst standing on her feet, so that the muzzle of the sound moderator was benetah her chin, and her finger could operate the trigger mechanism...
-
However, she did not adopt any of these positions at the time the fatal shot was discharged under her chin, and there was no sound moderator fitted to the barrel of the anshulz rifle at the time she was killed. But a sound moderator was fitted to the barrel of another gun, at the time she was shot in the side of the neck...
-
However, she did not adopt any of these positions at the time the fatal shot was discharged under her chin, and there was no sound moderator fitted to the barrel of the anshulz rifle at the time she was killed. But a sound moderator was fitted to the barrel of another gun, at the time she was shot in the side of the neck...
This was how Sheila Caffells blood could have / did get into the sound moderator - it did not get there at the time she received the shot under the chin, because there wasn't a sound moderator fitted to the barrel of the gun which fired the fatal shot under the chin...
-
That may well be true, but it would seem that it has to be established indirectly by first getting hold of evidence from the forensics lab that proves the police have relied on forensic evidence they knew was false. It might then be possible to get an investigation or court order that would obtain further evidence. Alternatively, some individual involved in the case could become a whistle-blower, but this is a less reliable means.
Edit: I refer above to the lab in the UK used by the original prosecution. The work carried out abroad hasn't helped much.
-
That may well be true, but it would seem that it has to be established indirectly by first getting hold of evidence from the forensics lab that proves the police have relied on forensic evidence they knew was false. It might then be possible to get an investigation or court order that would obtain further evidence. Alternatively, some individual involved in the case could become a whistle-blower, but this is a less reliable means.
Edit: I refer above to the lab in the UK used by the original prosecution. The work carried out abroad hasn't helped much.
What is of concern, is that the original sound moderator which was sent to the lab', on 13th August 1985, appears to not have had a proper signed exhibit label attached to it, before it went to the lab', whilst it was present at the lab', or later when they claimed it had been to the lab', been examined at the lab', before being returned to the family, or the police, to enable relatives to argue that one of them found it, handed it back to police, before police resubmitted it to the lab, yet no exhibit label bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1 has yet to be handed over...
-
We have the signatures of various relatives, the signatures of various police officers, signatures of experts, shared between two exhibit labels, namely, DB/1 and DRB/1, which does not equate or match with the find, retention, and examination at the lab' on 13th August 1985, namely a sound moderator bearing the exhibit mark of SBJ/1. If DS Jones took possession og a sound moderator bring the mark SBJ/1, on 7th August 1985, then of course it could not be the self same sound moderator found later (10th August), by the relatives...
This is because DS Jones had already found and taken possession of that one from as long ago as morning of 7th August 1985...
Linked to this, is the fact that DS Jones seized four exhibits on 7th August 1985, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
-
These pictures mike are in sequence, what is needed is a female of same height and build of Sheila with a safe same rifle, to assimulate the action and in video, the end resting place of the rifle would provide alternative debate.
-
I never understood the purpose of those posings with the rifle. Yes, they prove that Sheila could have shot herself with the sound moderator on; but hey, she couldn´t have shot herself, died, then gotten up, wrapped the silencer up and put it in the cupboard, then stumbled back to where she shot herself.
Bet you´ve heard that before. :P
-
What is of concern, is that the original sound moderator which was sent to the lab', on 13th August 1985, appears to not have had a proper signed exhibit label attached to it, before it went to the lab', whilst it was present at the lab', or later when they claimed it had been to the lab', been examined at the lab', before being returned to the family, or the police, to enable relatives to argue that one of them found it, handed it back to police, before police resubmitted it to the lab, yet no exhibit label bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1 has yet to be handed over...
That would certainly explain the significance of the statement of Anthony Pargeter where he relates that David Boutflour phoned him to tell him that the police had returned the silencer to the relatives.
From a statement by Anthony Pargeter.
“Sometime after the 10 August 1985, I received a telephone call from David Boutflour who is a cousin of mine. He told me the silencer had been returned to the family, presumably by the police. He said there was a large scratch on it, some red paint on the knurled end and what appeared to be blood. I advised David to return it to the police straight away.
A day or two after the funeral I went to the kitchen of the farm because there is red paint around the aga. I noticed scoring on the paint work and it appeared to me that this could be where the paint on the silencer came from. The scoring is on the underside of the mantelpiece at the right hand side.”
What becomes clear from this statement is that David Boutflour fully realised that the silencer he famously found and which was used as evidence to convict Bamber had already been in police possession before being returned to the house.
The expression “presumably by the police” is very telling. It shows clearly that the silencer in question wasn’t given back to Boutflour personally by some lab technician or by some police officer. It is consistent with his having found it and made an elementary deduction. He must have thought something like “Oh, the police have put the silence back in the cupboard. This is very strange!” So he decides to tell Pargeter.
In defence of the relatives, Pargeter’s statement shows that they were not, at that stage, a part of the police conspiracy to manufacture evidence against Jeremy. Pargeter’s statement suggests that Boutflour was somewhat mystified by the find and a little worried. Pargeter advises Boutflour to return it to the police as soon as he can.
On the other hand, it does prove that David Boutflour, to this day, knows that the silencer evidence used to convict Bamber was faked.
Irregularities in the documentation support the view that Bamber was framed by Essex Police.
We have the signatures of various relatives, the signatures of various police officers, signatures of experts, shared between two exhibit labels, namely, DB/1 and DRB/1, which does not equate or match with the find, retention, and examination at the lab' on 13th August 1985, namely a sound moderator bearing the exhibit mark of SBJ/1. If DS Jones took possession of a sound moderator bring the mark SBJ/1, on 7th August 1985, then of course it could not be the self same sound moderator found later (10th August), by the relatives...
This is because DS Jones had already found and taken possession of that one from as long ago as morning of 7th August 1985...
Linked to this, is the fact that DS Jones seized four exhibits on 7th August 1985, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
Bamber’s relatives know that the police returned the silencer to the house for the relatives to “find” it.
They also know that Julie Mugford’s account of Bamber’s alleged confession was a pack of lies. It contains details which Mugford could only have gotten from Ann Eaton.
What must Anne Eaton have thought when it first came to her attention that the description of the murder scene given to her by DC Clarke, where Sheila’s body is said to have been on the bed with a bible on her chest, remarkably turns up in Julie’s story of Bamber’s confession, even though that description conflicts with the official police version of events where Sheila is said to have been found on the floor? So Mick Clarke and Jeremy both told the same false story, which Julie merely passed on from Jeremy in good faith! How absurd!
Bamber’s relatives are fully cognizant of these two facts.
That the silencer evidence was faked
That Julie Mugford’s account of Bamber’s confession was a fabrication.
-
I never understood the purpose of those posings with the rifle. Yes, they prove that Sheila could have shot herself with the sound moderator on; but hey, she couldn´t have shot herself, died, then gotten up, wrapped the silencer up and put it in the cupboard, then stumbled back to where she shot herself.
Bet you´ve heard that before. :P
She didn't, the silencer was not fitted to the guns barrel that fired the fatal shot under the chin - therefore, there was no need for her, or any would be killer to remove the silencer from the guns barrel after they killed her, and for them to take it downstairs to hide it in the gun cupboard, in the downstairs office. It is completely absurd to suggest that Sheila could have done this if as you say she was already dead, and it would be even more absurd for any would be killer to shoot Sheila under the chin with a silencer fitted to the guns barrel, and then to remove it after he had shot her, and conceal it as desccribed - there would be no need to use a silencer when any would be killer was shooting Sheila under the chin, and then remove it after he shot her, he would simply have shot her by use of the gun minus a silencer, surely?
In any event, the killer, or Sheila, made such a good job of using the silencer to help them end Sheila's life, that DS "Stan" Jones, came along that very same day and took possession of a silencer (SBJ/1), so if the silencer was used by either Sheila, or Jeremy, or as the case may be, by any as yet unidentified killer, and DS Jones seized it, and retained it, along with three other exhibits that he took possession of at the scene on the first day of the police invesdtigation...
They didn't do a very good job of hiding or concealing it, because DS Jones found it along with three other exhibits on that first day of the police investigation. Lets get the facts right, DS Jones took possession of that silencer, as part of a batch of four exhibits that day, bearing the identifying marks of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4. Lets go a bit further, for arguments sake, and say that one of these four exhibits was a photoghraph which DS Jones took of the downstairs toilet, and another was a photograph taken by him that morning (7th August 1985) in the kitchen. Now forgive me for being persistant, but I thought PC Bird was the only police officer who took crime scene photographs inside the farmhouse, on that first day? This is getting very interesting, since it appears that PC Bird and DS Jones were now taking pictures at the scene, on the mroning of 7th August 1985...
Now if PC Bird was taking photographs as part of the CID investigation into the incident, who the hell was DS Jones taking photographs for, since officially there is no records that DS Jones took any photographs at the scene that morning at all, other than references to entries in a police property register - so, did DS Jones take photographs and seize a silencer (SBJ/1) from the scene, as part of the Special Branch investigation, into the matter?
How can four exhibits (One of them a silencer) bearing the identifying marks of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, disappear of the evidence radar...
-
What becomes clear from this statement is that David Boutflour fully realised that the silencer he famously found and which was used as evidence to convict Bamber had already been in police possession before being returned to the house.
Pargeter's statement says "He told me the silencer had been returned to the family," not that David told him the silencer had been returned to the house.
-
What appears to have happened, is that two completely separate sound moderators have been merged into one...
-
What appears to have happened, is that two completely separate sound moderators have been merged into one...
On the morning of the shootings, two identical looking Parker Hale sound moderators should have been present at the scene. These were owned by the family and kept in storage at the farm, the one owned by Anthony Pargeter was normally kept by him in the downatairs toilet. The other Bamber family owned silencer, was normally kept in a cupbard in the downstairs office...
We now know that one of these two silencers was missing from the scene at the time of the shootings - Anthony Pargeter had taken his silencer home on the penultimate week-end before the shootings so that only the Bamber family owned silencer was present at the scene. This was kept in its usual place, and at no stage was it fitted to a guns barrel...
-
On the morning of the shootings, two identical looking Parker Hale sound moderators should have been present at the scene. These were owned by the family and kept in storage at the farm, the one owned by Anthony Pargeter was normally kept by him in the downatairs toilet. The other Bamber family owned silencer, was normally kept in a cupbard in the downstairs office...
We now know that one of these two silencers was missing from the scene at the time of the shootings - Anthony Pargeter had taken his silencer home on the penultimate week-end before the shootings so that only the Bamber family owned silencer was present at the scene. This was kept in its usual place, and at no stage was it fitted to a guns barrel...
When Anthony Pargeter originally claimed police had handed the sound moderator back to the family he was trying to conceal for the fact that his sound moderator was not at the scene at the time of the shootings, when it wasn't...
-
Pargeter's statement says "He told me the silencer had been returned to the family," not that David told him the silencer had been returned to the house.
I take your point. You could say that it was Anthony who used the expression “presumably by the police” because he just hadn’t asked how the silencer was returned. It could, it seems, have been returned directly without Boutflour having told Pargeter exactly how and to whom.
But David himself says he found a silencer conforming to that highly specific description with a scratch and blood and paint being mentioned. I am assuming that “returned to the family” means put where they could find it and that Boutflour’s account of how he found the silencer tallies with his phone call to Pargeter. What alternative explanation is there for how it was returned to the relatives. Are you saying that the silencer Boutflour speaks of to Pargeter is not the same one which he said he found in the house?
Whatever the case the description Boutflours gives of it makes it clear that it was the silencer which was used to convict Bamber. How can the conviction be held to be safe if it is admitted that the same description is, absurdly enough, said to apply to two different silencers.
And why would such an important piece of evidence be treated in such a careless and offhand kind of way? The police might just return something not material to the case, but the very item of evidence used to support a murder charge and with no apparent concern with contamination!
Jeremy thinks that the police returned the silencer to the relatives so that it could be used as evidence against him and that the whole business about finding of the silencer was a sham. It’s hard to come to any different conclusion. If there is one then let’s hear it.
-
When Anthony Pargeter originally claimed police had handed the sound moderator back to the family he was trying to conceal for the fact that his sound moderator was not at the scene at the time of the shootings, when it wasn't...
it would appear that Pargeter introduced David Boutflour into the scenario, by making the false claim that David Boutflour allegedly told him that police had given or handed the silencer back to the family - when all along David Boutflour had done no such thing, and the police had not given or handed back any silencer to the family. Just so there is no misunderstanding on anyones part, the Bamber family owned silencer which was normally kept in a cupboard in the downstairs office, had been there in the cupboard throughout the incident, and it had remained there until David Boutflour found it there on 10th August 1985...
-
The silencer found in the cupboard by David Boutflour, waa retained by the family until evening of 12th August 1985, at which stage, Peter Eaton handed it over to DS Jones. This was never given back or returned to the family...
-
That would certainly explain the significance of the statement of Anthony Pargeter where he relates that David Boutflour phoned him to tell him that the police had returned the silencer to the relatives.
What becomes clear from this statement is that David Boutflour fully realised that the silencer he famously found and which was used as evidence to convict Bamber had already been in police possession before being returned to the house.
The expression “presumably by the police” is very telling. It shows clearly that the silencer in question wasn’t given back to Boutflour personally by some lab technician or by some police officer. It is consistent with his having found it and made an elementary deduction. He must have thought something like “Oh, the police have put the silence back in the cupboard. This is very strange!” So he decides to tell Pargeter.
In defence of the relatives, Pargeter’s statement shows that they were not, at that stage, a part of the police conspiracy to manufacture evidence against Jeremy. Pargeter’s statement suggests that Boutflour was somewhat mystified by the find and a little worried. Pargeter advises Boutflour to return it to the police as soon as he can.
On the other hand, it does prove that David Boutflour, to this day, knows that the silencer evidence used to convict Bamber was faked.
Irregularities in the documentation support the view that Bamber was framed by Essex Police.
Bamber’s relatives know that the police returned the silencer to the house for the relatives to “find” it.
They also know that Julie Mugford’s account of Bamber’s alleged confession was a pack of lies. It contains details which Mugford could only have gotten from Ann Eaton.
What must Anne Eaton have thought when it first came to her attention that the description of the murder scene given to her by DC Clarke, where Sheila’s body is said to have been on the bed with a bible on her chest, remarkably turns up in Julie’s story of Bamber’s confession, even though that description conflicts with the official police version of events where Sheila is said to have been found on the floor? So Mick Clarke and Jeremy both told the same false story, which Julie merely passed on from Jeremy in good faith! How absurd!
Bamber’s relatives are fully cognizant of these two facts.
That the silencer evidence was faked
That Julie Mugford’s account of Bamber’s confession was a fabrication.
In case this post should mislead anyone, Mike Tesko has since explained to me that Anthony Pargeter’s account of the phone call from David Boutflour in which David allegedly told him that the silencer with blood and paint on it had been returned to the relatives is a fabrication. Apparently, the truth is that Pargeter made it up.
When Anthony Pargeter originally claimed police had handed the sound moderator back to the family he was trying to conceal for the fact that his sound moderator was not at the scene at the time of the shootings, when it wasn't...
it would appear that Pargeter introduced David Boutflour into the scenario, by making the false claim that David Boutflour allegedly told him that police had given or handed the silencer back to the family - when all along David Boutflour had done no such thing, and the police had not given or handed back any silencer to the family. Just so there is no misunderstanding on anyones part, the Bamber family owned silencer which was normally kept in a cupboard in the downstairs office, had been there in the cupboard throughout the incident, and it had remained there until David Boutflour found it there on 10th August 1985...
-
If Anthony Pargeter made up David's remark, other questions arise, such as whether this can be proved, whether it was planned in conjunction with others, why his account was rather vague, etc.
-
If Anthony Pargeter made up David's remark, other questions arise, such as whether this can be proved, whether it was planned in conjunction with others, why his account was rather vague, etc.
The truth of the matter is, from what I have been able to discover, was that Anthony Pargeters Bruno bolt action rifle, and sound moderator, were not at whf when the shootings took place, although they should have been. At some stage, Essex polioce went to see Anthiony Pargeter to enquire as to the whereabouts of his gun, and sound moderator (this is bourne out by reference in Anthony Pargeters COLP interviews in 1992, and his witness statement which he made to them on that occasion, where he confirms that Essex police came to see him and asked him about his .22 rifle. He told COLP that the police at that time appeared to be examining his gun to see if there was any dasmage caused to it, or to see if there was any evidence that it had been used in the shootings). It must follow that Essex police were suspicious of the disappearance of the Pargeter gun and silencer from the scene just before the shootings occurred. Pargeter told COLP that his gun was not present at whf on the day of the killings because he had taken it home on the penultimate week-end prior to the shootings happening - I am convinced that he showed the police on that occasion his sound moderator, and that police took an interest in this because of the Bamber family owned silencer that another relative had recently handed into the police after its find in the so called gun cupboard at the scene. I have been loooking into the most likeliest occasion when Essex police went along to see Anthony Pargeter about his missing gun and sound moderator (missing from the scene), and I come to the conclusion that this visit and this interest in his gun and silencer, must have taken place after the other relative found the Bamber faminly owned silencer in the cupboard at the scene, and it had been handed it over to the police, on evening of 12th August 1985; and the day of a submission of a sound moderator (under the exhibit mark of DB/1) to the lab' on 30th August 1985...
I think there are strong grounds for believing that the silencer (DB/1) sent to the lab' by Essex police for examination, on 30th August 1985, relates to the Anthony Pargeter sound moderator, not the Bamber family owned one. I do not believe that the Bamber family owned Parker Hale sound moderator went to the lab' to be examined, by Glynis Howard, on 13th August 1985. I believe that this particular sound moderator did not get sent to the lab' until around or upon 25th September 1985, under an exhibit reference of DRB/1 - it was sent there to be checked for blood and fibres from a tampon, according to the lab' records...
This brings me on, to the identity of the sound moderator (SBJ/1) sent to the lab', on 13th August 1985 - it was neither the Bamber family owned silencer, nor the Anthony Pargeter one. It belonged to the police and was fitted to the barrel of the gun which fired the non fatal shot to the side of Sheila's neck during a struggle between PS Woodcock and Sheila Caffell, as he was squeezing through a small gap in the door which led into the kitchen, to which the officers report (1612), and the missing pages from PS Woodcocks 15 page witness statement, refer...
Here is a brief breakdown of the three sound moderators, involved in this investigation:-
(1) - SBJ/1 (Lab' item number 22) - police owned this sound moderator, it got sent to the lab' on 13th Augist 1985 (fact)
(2) - DB/1 (Lab' item number 23) - Anthony Pargeter sound moderator, it got sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985 (fact)
(3) - DRB/1 (Lab' item number 23 / 22) - BAMBER FAMILY OWNED SOUND MODERATOR, it got sent to the lab' on 25th September 1985 (fact)
Finally for now, I would just like to say that although Anthony Pargeter tlold COLP that his gun and sound moderator were not present at the scene at the time of the shootings, this contradicts what he said in his witness statement that he made to Essex police as part of their investigation back in 1985, since on that occasion he told the police that although he kept his rifle, silencer, and ammunition at whf (downstiars toilet), he told them that he always removed the bolt from his rifle and took that home with him so that no-one else could fire it in his absence - this contradicts what Pargeter told COLP in his 1992 interviews and witness statement, where he tells them that he took his rifle and silencer home on the penultimate week-end p[rior to the shootings...
I think that these were / are the underlying circumstances behind why Anthony Pargeter may have made up the story about being told by David Boutflour that police had given the silencer back to the family...
Something else whuch may fit in with this, is that when David Boutflour was interviewed by COLP in 1992, he was asked about the comments (aforementioned, by Anthony Pargeter), and David Boutflour gave a different sort of explanation for what could have been meant by what Pargeter was talking about - for example, David Boutflour spoke of the fact that when he found the Bamber family owned sound moderator in the gun cupboard at the scene on 10th August 1985, the family at first thought the police had missed finding it, or that if they had found it that they had left it there in the cupboard where it remained until he took possession of it later on. So, in this sense, the family thought that police had wrongly given it back to the family, wrong because they observed some red srticky stuff on the ned of it, whuch they thought might have been, or could be blood...
-
I have finally been able to reconstruct what took place involving all three of these separate sound moderators or silencers, belionging to the police, Anthony Pargeter, and the Bamber family. All three were eventually merged together as being one and the same silencer, by adopting administrative measures, where exhibit references for one or more of these different sound moderators, were altered into one of the other exhibit references, in a sequence of events whuich basically altered the orignal silencer (police) exhibit reference of SBJ/1, into the second silencer (Anthony Pargeters) exhibit reference DB/1, and lastly changed into silencer (Bamber family) exbhibit DRB/1vidence is all there in dopcumentary paper trail, which allows anyone who is remotely interested in finding out the truth in these matters, can go along and reconstruct what the police and the relatives did, in effectively framing Jeremy Bamber for these murders...
Basically put, it is now possible to prove that the silencer / sound moderator evidence is exposed as nothing more than a sham, involving the police, relatives and experts. I can now finally put the finger of guilt upon all those who have done what they did, regarding the introduction of this silencer / sound moderator evidence. It really is a terrible, awful scandal, which somebody is going to have to pay dearly for, involving loss of liberty...
All those involved in fabricating this evidence should all be ashamed of themselves...
-
I am going to let you all in on a little secret, the crucial flake of blood (which produced results, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) was not and could not have been found inside the Bamber family owned (DRB/1) sound moderator / silencer, because that particualr silencer was not sent to the lab' for the first time until 25th September 1985, and therefore, the ballistic expert at the lab' could not have found it trapped between the baffle plates of the Bamber family owned silencer, any time sooner than that...
The flake was supoposedly found inside one of the silencers at the lab' on and by 12th September 1985, well of course this excludes the silencer in question being the Bamber family ownd one, found in the cuopboard at the scene by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985, and must surely point an accusing finger in the direction of the only sound moderator at the lab' at that time, being the Anthiny Pargeter sound moderator (DB/1), or the crucial flake could have been retrieved earlier from the police silencer (SBJ/1) - but because the Bamber family owned silencer did not get sent to the lab; until 25th September 1985, the crucial blood group activity which linked it to the death of Sheila Caffell, for all the reasons relied upon at trial, at the subsequent appeals, and until now, it means that then Bamber family owned silencer / sound moderator was not involved or used in the shootings at all, and therefiore the courts have been deliberately decieved into convicting Jeremy Bamber for these murders...
I now know what needs to be done to bring this matter to a successfull conclusion, I am buzzing, I'm on a roll, I would like to thank my informants for all the information they have been providing me with for all these years, without your help the truth about what took place, could never have been discovered, I thank you for finding the courage to speak to someone like me, about it...
It's now time to take action, and get the show on the road, so to speak, at long last there is light at the end of the tunnel, it is starting to grow and become a brilliant flame, that I feel is about to destroy the case that was wrongly brought against Jeremy Bamber...
"cometh the hour, cometh the man", that time is now...
-
http://[u][/u]Things you need to know.
(1) - crucial blood flake was not found inside Bamber family owned silencer, because it was not sent to the lab', for the the first time, until 25th September 1985. This is significant since the flake which produced the crucial blood group evidence, A, EAP, AK/1 and HP2-1, was found in one of the other silencers, by 12th September 1985, and examined by the blood expert and his assistants, between 12th and 20th September 1985 - which was between one and two weeks beforehand...
What this proves is that Sheila"s blood was not found inside the sound moderator found in the gun cupboard by David Boutflour...
-
http://[u][/u]Things you need to know.
(1) - crucial blood flake was not found inside Bamber family owned silencer, because it was not sent to the lab', for the the first time, until 25th September 1985. This is significant since the flake which produced the crucial blood group evidence, A, EAP, AK/1 and HP2-1, was found in one of the other silencers, by 12th September 1985, and examined by the blood expert and his assistants, between 12th and 20th September 1985 - which was between one and two weeks beforehand...
What this proves is that Sheila"s blood was not found inside the sound moderator found in the gun cupboard by David Boutflour...
(2) - neither David Boutflour, or any other relative, refers to the sound moderator found in the cupboard by its exhibit reference...
If the sound moderator found by the relatives had been the same one sent to the lab on 13th August 1985, it would have been referred to by them, as exhibit SBJ/1, but non of the relatives refer to any exhibit reference at all, when making thier witness statements, whilst testifying during the trial, or during thier respective COLP interviews, which is odd considering that thier signatures appear on an exhibit label bearing the exhibit reference of (to be updated later)...
-
Three different sound moderators were sent to be examined at Huntingdon Lab', on three separate occasions, yet the identity of the third sound moderator sent to the lab', on the last occasion (25th September 1985) was conspicously disguised, since no exhibit reference accompanied this particular sound moderator to the Lab' on that occasion...
Three dates a different sound moderator were sent to the Lab':-
(1) - Exhibit mark, SBJ/1 (lab' item number 22) - sent to the lab' at Huntingdon on 13th August 1985...
(2) - Exhibit mark, DB/1 (lab' item number 23) - sent tom the lab' at Huntingdon on 30th August 1985...
(3) - Exhibit mark, (unidentified) - sent to the lab' at Huntingdon on 25th September 1985...
-
Three different sound moderators were sent to be examined at Huntingdon Lab', on three separate occasions, yet the identity of the third sound moderator sent to the lab', on the last occasion (25th September 1985) was conspicously disguised, since no exhibit reference accompanied this particular sound moderator to the Lab' on that occasion...
Three dates a different sound moderator were sent to the Lab':-
(1) - Exhibit mark, SBJ/1 (lab' item number 22) - sent to the lab' at Huntingdon on 13th August 1985...
(2) - Exhibit mark, DB/1 (lab' item number 23) - sent tom the lab' at Huntingdon on 30th August 1985...
(3) - Exhibit mark, (unidentified) - sent to the lab' at Huntingdon on 25th September 1985...
We have a copy of the lab' record pertaining to the submission of the third sound moderator which police sent to the lab', on 25th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, but no-one wants to identify which sound moderator this one was? We also know that this particular sound moderator could not have been the one marked, DB/1 because that sound moderator had been sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and therefore that sound moderator was not in police possession as of 25th September 1985, to enable the police to send it to the lab', because that one was already at the lab'...
So...
What those representing Jeremy Bambers interests must now do, is pull out all the stops to try and find out everything they possibly can about the silencer police sent to the lab' on 25th September 1985 - where it came from, who found it, what exhibit mark it was given, who transported it to the lab, what lab' item number it was given upon arrival at the lab', who examined it, what were the findings of that / those examinations, and what happened to that sound moderator afterwards?
Official records show that on 13th Septembner 1985, this particular sound moderator was examined for fingerprimnts, by DS Eastwood, and DS Davidson...
-
We have a copy of the lab' record pertaining to the submission of the third sound moderator which police sent to the lab', on 25th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, but no-one wants to identify which sound moderator this one was? We also know that this particular sound moderator could not have been the one marked, DB/1 because that sound moderator had been sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and therefore that sound moderator was not in police possession as of 25th September 1985, to enable the police to send it to the lab', because that one was already at the lab'...
So...
What those representing Jeremy Bambers interests must now do, is pull out all the stops to try and find out everything they possibly can about the silencer police sent to the lab' on 25th September 1985 - where it came from, who found it, what exhibit mark it was given, who transported it to the lab, what lab' item number it was given upon arrival at the lab', who examined it, what were the findings of that / those examinations, and what happened to that sound moderator afterwards?
Official records show that on 13th Septembner 1985, this particular sound moderator was examined for fingerprimnts, by DS Eastwood, and DS Davidson...
DS Eastwood and DS Davidson, knew that the silencer they examined for fingerprints on 13th September 1985, was the one which PC WHIDDON had taken from DCI "Taff" Jones desk at Witham police station earlier, reference to which an informant contacted Ewen Smith about. Ewen went to meet the informant (David) in London and was told all about the significance of this on that occasion...
From what I was told or led to believe, this was the sound moderator (DRB/1) which ended up becomeing the key exhibit in the prosecutions case against Jeremy at his tril, and since - what is very interesting, however, is that if the sound moderator DRB/1, was the silencer kept on DCI Jones desk at Witham police station, it could not have been the same sound moderator sent to the lab' on 13th or 30th August 1985, and it is from this starting point that the case should now be approached from...
Let us not forget that Ewen Smith is now a CCRC Commissioner, and he knows all about this particualr silencer and that DS Eastwood and DS Davidson handled it on 13th September 1985, before it was sent to the lab' at Huntingdon on 25th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres...
If that / this sound moderator is DRB/1, then it opens up a can of worms, and the case against Bamber collapses...
-
Officially identifying that / this sound moderator and finding out everything about it, should be a key priority for Bambers legal team and anyone who supports his campaign...
If we crack this, Bamber has to be freed, no doubt about it...
-
Regarding Pargeter's information about what David told him, are you saying he simply misunderstood David? If the police hadn't given a silencer back to the family in the way Pargeter was suggesting, they would have known Pargeter had got it wrong, wouldn't they? In that case, why would they have let him leave his statement like that? It could have been questioned in court.
Regarding, your latest silencer theory, based on information from informers, one should use the physical evidence to reach the conclusion, preferably in combination with a statement from at least one informer. Without such means, it would be hard to revisit the silencer issue, as the 2002 appeal has already dealt with it. The CCRC insist on new evidence or new legal argument, not just a new theory.
-
Officially identifying that / this sound moderator and finding out everything about it, should be a key priority for Bambers legal team and anyone who supports his campaign...
If we crack this, Bamber has to be freed, no doubt about it...
Here is confirmation that a sound moderator was submitted to the Lab' to be checked for blood and fibres in late September 1985 - but where did Essex police obtain the silencer from?
-
Bambers legal team need to pursue the sound moderator referred to in this official police action report...
-
These are the interesting and significant facts, as far as the sound moderator mentioned in this action report, are / is concerned:-
-
Comments made by trial Judge, Mr Justice Hunt, after I had been convicted at Sheffield Crown Court, September, 1988:-
"The picture I have of you, is of a highly intelligent, cunning, resourceful, and elusive crook"...
With these comments in mind, directed at me in the full gaze of the public and media at large, no-one should be left in any doubt that those who are responsible for managing and implementing the Criminal justice system, the investigation and detection of crime, the arresting of, and interviewing of, and charging of individuals for this or that crime, and the management of exhibits in each case, that the authorities and all its agencies of the state, would do well not to try and pull the wool over my eyes, because I am not a dope, I am a thinker, I know when something sounds right or wrong, and the more those on the other side try to say that this is what happened, or that is what happened, the more determined it makes me want to expose what they are saying as nothing but a sham, a pack of lies, and morally wrong...
With this in mind, I would like to invite anyone who is remotely interested in the truth in the so called Bamber case, to consider how it was possible, for Essex police to still have possession of the sound moderator by 13th September 1985, to enable DS Davidson (SOC) and DS Eastwood, to be in possession of it, if as we have been told the sound moderator had been sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, under an identifying mark of DB/1, Lab' item number 23, upon which was eventually found red paint from the aga?
-
30th August 1985
Sound moderator (DB/1 - Lab' reference, 23) sent to Huntingdon Lab', to be examined by the ballistic expert - the examination took place on 11th September 1985, and the crucial flake of b lood which produced the blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1...
-
30th August 1985
Sound moderator (DB/1 - Lab' reference, 23) sent to Huntingdon Lab', to be examined by the ballistic expert - the examination took place on 11th September 1985, and the crucial flake of b lood which produced the blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1...
So, with one silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) already at the lab' from 30th August 1985, which sound moderator did Essex police still have possession of, to warrent the Operations manager (OM) to instigate an action to be carried out on this other Sound moderator, that was examined by DS Davidson and DS Eastwood, ( for fingerprints) on 13th September 1985, and for it to subsequently sent to the lab' on 25th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres...
-
So, with one silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) already at the lab' from 30th August 1985, which sound moderator did Essex police still have possession of, to warrent the Operations manager (OM) to instigate an action to be carried out on this other Sound moderator, that was examined by DS Davidson and DS Eastwood, ( for fingerprints) on 13th September 1985, and for it to subsequently sent to the lab' on 25th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres...
We can learn a lot by studying the content of this action report, number 181...
Since this action report originated from the cases Operations Manager, it should by obvious that one of the very first things which Jeremy Bambers Legal Team (JBLT) need to do, is to identify who that Operations Manager was / is?
What next?
-
We can learn a lot by studying the content of this action report, number 181...
Since this action report originated from the cases Operations Manager, it should by obvious that one of the very first things which Jeremy Bambers Legal Team (JBLT) need to do, is to identify who that Operations Manager was / is?
What next?
"Where did the Operations manager get this particular sound moderator from"?
What next?
-
"Where did the Operations manager get this particular sound moderator from"?
What next?
"Find out who found this sound moderator, where it was found, and when"...
What next?
-
Mike ive saw a you tube video you may be familiar with.its a documentary by philip boyes.he fires the weapon in to pig skin.with and without. The silencer then says look at the marks with the sillencer and then says the sillencer could not have been used.look at the photos of sheila the bullet wound without to much blood it. Looks as if. The sillencer has been used because the. outer circle wich represents the outside rim of the muzzle is far larger than the bullet hole.look and tell me what you think mike .
-
Mike ive saw a you tube video you may be familiar with.its a documentary by philip boyes.he fires the weapon in to pig skin.with and without. The silencer then says look at the marks with the sillencer and then says the sillencer could not have been used.look at the photos of sheila the bullet wound without to much blood it. Looks as if. The sillencer has been used because the. outer circle wich represents the outside rim of the muzzle is far larger than the bullet hole.look and tell me what you think mike .
-
"Find out who found this sound moderator, where it was found, and when"...
What next?
"Who took possession of this sound moderator after its find or seizure, identify the police officer who first came into possession of it"...
What Next?
-
Mike ive saw a you tube video you may be familiar with.its a documentary by philip boyes.he fires the weapon in to pig skin.with and without. The silencer then says look at the marks with the sillencer and then says the sillencer could not have been used.look at the photos of sheila the bullet wound without to much blood it. Looks as if. The sillencer has been used because the. outer circle wich represents the outside rim of the muzzle is far larger than the bullet hole.look and tell me what you think mike .
Mark around lower entry wound on Sheila's neck is consistent with the end of a sound moderator coming into contact with the surface of her throat at the time this non fatal wound was inflicted, at laest in my opinion:-
-
"Who took possession of this sound moderator after its find or seizure, identify the police officer who first came into possession of it"...
What Next?
"Once police took possession of this sound moderator, where was it stored, and was an official record made of it falling into the possession of Essex police, as part of the on going investigation, into the five deaths, at whf"...
What next?
-
So now you are saying that the moderator was used on one wound and not the other mike.so what your saying is that she shot herself .then took the moderator of then cleaned it.and put it away then shot herself again.is that what your saying?
-
There are three blood splots and two wounds mike.is the top one a wound or just blood wich has gathered at that spot.and wich wound was the fatal wound mike the top one or the bottom one?
-
"Once police took possession of this sound moderator, where was it stored, and was an official record made of it falling into the possession of Essex police, as part of the on going investigation, into the five deaths, at whf"...
What next?
"Establish whether or not, this was the very same sound moderator, kept by DCI "Taff" Jones, on his desk, at Witham police station"...
What next?
-
And another thing mike the house was searched from top to bottom for three days why easnt the sillencer found.and what do u need a sillencer for on a farm.those things are what hitmen use.but im not going to open that old chesenut lil.
-
"Establish whether or not, this was the very same sound moderator, kept by DCI "Taff" Jones, on his desk, at Witham police station"...
What next?
"Obtain a copy of DCI Jones report on the sound moderator (currently withheld, or not yet disclosed), to confirm why he retained it on his desk, rather than have it placed in general storage in the police propert store"...What Next?
-
I know essex police messed it all up and there is the photos proving rigor had not set in.but there clearly was a silencer usedd.maybe the cops took it away never recorded it got it all mixed up.then relised they had to get more evidence and frame him for something he did do.
-
Mike can you get back to me pls?
-
I know essex police messed it all up and there is the photos proving rigor had not set in.but there clearly was a silencer usedd.maybe the cops took it away never recorded it got it all mixed up.then relised they had to get more evidence and frame him for something he did do.
Yes, I will go along with your account that a sound moderator (silencer) was used in the shooting of Sheila to the side of her neck, but there is no additional evidence to prove, or show that a sound moderator was used on the gun which fired any of the other 24 bullet wounds, to Sheila and the other victims, it was staff at Birdwell Armoury and myself (2004) who identified the mark around the lower non fatal entry wound on Sheila's neck, as having been made by a sound moderator, although Jeremy and others suggest that a silencer did not make this mark, I disagree with that view, I think a silencer was fitted to the end of the guns barrel which fired the non fatal shot across Sheila's neck...
-
Mike what happened next .she took the silencer of whilst in grate pain and washed it and put it away and why if she was going to kill herself whith the next round mike?
-
I know essex police messed it all up and there is the photos proving rigor had not set in.but there clearly was a silencer usedd.maybe the cops took it away never recorded it got it all mixed up.then relised they had to get more evidence and frame him for something he did do.
Police seized a sound moderator (SBJ/1 - lab' item number 22) from the scene, on the morning of 7th August 1985, albeit they are denying having done so. I will give my reasons for saying I know police took possession of a silencer from the scene on that occasion - DS "Stan" Jones attended the scene on the morning of 7th August 1985, arriving there along with DCI "Taff" Jones, at about 9:10am. Upon arrival and soon afterwards, DCI Jones asked DS Jones to accompany Jeremy back to his home address and obtain a witness statement from him. DS Jones then left the scene in the company of DC Clark and Jeremy and went to his cottage at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, but once the first witness statement had been taken from Jeremy, DS Jones returned to the scene at whf, and carried out certain duties, which included the taking of photographs of the downstairs toilet, and the main kitchen. In addition, DS Jones took possesion of two items for evidential purposes, one item being a sound moderator (SBJ/1). In total, DS Jones took possession of four exhibits that morning, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, all the details of which (with the exception of the silencer, SBJ/1) were recorded in the original police major incident register...
Once the nature of the police investigation changed after about a month, from an investigation into four murders and a suicide, into one of five murders, police created another edited version of the original major incident register, exclusing any reference to any of the exhibuits seized from the scene by DS Jones, on the morning of 7th August 1985. This ommission appears to have been a deliberate attempt to conceal for the fact that DS Jones took possession of a silencer (SBJ/1) from the scene at the beginning of the investigation, so that the case for the silencer found by relatrives three days later to beciome incorporated into the case evidence...
-
Mike what happened next .she took the silencer of whilst in grate pain and washed it and put it away and why if she was going to kill herself whith the next round mike?
She did not shoot herself with a silencer fitted to the guns barrel...
-
Jeremy and his experts dispute that a sound moderator (silencer) was used at all in the shootings, although I think they are all wrong...
-
bigdave silencers are used on farms for shooting rabbits as the loud shot would frighten every other rabbit off around the whole field whereas with the silencer fitted this would not happen. Kill more rabbits this way :(
-
So now you are saying that the moderator was used on one wound and not the other mike.so what your saying is that she shot herself .then took the moderator of then cleaned it.and put it away then shot herself again.is that what your saying?
I am not saying Sheila shot herself once with the silencer fitted to the guns barrel, and then she took it off and wiped it clean, before putting it away - although what I am saying is that one of the two wounds on her neck, was inflicted by use of a silencer, and the other one was not...
-
Can I say I am a but confused, but on saying that I have not read everything on this thread. I will go with what the expert said when he did his examination on the contact wounds to Sheila and, that it was in his opinion that a silencer was not fitted when Sheila was shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeLsEeE0zTI
Are you guys saying that a silencer was fitted on the first wound to Sheila....I don't think the silencer was ever fitted...but that is my opinion. :) :) :) :) :)
-
Mike if a sillencer was used.jeremy has to be the culprit.sheila if she did shoot herself with the first shot.would have been in to much pain.and the first shot would not have killed her but she would not have lasted long.mike.your telling me she shot herself once then took the silencer of put it away then went upstairs and shot herself.come on mike lol.
-
Patti the expert are saying this only about the fatal shot both shots were not fatal.and at least one shot were a silencer was used patti.
-
Hi Patti
I am somewhat confused if a silencer was used who would have hid it at the back of the very deep gun cupboard had it been Jeremy he would have cleaned it first had it been Sheila she would have just left it in situ when she removed it from the rifle. :(
-
Mike if a sillencer was used.jeremy has to be the culprit.sheila if she did shoot herself with the first shot.would have been in to much pain.and the first shot would not have killed her but she would not have lasted long.mike.your telling me she shot herself once then took the silencer of put it away then went upstairs and shot herself.come on mike lol.
It's quite feasible that Sheila had removed the silencer downstairs as she'd have found it a bit cumbersome to use. Besides the fact that it lengthened the rifle somewhat,,it wouldn't have felt that it was having the desired effect as far as directness went. I'd feel myself,,that there was less definition in using a silencer,,,particularly at the close quarters for which it was used.
-
I know whoever did is a clutz.the killer would have taken the sillencer with him.another thing i know jeremy had taken a lie detector test.i wonder what julie mugfords test results would look like.i think if jeremies willing to take one so should the rest.
-
I would definately say the silencer wasvused at some point.
-
Hi Patti
I am somewhat confused if a silencer was used who would have hid it at the back of the very deep gun cupboard had it been Jeremy he would have cleaned it first had it been Sheila she would have just left it in situ when she removed it from the rifle. :(
I agree Susan....There is absolutely not one shred of evidence that Sheila shot herself with the silencer then put it back in a cupboard or placed it anywhere else for that matter. If one had been used it would be in situ like you say. In my opinion, she was shot and died where she was found. :) :) :) :)
-
Anyway got to go out yo my pals 40th tonight need to get ready hes picking me up at 7pm.
-
I know patti but the fact that one shot was fired with the silencer and the other without.if she didnt put away.eere did it go.unless jones took it away maybe thats why his statements are being witheld.
-
Mike if a sillencer was used.jeremy has to be the culprit.sheila if she did shoot herself with the first shot.would have been in to much pain.and the first shot would not have killed her but she would not have lasted long.mike.your telling me she shot herself once then took the silencer of put it away then went upstairs and shot herself.come on mike lol.
No, I am not saying that at all...
You are taking the approach which Ewen Smith decided to take once we identified the mark (beginning of 2004) around the lower entry wound on Sheila's neck, which corresponded with the dimensions of the end of the silncers end cap. Once we drew his attention to the mark, he simply said, "well, thats it then, Jeremy must be guilty"...
Of course, when I drew the evidence of the mark to Jeremys attention he was dismissive of it, saying that the end of a sound moderator had not caused that mark, he was trying to put it down to impact bruising whuch occurred in the flesh after Sheila had been shot in that part of her neck...
At that time, I could see whay ewen Smith (now a CCRC Commisioner) took the view he was taking, and why Jeremy was reacting as he did, but the point I was hoping to make to eiother of them, was that it was a possibility that for some reason or another the sound moderator had become deatched from the gun, inbetween the two shots being fired into Sheila's throat? What I meant at that time, was that a silencer could have been used when she was shot in the side of the neck, but one was not fitted to the gun whuch fired the fatal shot under the chin. Of course, if this was true, it would require the silencer in question to have been found at the scene. It would explain how Sheila's blood could have got into the silencer before she was shiot fatally under the chin, and demonstrate that there would have been no need for anyone to remove the silencer from the gun after Sheila was killed by the shot under the chin - which could only mean that Sheila was murdered, not that she committed suicide?
My argument at that time (2004) was that it was possible for Sheila's blood to have got inside the silencer when she was shot non fatally in the side of the neck, and that by the time the fatal shot under the chin had been inflicted by whoever, and because there was no silencer fitted to the gun which fired the fatal shot under the chin, it must follow that Sheila could have non fatally shot herself with a silencer fitted to the gun which fired that (PV/20) shot, and explain hiw her blood got in to the silencer, without involvement of anyone else...
-
Hello lookout
do you think that Sheila would have gone to all the trouble of hiding it deep in the back of the gun cupboard her mind would be not thinking like that. It was found well out of sight in this deep cupboard by one of the rellies. Unless of course that was not the silencer used at all but another one found by the police and taken away with other evidence. Makes one wonder ???
-
bigdave be good and if you can't be good be careful and don't lock yourself out again ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello lookout
do you think that Sheila would have gone to all the trouble of hiding it deep in the back of the gun cupboard her mind would be not thinking like that. It was found well out of sight in this deep cupboard by one of the rellies. Unless of course that was not the silencer used at all but another one found by the police and taken away with other evidence. Makes one wonder ???
Because it's difficult to judge,or even hazard a guess,Susan,,is how it is alleged that Sheilas blood was inside it without her touching it. The only other way of course is that she chucked it on the floor and someone else had picked it up and thrown it in the cupboard. That way,,wherever it landed in the kitchen,then her blood and also Nevilles' would have naturally been on it.
As you said,,,it might not have even been the same silencer. It certainly needs some thought,,,but it's still not enough to charge anyone with murder though. It's ludicrous.
-
Hi Patti
I am somewhat confused if a silencer was used who would have hid it at the back of the very deep gun cupboard had it been Jeremy he would have cleaned it first had it been Sheila she would have just left it in situ when she removed it from the rifle. :(
Do not be confused, that is what the people who put the case together to convict Jeremy Bamber, want everyone to be, look at the well defined circular mark around the lower entry wound, it has a diameter of one inch, the same measurement, as the end of a silencers end cap. The line around the circumference of this mark is too well defined for it to have been caused by impaxct bruising to the surface of the skin as a result of being shot by an unsilenced gun, a silencer pressed into the skin at the time this non fatal shot was fired caused this mark to show up as it has done, it confirms that a silencer was used when Sheila was initailly shot to the side of the neck, a similar mark is missing from around the shot under the chin which was also supposed to be a contact shot...
If you press a silencer into the skin it leaves a corresponding mark - if you are not killed as a result of this shot, the mark might show up as a bruise, but if the shot kills you, it might not. What I am saying is that because this particular shot did not kill Sheila, the mark upon the surface of the skin around the non fatal entry wound started to develop as a bruise. The bruising occurs because the heart is still beating and pumping blood around the body, trying to repair the damaged areas or parts, but if life is brought to an end there is insufficent time for bruising to develop...
-
I would definately say the silencer wasvused at some point.
Where do you get that from?
-
Hi lookout
I have had it from good authority that the silencer was found at the very back of a very deep cupboard could not have just been thrown there and indeed was it Sheila's blood in the silencer. I wonder. So many strange events in this case to say the least if it was not so serious it would be funny and a total farce >:(
-
Did you not hear the story of ann eaton taking away a pair of .sheilas panties soaked with sheilasmenstual blood in the boot of her car.autopsy pictures.taken prove she had no underwear on.wich could have ment cross contamination of the silencer.and you have to ask she was wearing a nightie and no panties.on her menstrual week strange.
-
bigdave be good and if you can't be good be careful and don't lock yourself out again ;D ;D ;D
In my opinion, he is technically right, a silencer was used on the gun which fired the non fatal shot to the side of the neck, but there was not a silencer fitted to the gun, which fired the shot under the chin -
I cannot find any fault with what he is saying in general, at the moment, about the use of a silencer for one of the shots, and no use of a silencer when the second shot was fired under the chin, and he is entilted to his opinion, like the rest of us...
-
Hi Mike
do you think the silencer which was found days later by one of the relatives was used during these shootings. If so who hid it in the cupboard.
-
bigdave not strange at all just because you are having a monthly cycle does not mean you have to wear panties all the time if she had a shower and put on a clean nightie why would she wear panties.
-
Hi lookout
I have had it from good authority that the silencer was found at the very back of a very deep cupboard could not have just been thrown there and indeed was it Sheila's blood in the silencer. I wonder. So many strange events in this case to say the least if it was not so serious it would be funny and a total farce >:(
Hi Susan, I think you are being confused by the story put forward that the only silencer in the case was the one found by David Boutflour, on 10th Aughust 1985. What I would invite you to consider, is this - if the silencer found in the gun cupboard by David Boutflour, is the only silencer involved in this investigation, since why does DS "Stan" Jones, take possession of four exhibits from the scene on 7th August 1985, bearing the identification marks of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 (details of which are recorded in the major incident register), and how could Essex police still have a silencer in their possession, by 13th September 1985, to enable DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood, to fingerprint it, and for the case Operations manager, to implement an action report (181), to send a silencer to the lab' on 25th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, if the only sound moderator (DB/1) in the case, was supposedly already sent to the lab' on, and by, 30th August 1985?
There was obviously more than one silencer found at the scene, not just the one referred to, or mentioned by police relatives and exopefrts at the lab'...
-
Hi Mike
do you think the silencer which was found days later by one of the relatives was used during these shootings. If so who hid it in the cupboard.
Hi Susan,
No, I am with Jeremy on this point, I do not believe that the Bamber family owned silencer (DRB/1) found in the gun cupboard at the scene by David Boutflour, on 10th August 1985, was used in any of the shootings that night. Nobody hid it in the gun cupboard, and no-one removed it from the gun which fired the fatal shot under Sheila's chin, I honestly believe its introduction is nothing but a red herring...
-
The use of the silencer only figured in the investigation after the relatives found it in the gun cupboard.
-
Hi Mike thanks for that. I do get confused with all these silencers and I always thought the silencer hidden in the cupboard and found by DB was the one that helped to convict poor Jeremy Bamber as Sheila's blood was found inside it and that proved she could not have shot herself. Have I got this all wrong. Nothing straight forward with this case.
-
The use of the silencer only figured in the investigation after the relatives found it in the gun cupboard.
Hi Lugg,
I agree, a silencer (DRB/1) only figured in this criminal investigation (SC/786/85) once the relatives found the Bamber family owned one in the gun cupboard, on 10th August 1985, although I have to say that a silencer (SBJ/1) was subject of an internal police investigation beforehand because of the circumstances relating to how Sheila died inside whf after the raid team went in...
-
Hi Lugg
if this silencer was found at the back of this very deep gun cupboard wonder what DB was looking for when he accidently found it. Strange very strange.
-
Mike you keep repeating yourself.
-
Another thing why did they give her cpr.if she was dead unless they checked for a puls.
-
bigdave thought you were going out on the town ;D ;D ;D
-
I am im waiting on my freind going to pick me up.
-
Another thing why did they give her cpr.if she was dead unless they checked for a puls.
Sheila wouldn't have been dead if CPR was attempted. She may well have spluttered if blood was trickling down the back of her throat,,,and that's when the police acted if they heard her,,albeit possibly too late at that stage as it was just a final reflex of choking.
-
I dont want to go out but its my grainds birthday.
-
Hi bigdave thought it was your mates 40th birthday. Bet you rather stay here with us and have some fun ;) ;) ;)
-
Hi Mike thanks for that. I do get confused with all these silencers and I always thought the silencer hidden in the cupboard and found by DB was the one that helped to convict poor Jeremy Bamber as Sheila's blood was found inside it and that proved she could not have shot herself. Have I got this all wrong. Nothing straight forward with this case.
Hi Susan,
I agree that the silencer issue is very confusing, it is for this very reason that the prosecutiing authoritites, and its witnesses, have been able to pull the wool over everbodies eyes...
To clarify matters, allow me to suggest to you, and everyone else, to take the following approach:-
There are three different silencers involved in these investigations (SC/688/85 and SC/786/85), each one has its own unique exhibit reference, of SBJ/1 (22), DB/1(23) and DRB/1(23/22). Lets deal with the first of these three silencers (SBJ/1 (22) found at the scene by DS Jones on 7th August 1985. This silencer was owned by Essex police, it was fitted to a police issue weapon that was used by a Special branch officer, PS Woodcock, when he entered the kitchen inside the premises, at which stage there was an altercation between himself and Sheila, and she ended getting shot in the side of the neck by PS Woodcocks weapon. DS Jones was requested to re-attend the scene from Jeremy's cottage to collect this (SBJ/1) silencer because it was required for the forthcoming inrternal police investigation into Sheila's death, at the hands of police. As part of this internal police investigation, this silencer (SBJ/1) was sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, to be examined by expert Glyinis Howard, before being returned to the police. Lab' records confirm that this particular silencer (SBJ/1 - lab' item number 22) was sent to the lab' and given back to police (never to surface again, as part of the official Bamber prosecution), so forget about this silencer for now, it played no further role in the case that was brought against Jeremy, other than documents at the lab', and elsewhere, were altered to make it appear that there was, and only ever had been only the one silencer...
Next...
Lets deal now with the silencer (DB/1) owned by Anthony Pargeter...
This silencer (DB/1) was supposed to heve been kept at the scene by Pargeter, in a downstairs toilet along with his guns and other firearms accessories. But on the penultimate week-end before the shootings occurred, he took it and his .22 bolt action Bruno rifle home with him, so that it was not present at the scene when the shootings took place. Essex police went along to see Anthony Pargeter soon afterwards and questioned him about the whereabouts of his gun and silencer, on the 7th August 1985. The police examined his Bruno rifle for damage to see if it could have been used in the shootings, and they took away his silencer (DB/1). This was the silencer which on 30th August 1985, was sent by police along to the Lab' at Huntingdon, inside which the crucial flake of blood bearing the blood group activity, A EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1 was later discovered. This silencer (DB/1 - lab' item number 23) remained at the lab' until the trial which did not take place until October 1986). Now forget this for a moment...
Next...
On 10th August 1985, relatives attend the farmhouse and David Boutflour finds the silencer (DRB/1) in the gun cupboard, in the downstairs office. Police collect it, and it ends up being retained by DCI "Taff" Jones and kept on his desk at Witham police station. It was treated in this way because DCI Jones thought the relatives were trying to frame Jeremy for the murders. DCI Jones had thrown the relatives out of the police station telling them not to come back trying to tell the police how to go about thier business. This silencer (DRB/1) remained on DCI Jones desk at Witham police station, until after the nature of the investigation (from SC/688/85 to SC/786/85) changed, at the beginning of September 1985. This is the silencer (DRB/1) which PC Whiddon, DS Eastwood, and DS Davidson, got involved with, and which got sent to the lab' on 25th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres...
Next...
In order to stand any chance of succeeding in prosecuting Jeremy Bamber form these murders, all three silencers were adminstratively referred to as one and the same silencer (SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1), all official records were altered accordingly, to meet this proposition...
-
Mike, are you still of the opinion that Sheila didnt kill herself; and that her body was staged managed?
-
Mike, are you still of the opinion that Sheila didnt kill herself; and that her body was staged managed?
Hi Andrea,
Yes, although Jeremy disagrees with me on this point...
-
Thanks for that Mike.
-
Hi Mike
Thank you so much for explaining all that to me as half of it is news to me. I will sit now and digest it all as it is very complicated indeed but thank you so much for all the information. Much appreciated.
-
Hi Lugg
if this silencer was found at the back of this very deep gun cupboard wonder what DB was looking for when he accidently found it. Strange very strange.
Susan, what I'm getting at is that if one of Sheila's wounds were made with the silencer on, then it is more than likely that the silencer found in the gun cupboard belonged to the murder weapon. If that was so then there is more than a good chance that JB did it?
-
Hi Lugg
if that was the case Jeremy would have cleaned the silencer before shoving to the back of the gun cupboard.
-
Mike, are you still of the opinion that Sheila didnt kill herself; and that her body was staged managed?
Mike, I've been through, several times, the information you've given us, and try as I might to get away from the thought, every time I come back to the same opinion, which is that Woodcock was holding the gun against Sheila's neck when the trigger was pulled. Is this how it happened or have I misread you and made a horrible mistake, for which my apologies in advance.
-
Susan, what I'm getting at is that if one of Sheila's wounds were made with the silencer on, then it is more than likely that the silencer found in the gun cupboard belonged to the murder weapon. If that was so then there is more than a good chance that JB did it?
Lugg,,would you think that Jeremy just killed Sheila and not the others.?
-
Clearly, mike tesko is suggesting that Pc Woodcock was the first person to shoot Sheila. He hasn't offered a satisfactory explanation of why. If Sheila was unarmed, there was no need to shoot her in the throat. If she was armed, the most prudent action would have been to withdraw immediately, as Sheila could have been shot through the window if necessary. A third possibility is that Sheila tried to seize Pc Woodcock's rifle, but this would have been difficult if she was also armed. Perhaps Pc Woodcock simply acted somewhat irrationally in the heat of the moment. Until Pc Woodcock's original statements come to light, we probably won't know exactly why. Separately, mike tesko has suggested that the fatal shot that killed Sheila occurred accidentally, although there seems to be no evidence for this other than the word of an informant. No police officer has been named as being directly responsible for this accidental fatal shot.
If the above is roughly correct, we now need to explain why the police were so interested in other silencers, and especially how the jury were convinced that another silencer was used on that night. Was a silencer deliberately contaminated or purely accidentally or was the forensic evidence simply presented in a deliberately poor and misleading way? Also, we've yet to be given a coherent explanation of two strange facts: (1) the pathologist thought that some of the bullet entry wounds were appreciably larger than would be expected for .22 ammunition, and (2) bullet weights recorded at the lab suggest that at least two kinds of ammunition were used.
It's been suggested that the silencer was pressed against Sheila's neck when she was first shot. The only evidence for this is the circular appearance of marking around the lower wound. However, this marking is very slight, and suggests light contact or very close vicinity rather than contact involving significant pressure. I'd be interested to know whether the tests conducted in America considered and included these possibilities. If Sheila briefly scuffled with Pc Woodcock, no physical evidence has been mentioned that seems to correspond specifically to this scuffle.
I'm slightly surprised by references to the gun cupboard as being "very deep". The cupboard was under the rear stairs, so its depth was a bit less than the width of those stairs, not particularly deep. There was nothing to suggest the silencer was hidden; it was not loose, so it would not have been found unless a thorough search was made of the cupboard, and clearly the police didn't do that or they would have found a silencer there. Apparently, they were simply looking for the weapons that they had been told were usually kept in the farmhouse.
-
Something else whuch may fit in with this, is that when David Boutflour was interviewed by COLP in 1992, he was asked about the comments (aforementioned, by Anthony Pargeter), and David Boutflour gave a different sort of explanation for what could have been meant by what Pargeter was talking about - for example, David Boutflour spoke of the fact that when he found the Bamber family owned sound moderator in the gun cupboard at the scene on 10th August 1985, the family at first thought the police had missed finding it, or that if they had found it that they had left it there in the cupboard where it remained until he took possession of it later on. So, in this sense, the family thought that police had wrongly given it back to the family, wrong because they observed some red srticky stuff on the ned of it, whuch they thought might have been, or could be blood...
But Mike, according to Anthony Pargeter, David Boutflour told him that the silencer had paint on it. From a pro guilt point of view, there is an explanation of how paint from the aga surround had gotten onto the silencer, and it is held to be damning evidence of Bamber’s guilt. On the other hand, if you are convinced that Jeremy is innocent, the paint on the silencer indicates evidence tampering and nothing less.
From a statement by Anthony Pargeter.
“Sometime after the 10 August 1985, I received a telephone call from David Boutflour who is a cousin of mine. He told me the silencer had been returned to the family, presumably by the police. He said there was a large scratch on it, some red paint on the knurled end and what appeared to be blood. I advised David to return it to the police straight away.
How could the silencer David Boutflour found have paint on it if it had never left that cupboard since before the murders. If it had paint on it, somebody must have removed it from the cupboard to scratch the aga with it and then put it back-possibly with further contamination added.
Could it be that Pargeter was telling the truth in his statement and that David Boutflour tried to explain it away as based on a misunderstanding.
On the other hand if Pargeter lied, he would have lied knowing full well that his lies could easily be exposed merely by checking with Boutflour.
Could something like this have happened?
David Boutflour finds the silencer and assumes that the police have returned it-perhaps he had looked in that cupboard previously without having seen it, so he thinks “The police must have been here and put it back.” He notices the scratch, the paint and what appeared to blood. He doesn’t know what is going on. The police have not, as yet, explained to him their purpose in returning it. So he phones Anthony Pargeter, hence Pargeter’s statement.
Later, however, Pargeter’s statement becomes a serious embarrassment, just like Ann Eaton’s admission that a police officer told her that Sheila's body was found on the bed with a bible on her chest. Pargeter, just like Ann Eaton, had let the cat out of the bag, so David Boutflour, now fully aware of the part played by the silencer he found in the prosecution’s case against Jeremy, has to think of something to say and therefore maintains that there was a slight misunderstanding between him and Pargeter. He didn’t really mean to say that the police had returned the silencer, but only that he thought that they had just left it there, possibly by mistake.
Pargeter’s statement, it seems, remains problematical.
If he’s telling the truth, then Boutflour did, indeed, notice paint on the silencer. If the silencer had remained in the cupboard since before the murders and no policeman had taken it from there, how did paint from the aga get onto it?
If Pargeter had made it all up, he would know that if Boutflour were questioned, as he surely would be he, Pargeter, would be exposed as having lied and that his friend would be none too pleased about being misrepresented. Apart from that, he could be charged with perverting the course of justice.
A misunderstanding can’t explain the highly detailed description of the silencer with paint on it allegedly given by Boutflour in the phonecall.
-
But Mike, according to Anthony Pargeter, David Boutflour told him that the silencer had paint on it. From a pro guilt point of view, there is an explanation of how paint from the aga surround had gotten onto the silencer, and it is held to be damning evidence of Bamber’s guilt. On the other hand, if you are convinced that Jeremy is innocent, the paint on the silencer indicates evidence tampering and nothing less.
How could the silencer David Boutflour found have paint on it if it had never left that cupboard since before the murders. If it had paint on it, somebody must have removed it from the cupboard to scratch the aga with it and then put it back-possibly with further contamination added.
Could it be that Pargeter was telling the truth in his statement and that David Boutflour tried to explain it away as based on a misunderstanding.
On the other hand if Pargeter lied, he would have lied knowing full well that his lies could easily be exposed merely by checking with Boutflour.
Could something like this have happened?
David Boutflour finds the silencer and assumes that the police have returned it-perhaps he had looked in that cupboard previously without having seen it, so he thinks “The police must have been here and put it back.” He notices the scratch, the paint and what appeared to blood. He doesn’t know what is going on. The police have not, as yet, explained to him their purpose in returning it. So he phones Anthony Pargeter, hence Pargeter’s statement.
Later, however, Pargeter’s statement becomes a serious embarrassment, just like Ann Eaton’s admission that a police officer told her that Sheila's body was found on the bed with a bible on her chest. Pargeter, just like Ann Eaton, had let the cat out of the bag, so David Boutflour, now fully aware of the part played by the silencer he found in the prosecution’s case against Jeremy, has to think of something to say and therefore maintains that there was a slight misunderstanding between him and Pargeter. He didn’t really mean to say that the police had returned the silencer, but only that he thought that they had just left it there, possibly by mistake.
Pargeter’s statement, it seems, remains problematical.
If he’s telling the truth, then Boutflour did, indeed, notice paint on the silencer. If the silencer had remained in the cupboard since before the murders and no policeman had taken it from there, how did paint from the aga get onto it?
If Pargeter had made it all up, he would know that if Boutflour were questioned, as he surely would be he, Pargeter, would be exposed as having lied and that his friend would be none too pleased about being misrepresented. Apart from that, he could be charged with perverting the course of justice.
A misunderstanding can’t explain the highly detailed description of the silencer with paint on it allegedly given by Boutflour in the phonecall.
Amazing. Succinct. But it doesn't explain how Sheila caused so much damage, shot her entire family, then laid down and shot herself. then found a last bullet, and shot herself again. When she was comatose.
With a throat full of blood.
-
There was only one silencer. Just the one, Mike. Found at the back of the cupboard. You know it, we all know it. And only one phone call. Bamber, blaming Sheila.
-
That's called wishful thinking, shonapugs. Even the original jury didn't all know it, as they didn't all vote guilty. Taff Jones didn't know it, and he was in charge of the investigation! Keep on telling blatant lies, though, as that reassures us a lot that you're reduced to posting plain nonsense.
-
That's called wishful thinking, shonapugs. Even the original jury didn't all know it, as they didn't all vote guilty. Taff Jones didn't know it, and he was in charge of the investigation! Keep on telling blatant lies, though, as that reassures us a lot that you're reduced to posting plain nonsense.
Tch. You should be called RUDER!!
-
No offence intended. I notice that you don't deny what I stated about the jury and Taff Jones.
-
No offence intended. I notice that you don't deny what I stated about the jury and Taff Jones.
I could, Rudy, if I could be arsed....but what's the point? Everyone on this forum thinks that Bamber is a twinkley-eyed scamp, and the rest of the world knows that he is a murderer. Sorry, a bit radical, but true, nontheless. Your posts are cool and interesting, though. I must go, if Roch catches me on here, he'll spank me. Again.
-
Definitely not everyone on this forum, as I don't.
-
But Mike, according to Anthony Pargeter, David Boutflour told him that the silencer had paint on it. From a pro guilt point of view, there is an explanation of how paint from the aga surround had gotten onto the silencer, and it is held to be damning evidence of Bamber’s guilt. On the other hand, if you are convinced that Jeremy is innocent, the paint on the silencer indicates evidence tampering and nothing less.
How could the silencer David Boutflour found have paint on it if it had never left that cupboard since before the murders. If it had paint on it, somebody must have removed it from the cupboard to scratch the aga with it and then put it back-possibly with further contamination added.
I do not believe that red paint from the aga was found on the sound moderator (DRB/1) found in the gun cupboard, it is much more likely that paint from the aga, (if any paint at all was present on a sound moderator) was present on the silencer (DB/1) owned by Anthony Pargeter. You see, nobody knows when David Boutflour is supposed to have mentioned to Anthony Pargeter, that paint had been found on the sound moderator, of if by that stage police had shown David Boutflour the sound moderator (DB/1) taken from Anthony Pargeter, and that Boutflour mistook the silencer (DB/1) he was being shown, as the one (DRB/1) Boutflour found earlier? It is very interesting that paint was not first noticed on the end of the sound moderator at the lab', until after the second submission of a silencer to the lab' on 30th August 1985. Lets get the facts right, not one police officer, or any expert says anything about seeing any paint on the end of silencer (DB/1) before or until that second silencer arrived at the lab' on 30th August 1985. David Boutflour, himself, did not make a witness statement mentioning the presence of paint on the silencer (DRB/1) he found, until after that date...
There is no evidence at all, to prove there was any paint on the end of the silencer (DRB/1) David Boutflour found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, until after the second silencer (DB/1) arrived at the lab', on 30th August 1985 - if any such evidence exists, then please point me in its direction, so that I may comment upon it...
-
I do not believe that red paint from the aga was found on the sound moderator (DRB/1) found in the gun cupboard, it is much more likely that paint from the aga, (if any paint at all was present on a sound moderator) was present on the silencer (DB/1) owned by Anthony Pargeter. You see, nobody knows when David Boutflour is supposed to have mentioned to Anthony Pargeter, that paint had been found on the sound moderator, of if by that stage police had shown David Boutflour the sound moderator (DB/1) taken from Anthony Pargeter, and that Boutflour mistook the silencer (DB/1) he was being shown, as the one (DRB/1) Boutflour found earlier? It is very interesting that paint was not first noticed on the end of the sound moderator at the lab', until after the second submission of a silencer to the lab' on 30th August 1985. Lets get the facts right, not one police officer, or any expert says anything about seeing any paint on the end of silencer (DB/1) before or until that second silencer arrived at the lab' on 30th August 1985. David Boutflour, himself, did not make a witness statement mentioning the presence of paint on the silencer (DRB/1) he found, until after that date...
There is no evidence at all, to prove there was any paint on the end of the silencer (DRB/1) David Boutflour found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, until after the second silencer (DB/1) arrived at the lab', on 30th August 1985 - if any such evidence exists, then please point me in its direction, so that I may comment upon it...
It is also very significant to note, that it was not until the 11th September 1985, that David Boutflour first contacted the police by telephone, to report to them that he had found a silencer in the cupboard at the scene a month earlier...
By that stage, (do not forget) a silencer (DB/1) had already been sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, so it is odd, or a racing certainty, that Anthony Pargeter and David Boutflour had been in touch with one another concerning the interest shown in the Pargeter silencer by the police, before David Boutflour decided to contact the police by telephone on 11th September 1985, to report the find of the silencer a month previously (10th August 1985) - so here lies a truth conundrum for everyone to think about...
-
I find it strange that nobody questioned each other about the " findings ". Wouldn't the police find it odd that something like that wasn't found during investigation.? Then the relatives questioning why these things were " overlooked ". It's iffy if you ask me. A very convenient afterthought after much discussion.!
-
I'm slightly surprised by references to the gun cupboard as being "very deep". The cupboard was under the rear stairs, so its depth was a bit less than the width of those stairs, not particularly deep. There was nothing to suggest the silencer was hidden; it was not loose, so it would not have been found unless a thorough search was made of the cupboard, and clearly the police didn't do that or they would have found a silencer there. Apparently, they were simply looking for the weapons that they had been told were usually kept in the farmhouse.
That's correct, although the cupboard continues under the first four treads of the stair (to the right), so the depth may relate to that and the awkwardness of retrieving items from the back due to the diminishing head height.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3350.0;attach=23291;image)
-
Morning Reader I only post on the forum what I consider to be facts told to me by one who knows about the cupboard. Maybe I did not word it correctly but it would seem anything at the back of the cupboard would not be obvious at first glance. But I am sure Yeltrah has explained it better than I did. ;D
-
Maybe the cops should have carried torches.?
-
Hi lookout I was under the impression DB found this silencer days after the shootings. From what I was told it would not be obvious at first.
-
Since David Boutflour did not contact Essex police about the find of the silencer (DRB/1) in the cupboard at the scene on 10th August 1985, until 11th September 1985, it beggars belief that the two sound moderators sent to the lab' prior to the 11th September 1985, namely, SBJ/1 (lab' item number 22), sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and DB/1 (lab' item number 23), sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, could be the same silencer he was referring to, in his call to the police on the 11th September 1985 - how can a silencer (DRB/1) which David Boutflour did not report to Essex police until 11th September 1985, be sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985 (SBJ/1 - lab' item number 22), and 30th August 1985 (DB/1 - lab' item number 23), to be examined by experts, Howard and Fletcher, on those occasiones, I am sorry but if this is what happened, I cannot accept that any evidence obtained from the examination of a silencer, on or after each of those occasions (13th and 30th August 1985) can seriously be treated as legitimate evidence, since the integrity of the silencer, sent to the lab' on those occasions (before 11th September 1985) is well and truly compromised...
-
Hi lookout I was under the impression DB found this silencer days after the shootings. From what I was told it would not be obvious at first.
Susan,,,I still find it strange that the police didn't look thoroughly,,yet the rellies knew where to look.?
-
Since David Boutflour did not contact Essex police about the find of the silencer (DRB/1) in the cupboard at the scene on 10th August 1985, until 11th September 1985, it beggars belief that the two sound moderators sent to the lab' prior to the 11th September 1985, namely, SBJ/1 (lab' item number 22), sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and DB/1 (lab' item number 23), sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, could be the same silencer he was referring to, in his call to the police on the 11th September 1985 - how can a silencer (DRB/1) which David Boutflour did not report to Essex police until 11th September 1985, be sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985 (SBJ/1 - lab' item number 22), and 30th August 1985 (DB/1 - lab' item number 23), to be examined by experts, Howard and Fletcher, on those occasiones, I am sorry but if this is what happened, I cannot accept that any evidence obtained from the examination of a silencer, on or after each of those occasions (13th and 30th August 1985) can seriously be treated as legitimate evidence, since the integrity of the silencer, sent to the lab' on those occasions (before 11th September 1985) is well and truly compromised...
If any of this is true, then surely everyone can see that Jeremy Bamber has been stitched up for these five murders, by a reliance upon dodgy paint, and blood evidence, linked to one of three dodgy silencers, sent to the lab', before the person who allegedly finds it, reports to Essex police that he found it (a month after he found it)...
-
Lookout maybe the police did not look but the relatives knew where these things were kept along with ammunition. I have just stopped wondering ;D I become more confused daily.
-
How dodgy is that?
-
We don't seem to know much detail about the contents of the gun cupboard, but presumably Jeremy knows more about what was kept there and where.
-
We don't seem to know much detail about the contents of the gun cupboard, but presumably Jeremy knows more about what was kept there and where.
Am I right in thinking the silencer had only been bought quite recently and if so what happened to the silencer it replaced? or did they not bother with a silencer before they purchased this one?
-
Not only that / this...
But just imagine, if it was the same silencer found by Boutflour on 10th August 1985, sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, (SBJ/1 - lab' item number 22), and or sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985. (DB/1 - lab' item number 23), it still does not explain why Essex police still had possession of another silencer by 13th September 1985, so that DS Eastwood, and DS Davidson, could fingerprint it on 13th September 1985, or why Essex police should then be in possession of the silencer (DRB/1) to enable them to send it to the lab' on 25th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres?
You can't send a silencer to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres on 25th September 1985, if that same silencer has already been sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, albeit under a deifferent exhibit reference (DB/1 - lab' item number 23), and then rely upon the blood group results obtained from the examination of it afterwards - and by the time the case comes to trial (October 1986) it is being referred to by a completely different exhibt reference (DRB/1 - lab' item number 22)?
How the hell could a jury, or a court of law, allow such evidence to be used by the prosecution, to help convict Jeremy Bamber for these murders...
It's a scandal, and brings the Criminal Justice system into disrepute - it portrays the legal system as corrupted, and all those who work and operate under its badge as criminals ( or as I might say, scumbags)...
-
We don't seem to know much detail about the contents of the gun cupboard, but presumably Jeremy knows more about what was kept there and where.
I assume you mean the 'usual' contents of the cupboard and their location? :-\
It seems clear that the 'usual' place for the sound moderator and nikko sight to be, was attached to the rifle.
Out of curiosity, what details would you have liked to know? Presumably not the colour of the dart board.
-
Am I right in thinking the silencer had only been bought quite recently and if so what happened to the silencer it replaced? or did they not bother with a silencer before they purchased this one?
The rifle and the sound moderator were purchased at the same time.
-
The rifle and the sound moderator were purchased at the same time.
Oh of course Hartley, I remember now ;D
-
Oh of course Hartley, I remember now ;D
They were purchased on 24th November 1984.
-
David Boutflour did not report the finding of silencer in the cupboard at whf, until 11th September 1985, how is it possible for the same silencer to be submitted to the lab' on 13th August 1985, 30th August 1985, and 25th Seprtember 1985?
-
David Boutflour did not report the finding of silencer in the cupboard at whf, until 11th September 1985, how is it possible for the same silencer to be submitted to the lab' on 13th August 1985, 30th August 1985, and 25th Seprtember 1985?
Essex police, the DPP, CPS, CCRC and all those who think Bamber is guilty, based on the silencer, paint and blood evidence obtained from it, are basically takingt the PISS...
-
Essex police, the DPP, CPS, CCRC and all those who think Bamber is guilty, based on the silencer, paint and blood evidence obtained from it, are basically takingt the PISS...
Every one of you is a WANKER, who is talking complete and utter garbage - you are all fucking idiots...
-
Every one of you is a WANKER, who is talking complete and utter garbage - you are all fucking idiots...
Awww,aye,Mike. I do my best, and also appreciate what you've done and still do.
-
For Mikes own sake, is there any chance a mod can tidy up his couple of posts above? :P
-
They were purchased on 24th November 1984.
So the Bambers didn't have a .22 sporting rifle before that date?
-
So the Bambers didn't have a .22 sporting rifle before that date?
Not that I'm aware of. There was a .22 air rifle though.
-
Is Re-building the silencer with another one is classed as tempering with evidence? which Ron Cook did?
If the photo of the Bamber Rifle with the silencer was taken before the silencer was sent to the lab, then this is contamination the blood on the treading of the rifle is then passed to the silencer threads?
-
Awww,aye,Mike. I do my best, and also appreciate what you've done and still do.
I think he's talking to those who think Bamber is guilty? The only trouble is that most who have been commenting on his posts are those who think he's innocent. So it seems he is talking about ALL of us? ::)
-
Not that I'm aware of. There was a .22 air rifle though.
Whose idea was it to buy the rifle?
-
For Mikes own sake, is there any chance a mod can tidy up his couple of posts above? :P
Fuck off back to the relatives...
How can the silencer which David Boutflour does not report as having found in the cupboard at whf until 11th September 1985, have been sent to the lab' beforehand, on 13th and 30th August 1985? Stop trying to be clever, you surely must know the silencer evidence is dodgy and corrupted...
-
Is Re-building the silencer with another one is classed as tempering with evidence? which Ron Cook did?
If the photo of the Bamber Rifle with the silencer was taken before the silencer was sent to the lab, then this is contamination the blood on the treading of the rifle is then passed to the silencer threads?
Are you sure that he did? Do you know what document is being used to support this?
-
Bambers convictions have to be quashed - dodgy silencer, blood and paint evidence, is now exposed as nothing short of a scam...
-
how can someone go back in time? :-\ falsified evidence! and shouldn't have any legal standing!
-
Whose idea was it to buy the rifle?
No idea.
-
No idea.
I read somewhere that Jeremy wanted to buy it? I just wondered what use Ralph would have for it, as he had shotguns. Most farmers did I think?
-
Was there any chickens on the farm? often airguns are used in ratting within confined spaces and don't damage wooden pens. unlike a 12bore! but again an air gun was a toy back then!
-
I read somewhere that Jeremy wanted to buy it? I just wondered what use Ralph would have for it, as he had shotguns. Most farmers did I think?
Pest control? :-\ Again, no idea really. :-\
-
Bambers convictions have to be quashed - dodgy silencer, blood and paint evidence, is now exposed as nothing short of a scam...
OK, thick twats, how could Essex police still have the silencer on 13th September 1985, to enable DS Eastwood and DS Davidson to fingerprint it, if there was only one silencer, and to enable Essex police to send it to the lab' on 25th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, if the same silencer in question, had already been sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985?
Er...
are you completely thick, or what?
-
I would actually like to see the man. Until you actually meet someone,,you can neither judge, nor form any sort of an opinion of them. One day perhaps.
-
OK, thick twats, how could Essex police still have the silencer on 13th September 1985, to enable DS Eastwood and DS Davidson to fingerprint it, if there was only one silencer, and to enable Essex police to send it to the lab' on 25th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, if the same silencer in question, had already been sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985?
Er...
are you completely thick, or what?
1. it was never sent to the lab on the 30th of August?
2. there was more then one silencer? one being sent to the Lab on the 30th of august, and this magic silencer found downstairs by David Boutflour on the 11th of sept? and this silencer was used to frame jeremy!
-
The criminal justice system in the UK is a joke, it's a game...
-
OK, thick twats, . . . send it to the lab' on 25th September 1985, to be checked for blood and fibres, . . .
You have a good point and so it's hardly surprising that those who think Jeremy was responsible for killing his family haven't provided a good answer. However, it doesn't seem necessary to let your feelings boil over, resulting in the use of crude invective against (apparently) all and sundry. Also, the document you posted recently is dated 26th September rather than 25th September. I understand you may not trust the document (because of information from your informants), but it seems to be the best we can do for the present.
-
The criminal justice system in the UK is a joke, it's a game...
Mike I'm fully aware that our justice system stinks.
-
Mike I'm fully aware that our justice system stinks.
Ron Cook moved Shelia's arm for bird to take a photo of the blood on Shelia? If Ron Cook said he put the Rifle on Sheila again and her arms were limp and floppy and move off the rifle? The Prove she didn't have rigor mortis is in the photo shows fresh blood and fresh looking. :)
The others had rigor mortis when they died at 3:00AM! so this means Shelia couldn't of died at 3:00AM She must of died approx 7:00am or 8:00am? and the police held back Shelia's body until it was sent to be examined at 3:00PM were rigor mortis would of been present!
If this was fixed then the silencer is fixed! the Witness statements were tampered with and most didn't even write their own!
I believe Ron Cook and others Lied and deceived others on what really happened by changing events and wordings!
-
Ron Cook moved Shelia's arm for bird to take a photo of the blood on Shelia? If Ron Cook said he put the Rifle on Sheila again and her arms were limp and floppy and move off the rifle? The Prove she didn't have rigor mortis is in the photo shows fresh blood and fresh looking. :)
The others had rigor mortis when they died at 3:00AM! so this means Shelia couldn't of died at 3:00AM She must of died approx 7:00am or 8:00am? and the police held back Shelia's body until it was sent to be examined at 3:00PM were rigor mortis would of been present!
If this was fixed then the silencer is fixed! the Witness statements were tampered with and most didn't even write their own!
I believe Ron Cook and others Lied and deceived others on what really happened by changing events and wordings!
That's right,PB,,,you can't move a dead persons' limbs to " suit the scene "if they're in RM. Impossible.!
-
The criminal justice system in the UK is a joke, it's a game...
theres more than just the criminal justice system thats a joke here in the UK
-
What the hell is a package builder.
-
What the hell is a package builder.
What the hell is BIG dave 1975
-
What the hell is a package builder.
Someone who builds packages. Obviously ::) ;D
-
Hi bigdave packagebuilder is one of the best on this forum and a very good friend of mine and is a great character. People have usernames on forums that do not relate to anything they are or do. I can assure you he does not build packages and is a very clever young man ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi bigdave packagebuilder is one of the best on this forum and a very good friend of mine and is a great character. People have usernames on forums that do not relate to anything they are or do. I can assure you he does not build packages and is a very clever young man ;D ;D ;D
:) :) :) thanx susan :P
-
Hi bigdave packagebuilder is one of the best on this forum and a very good friend of mine and is a great character. People have usernames on forums that do not relate to anything they are or do. I can assure you he does not build packages and is a very clever young man ;D ;D ;D
More than what can be said for " bigdave " I notice. >:(
-
More than what can be said for " bigdave " I notice. >:(
Big Dave builds packages? ???
-
What the hell is BIG dave 1975
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
What the hell is a package builder.
Someone who makes bespoke items such as particular software packages built to meet the requirements of a particular company or individual could indeed be called a Package Builder!!
-
packagebuilder :-* :-* :-*
-
Someone who makes bespoke items such as particular software packages built to meet the requirements of a particular company or individual could indeed be called a Package Builder!!
Correct!! RM Community Connect 3, has an default account called Packagebuilder!! :) it has Admin privileges and is used to make packages of software tools for easy installation!
This account packagebuilder has a default password of "changeme" :) :) But my account here is another password obviously
-
Hi Guys told you packagebuilder was a clever young man ;D ;) ;)
-
Caroline you are very clever as well ;D ;D ;D Hope Alfie is well.
-
awww thanks Susan! :) :) :) I think everyone is drifted off topic. ;) ;)
-
packagebuilder don't worry I am always going off topic and get a row but they just love me anyway ;D ;D ;D and usually follow me ;) ;) ;)
-
I dont unberstand what you are saying.why is a question so offensive.oh i never sais package builder was stupid at all.just because i play football doesnt mean i am stupid either.
-
I wonder how Mike feel when it goes off topic! I bet he thinks it be easier to teach children the case! ;D ;D ;D
-
And i am quite inteligent myself.and before you say it about getting locked out .my key got snapped in the lock.
-
Hi PB Mike will shout bring on the MODS to sort this lot out trouble is they are as bad as us ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi bigdave I am sure you are very intelligent too. We don't think any the less of you because you locked yourself out can happen to the best of us ;D ;D ;D not your fault you had an inferior key ;)
-
I am actually having a bit of a laughing fit here.... 8)
-
Silencer which got sent to lab', on 13th August 1985, had an exhibit reference of SBJ/1, and a lab' reference number of 22. The next time a silencer got sent to the lab', on 30th August 1985, it had an exhibit mark of DB/1, and a lab' reference number of 23. Finally, a silencer which police sent to the lab', on 25th September 1985, had no exhibit mark, and no lab' item reference number, but it is very strongly suspected of ending up with the exhibit reference of DRB/1, and a lab' item number of 22, which was presented to the court during the trial, as court exhibit number 9...
Once Jeremy was convicted, police returned the other two silencers back to the relatives...
-
What the hell is BIG dave 1975
A Scottish Big Mac? ;D Sorry, couldn't resist that play on terms. ::)
-
Silencer which got sent to lab', on 13th August 1985, had an exhibit reference of SBJ/1, and a lab' reference number of 22. The next time a silencer got sent to the lab', on 30th August 1985, it had an exhibit mark of DB/1, and a lab' reference number of 23. Finally, a silencer which police sent to the lab', on 25th September 1985, had no exhibit mark, and no lab' item reference number, but it is very strongly suspected of ending up with the exhibit reference of DRB/1, and a lab' item number of 22, which was presented to the court during the trial, as court exhibit number 9...
Once Jeremy was convicted, police returned the other two silencers back to the relatives...
One of these three silencers belonged to the police / special branch...
-
One of these three silencers belonged to the police / special branch...
One silencer belonged to Special Branch...
One silencer belonged to the Bamber family...
One silencer belonged to Anthony Pargeter...
-
One silencer belonged to Special Branch...
One silencer belonged to the Bamber family...
One silencer belonged to Anthony Pargeter...
One silencer belonged to Special Branch...
This silencer was fitted to the guns barrel which fired the non fatal shot (the priginal fragmented bullet PV/20) to the side of Sheila's neck, it had the original exhibit reference of SBJ/1, and a lab' reference number of 22. It was a central exhibit in an internal police investigation held into how Sheila Caffell died at the scene, after police entered the premises (whf)...
-
Mike what did sheila do with the silencer after she shot herself?
-
One silencer belonged to Special Branch...
One silencer belonged to the Bamber family...
One silencer belonged to Anthony Pargeter...
One silencer belonged to Anthony Pargeter...
This silencer was owned by Anthony Pargeter, he purchased it in 1980, along with his .22 Bruno bolt action rifle. It was normally kept at whf in the downstairs toilet. However, on the penultimate week-end before the shootings occurred, he took it and his .22 rifle home with him, so that it was not at the farmhouse when the police entered the premises. Essex police visited Pargeter at his home and examined his .22 bolt action rifle, and took away his silencer (DB/1). The reason why Essex police visited Anthiony Pargeter to look at his firearm and accessory, was because David Boutflour had brought them to the attention of the police. This was the silencer which was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, under an exhibit reference of DB/1, and a lab' item number of 23. It was inside this silencer that the crucial flake of blood which produced the blood group results, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1, was discovered by the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, on 11th September 1985...
-
Mike what did sheila do with the silencer after she shot herself?
She did not shoot herself, in my opinion...
-
One silencer belonged to Special Branch...
One silencer belonged to the Bamber family...
One silencer belonged to Anthony Pargeter...
One silencer belonged to the Bamber family...
This silencer was found by David Boutflour in the cupboard in the downstairs office at the scene on 10th August 1985. It was handed into the police and brought to the attention of DCI "Taff" Jones, who was suspicious that the relatives were trying to pin the murders on Jeremy so that they would benefit from the wills of the Bamber parents. He threw the relatives out of the police station on one occasion when they arrived there to speak to him, and were trying to tell DCI Jones how to conduct his investigation. The silencer they found was never put into police storage because of the doubt hanging over the relatives and it. DCI Jones decided to keep this silencer on his desk in his office at Witham police station, where it remained until after the nature of the investigation changed into a full scale murder investigation under a crime scene reference of SC/786/85. Along came PC Whiddon who collected the silencer and took it along to the force armoury to see if it could be screwed onto the barrel of the gun. When he found it did, he brought its existence to the attention of DCS "Mick" Ainsley, who arranged for DS Eastwood and DS Davidson to examine it for fingerprints. Then, on 25th September 1985, the operations manager asked that the silencer in question be sent to the lab' to be checked for blood, and fibres. This was the silencer which ended up being produced at Jeremy's trial, as court exhibit number 9, bearing an exhibit reference of DRB/1, lab' item number 23/22...
-
So if sheila did not shoot herself.then who did.
-
So if sheila did not shoot herself.then who did.
Nobody, shot themselves...
-
Now...
the story being put forward that there was only ever just the one silencer, which had three separate exhibit references, namely, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, was not evidence placed before the jury which tried the case. The jury were not made aware of these very serious administrative errors or contradictions - if they had been, it is almost certain that the silencer, blood and paint evidence derived from it would have been thrown out on the basis that it was too dodgy to allow in...
At this late stage, police are saying they had to alter the original exhibit references given to the silencer because they clashed with other exhibit references given to other exhibits bearing the same exhibit references. What this means is that although the first silencer found had an exhibit mark of SBJ/1, it had to be altered into DB/1, because it clashed with another exhibit bearing the same exhibit mark...
OK, you got that...
Right, so please can somebody tell me what this other piece of eveidence bearing the exhibit reference of SBJ/1, was / is? Where was it found, who found it, and what happened to it?
-
Mike, your reasoning is very complicated. You know the case better than most, I respect that and realize that fact - this is just too non-Occam´s Razor for me. ???
-
Mike, your reasoning is very complicated. You know the case better than most, I respect that and realize that fact - this is just too non-Occam´s Razor for me. ???
Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .
"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Which part of the case do you think is very complicated?
Here is a simple question that I would like to ask you, and everybody else:-
(1) - do you know what item of evidence had the same exhibit reference of SBJ/1, given to the silencer, which caused the police to have to alter its exhibit reference into DB/1?
-
Now...
the story being put forward that there was only ever just the one silencer, which had three separate exhibit references, namely, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, was not evidence placed before the jury which tried the case. The jury were not made aware of these very serious administrative errors or contradictions - if they had been, it is almost certain that the silencer, blood and paint evidence derived from it would have been thrown out on the basis that it was too dodgy to allow in...
At this late stage, police are saying they had to alter the original exhibit references given to the silencer because they clashed with other exhibit references given to other exhibits bearing the same exhibit references. What this means is that although the first silencer found had an exhibit mark of SBJ/1, it had to be altered into DB/1, because it clashed with another exhibit bearing the same exhibit mark...
OK, you got that...
Right, so please can somebody tell me what this other piece of eveidence bearing the exhibit reference of SBJ/1, was / is? Where was it found, who found it, and what happened to it?
SBJ/1 is a silencer, taken by DS Stan the man jones, this silencer was used in the "training by police"? this was change from SBJ/1 to DB/1? and again to DRB/ for court...
13th August 1985 - SBJ/1
Silencer sent to lab' on 30th August 1985 = SBJ/1
Silencer sent to lab' on 20th September 1985 = DRB/1
Note sent to MDF by DI Cook on 17th October 1985 =alter reference to DB/1
Silencer produced at trial in October 1986 = DRB/1
-
Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .
"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Which part of the case do you think is very complicated?
Here is a simple question that I would like to ask you, and everybody else:-
(1) - do you know what item of evidence had the same exhibit reference of SBJ/1, given to the silencer, which caused the police to have to alter its exhibit reference into DB/1?
No.
It becomes very complicated that Sheila was first shot with the silencer attached, then she was shot without the silencer.
Your claim Sheila did not shoot herself puts the blame right back to Jeremy. IMO and in short.
-
Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .
"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Which part of the case do you think is very complicated?
Here is a simple question that I would like to ask you, and everybody else:-
(1) - do you know what item of evidence had the same exhibit reference of SBJ/1, given to the silencer, which caused the police to have to alter its exhibit reference into DB/1?
Mike, I do know there was a mention of a shooting incident in the kitchen when the raid team entered....no more information. The simplest answer to that is someone was shot at that time imo
-
Mike, I do know there was a mentiono f a shooting incident in the kitchen when the raid team entered....no more information. The simplest answer to that is that someone was shot at that time imo
A simple answer could also be that a shooting incident that HAD happened was being reported.
-
A simple answer could also be that a shooting incident that HAD happened was being reported.
Well it could Alias but the way it was reported seemed to suggested a shooting incident that took place as or after they entered. Certainly, none of it is clear. :)
-
No.
It becomes very complicated that Sheila was first shot with the silencer attached, then she was shot without the silencer.
Your claim Sheila did not shoot herself puts the blame right back to Jeremy. IMO and in short.
If Sheila was shot it does not necessarilly mean that Jeremy shot her, you are jumping to the wrong conclusion in my opinion, you are jumping to the wrong conclusion because there exists other evidence to support the case for the police having shot her when they went into the farmhouse. You and everybody else who appear hell bent on pinning the responsibility for Sheila's death upon Jeremy, may choose to ignore this evidence, but I can't and won't. You see what we have got are very serious contradictions concerning where police say they originally found the bodies of the victims upon entry to the premises. The jury were never told about these / those discrepancies. How could police find the bodies of one dead male and a dead female downstairs upon entry to the kitchen and a further three bodies upstairs by 8:10am, yet the official version is that only the body of Ralph Bamber was found downstiars, and the other four victims found upstairs? How could police make such fundamental errors about the body count upstairs and downstairs, and when the matter comes to trial they keep the truth from the jury? Why not tell the jury about these mistakes, if they were only mistakes? Can police who work for Essex count beyond the number 1? Do they know the difference between upstairs and downstairs at the scene? Did they know or were they sufficiently tarined to be able to tell the difference between a female and a male? Now, there is nothing complicated about me saying that I believe that one of the shots inflicted to Sheila's neck was caused by a gun with a silencer fitted to the end of its barrel, because I can point you in the direction of a mark around the non fatal neck wound to which bullet entry wound involving the fragmented bullet PV/20, refers. The mark there has the same general characteristics as the dimensions for the end cap of the silencer. How strange that six weeks later, this fragmented bullet (PV/20) should become transformed into a whole one to enable the ballistics expert to confirm that it was fired through the family owned rifle, presented as the murder weapon...
Could you please explain to me, how a fragmented bullet as of 7th August 1985, can become transformed into a whole bullet by 20th September 1985, without the police having tampered with it? Next, if they tampered with it, as they surely must have done, why did they tamper with it?
Now, nothing what I have said is complicated, its all simple, all there for everyone to see and consider, the only problem is that police cannot explain it away without putting themsleves in the shit...
-
Mike, I do know there was a mention of a shooting incident in the kitchen when the raid team entered....no more information. The simplest answer to that is someone was shot at that time imo
Where does that come from Maggie?
-
And i am quite inteligent myself. . . my key got snapped in the lock.
Were you holding the key at the time or did someone else snap it off for you?
-
Where does that come from Maggie?
Re: So and so, said so...
« Reply #609 on: February 14, 2013, 02:51:AM »
Quote from: mike tesko on February 14, 2013, 02:48:AM
"The key piece of information contained in the typed edited version of that report, are the comments, "a person has been shot", he says, " the shot person being Sheila", he says, adding, "source where that / this information came from, unknown", said he...
-
Were you holding the key at the time or did someone else snap it off for you?
;D
-
Re: So and so, said so...
« Reply #609 on: February 14, 2013, 02:51:AM »
Quote from: mike tesko on February 14, 2013, 02:48:AM
"The key piece of information contained in the typed edited version of that report, are the comments, a person has been shot", he says, " the shot person being Sheila", he says, adding, "source where that / this information came from, unknown", said he...
So there is no document on the forum that we can examine Mike, is there?
-
Where does that come from Maggie?
I too vaguely remember it to be the case as well,,,on first reading about it,,,that indeed a shot was fired.
-
So there is no document on the forum that we can examine Mike, is there?
I believe there is a copy of it on another thread, if not I will source it out and post it as soon as I can...
-
Where does that come from Maggie?
Out of my head Lugg ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I will have to try and remember where I saw it tomorrow but I know I have read it. It may be in Lomax's book which I have leant to someone but I had already read it somewhere on the forum before I read his book just recently. The metal detector is even harder for me to remember but I know I've read it. I am sure Mike will know. :-\ :-\
-
I believe there is a copy of it on another thread, if not I will source it out and post it as soon as I can...
Thanks Mike. If there was a shot on entry, it would be interesting to know who/what they were firing at?
-
Thanks Mike. If there was a shot on entry, it would be interesting to know who/what they were firing at?
Don't think they tell us what the shot was about lugg which makes what Mike says very interesting imo
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=992.0;attach=28895;image)
All I recall being posted before is the above.
-
If Sheila was shot it does not necessarilly mean that Jeremy shot her, you are jumping to the wrong conclusion in my opinion, you are jumping to the wrong conclusion because there exists other evidence to support the case for the police having shot her when they went into the farmhouse. You and everybody else who appear hell bent on pinning the responsibility for Sheila's death upon Jeremy, may choose to ignore this evidence, but I can't and won't. You see what we have got are very serious contradictions concerning where police say they originally found the bodies of the victims upon entry to the premises. The jury were never told about these / those discrepancies. How could police find the bodies of one dead male and a dead female downstairs upon entry to the kitchen and a further three bodies upstairs by 8:10am, yet the official version is that only the body of Ralph Bamber was found downstiars, and the other four victims found upstairs? How could police make such fundamental errors about the body count upstairs and downstairs, and when the matter comes to trial they keep the truth from the jury? Why not tell the jury about these mistakes, if they were only mistakes? Can police who work for Essex count beyond the number 1? Do they know the difference between upstairs and downstairs at the scene? Did they know or were they sufficiently tarined to be able to tell the difference between a female and a male? Now, there is nothing complicated about me saying that I believe that one of the shots inflicted to Sheila's neck was caused by a gun with a silencer fitted to the end of its barrel, because I can point you in the direction of a mark around the non fatal neck wound to which bullet entry wound involving the fragmented bullet PV/20, refers. The mark there has the same general characteristics as the dimensions for the end cap of the silencer. How strange that six weeks later, this fragmented bullet (PV/20) should become transformed into a whole one to enable the ballistics expert to confirm that it was fired through the family owned rifle, presented as the murder weapon...
Could you please explain to me, how a fragmented bullet as of 7th August 1985, can become transformed into a whole bullet by 20th September 1985, without the police having tampered with it? Next, if they tampered with it, as they surely must have done, why did they tamper with it?
Now, nothing what I have said is complicated, its all simple, all there for everyone to see and consider, the only problem is that police cannot explain it away without putting themsleves in the shit...
OK, so if Jeremy disagrees with you on this, you wrote that earlier, is he too, " hell bent on pinning the responsibility for Sheila's death upon himself" ?
I am not hell bent on anything, please!
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=992.0;attach=28895;image)
All I recall being posted before is the above.
That is an intriguing reference. Thank you Reader.
-
OK, so if Jeremy disagrees with you on this, you wrote that earlier, is he too, " hell bent on pinning the responsibility for Sheila's death upon himself" ?
I am not hell bent on anything, please!
I am saying, that it does not necessarilly follow that if someone shot Sheila, and she did not shoot herself, that it was Jeremy who shot her. If police shot her upon entry to the kitchen, and later upstairs in the bedroom, how does that equate with Jeremy having had anything at all to do with her death?
How can he have stage managed her body on the bedroom floor, if the police shot her downstairs and killed her upstairs in the bedroom?
-
I am saying, that it does not necessarilly follow that if someone shot Sheila, and she did not shoot herself, that it was Jeremy who shot her. If police shot her upon entry to the kitchen, and later upstairs in the bedroom, how does that equate with Jeremy having had anything at all to do with her death?
How can he have stage managed her body on the bedroom floor, if the police shot her downstairs and killed her upstairs in the bedroom?
Let me bring you up to speed with why the police went to the scene on 8th August 1985, with a metal detector - they had to find the cartridge case from the round fired into Sheila's neck, by the gun in the possession of PS Woodcock (Special Branch Officer) when he went into the kitchen, the day before (7th August 1985). Just as a point of interest, although SOC recovered that bullet case from PS Woodcocks weapon, why wasn't it given an exhibit reference, in the investighation?
-
Let me bring you up to speed with why the police went to the scene on 8th August 1985, with a metal detector - they had to find the cartridge case from the round fired into Sheila's neck, by the gun in the possession of PS Woodcock (Special Branch Officer) when he went into the kitchen, the day before (7th August 1985). Just as a point of interest, although SOC recovered that bullet case from PS Woodcocks weapon, why wasn't it given an exhibit reference, in the investighation?
I imagine, they didn't want to find it to exhibit it Mike, they wanted to find it to hide it??
-
I imagine, they didn't want to find it to exhibit it Mike, they wanted to find it to hide it??
I agree, but in any event, they did find the bullet case, to the bullet fired by PS Woodcock into the side of Sheila's neck, as he was trying to get into the kitchen through the small gap of the internal door...
I was first told about the metal detector by David Shaw in one of his email posts to me, albeit he did not tell me at that stage what it was the police had gone to the scene with a metal detector for, although he did indicate it had some significance worthy of consideration...
-
I agree, but in any event, they did find the bullet case, to the bullet fired by PS Woodcock into the side of Sheila's neck, as he was trying to get into the kitchen through the small gap of the internal door...
I was first told about the metal detector by David Shaw in one of his email posts to me, albeit he did not tell me at that stage what it was the police had gone to the scene with a metal detector for, although he did indicate it had some significance worthy of consideration...
Really interesting Mike to see it all drawn together. The report of the shot in the kitchen, the fractured bullet replaced by a whole bullet, the metal detector....makes you think.
-
What type of calibre do the police use?
-
What type of calibre do the police use?
-
I think the cops did it and covered it all up.
-
The number "1612" appears in a column headed "A/M NO", so it seems to be a police "action number". We don't know whether any official reference number exists for the report itself. I think mike tesko has indicated that Essex Police have been asked for the report, but he hasn't told us (as far as I know) what reason they gave for not supplying it or even whether they replied at all to the request.
-
Why is nobody talking
?
-
What everyone should not lose track of, is the FACT that neither of the first two silencers which had been sent to the lab', on 13th and 30th August 1985, had the same exhibit mark (DRB/1) as the silencer produced at trial by the prosecution bearing the exhibit mark DRB/1. Furthermore, according to the documentary evidence the crucial flake of bood which produced the damning blood group (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) evidence, was not found in DRB/1, but DB/1, which had been sent to the lab', on 30th August 1985...
Now...
It would be hardly likely that police would submit a silencer to the lab', to be examined on 30th August 1985, and it be the same silencer David Boutflour finds in the cupboard, if as was the case, that David Boutflour did not contact the police by telephone on the 11th September 1985, to report that he had found a silencer in a cupboard at the scene? He reports the find of the silencer (DRB/1) to the police (11th September 1985) 12 days too late for the silencer which was sent to the lab', on 30th August 1985, to be the same silencer...
What this exercise establishes is that the crucial flake of blood was not found inside the Bamber family owned silencer from the gun cupboard, it can't have been, because David Boutflour hadn't yet reported its find, by the time the other silencer (DB/1) had been sent to the lab', on 30th August 1985...
The crucial flake of blood was found inside the silencer DB/1, which could not possibly have been the same silencer David Boutflour found in the cupboard on 10th August 1985, because he did not report finding it until a month later (11th September 1985)...
Changed a date from 1975 to 1985
-
I agree, but in any event, they did find the bullet case, to the bullet fired by PS Woodcock into the side of Sheila's neck, as he was trying to get into the kitchen through the small gap of the internal door...
I was first told about the metal detector by David Shaw in one of his email posts to me, albeit he did not tell me at that stage what it was the police had gone to the scene with a metal detector for, although he did indicate it had some significance worthy of consideration...
I first read of the metal detector in Hunter's unpublished manuscript. Cant remember the exact wording but it's something similar to the police having returned the following day to the incident and having used a metal detector but only in the kitchen.
-
I first read of the metal detector in Hunter's unpublished manuscript. Cant remember the exact wording but it's something similar to the police having returned the following day to the incident and having used a metal detector but only in the kitchen.
One bullet relating to Ralphs wounds was not recovered (bullet No. 8 ), I suspect that they searched for it.
-
Police recovered 25 bullets and 25 bullet cases - if one bullet was / is missing, it must also follow that there is a bullet case missing...
Now...
The original PV/20 bullet retrieved from Sheila's neck was badly fragmented on 7th August 1985, but by 20th September 1985, it had become transformed as if by magic into a whole bullet, which enabled the ballistic expert to link it to the anshulz rifle. If there was / is a missing bullet, there must also be a missing bullet case - I would bet a pound to a penny that the missing bullet, and bullet case, is linked to the non fatal shot across Sheila's neck, and the missing bullet case belongs, to that round..
-
One bullet relating to Ralphs wounds was not recovered (bullet No. 8 ), I suspect that they searched for it.
A bullet in the twins room was also not recovered.
-
A bullet in the twins room was also not recovered.
Was any explanation ever offered as to where these (2) bullets might have gone?
-
Essex police have gone on record as saying that as many as 27 shots were fired during the incident, that is two more bullets than they officially recovered, and two more bullet cases than they officially recovered...
-
Was any explanation ever offered as to where these (2) bullets might have gone?
The one to Ralph was suggested to have fragmented into unrecoverable pieces. I haven't seen any reason suggested for the bullet in the twins room, just that it was not recovered.
-
Irrespective of whether or not, one of the bullets fired at Ralph fragmented, a bullet case was / is missing or unaccounted for...
-
Irrespective of whether or not, one of the bullets fired at Ralph fragmented, a bullet case was / is missing or unaccounted for...
In fact, at least two, possibly as many as three bullet cases are missing (if you include the original bullet case belonging to the substituted PV//20 which somehow became transformed from being badly fragmented on one day, to becoming transformed into a whole bullet by the next...
-
A starting point for debate, would be that there should have been 27 bullet cases, and 25 bullets...
-
Apparently not. :-\
-
Another possibility, is that there was only 26 shots, which should have produced 26 bullet cases, which if added to the round used in the substitution of the original PV20 bullet, made up 27 bullet cases...
-
Despite Essex police knowing up to 27 rounds had been fired during this incident, which should have produce 27 bullet cases and only 25 bullets, or part bullets were fired, they settled for the jury being told a blatent lie about how many shots had actually been fired. For some reason police did not want the jury to know about these two additional rounds which someone fired at one of the victims...
-
Despite Essex police knowing up to 27 rounds had been fired during this incident, which should have produce 27 bullet cases and only 25 bullets, or part bullets were fired, they settled for the jury being told a blatent lie about how many shots had actually been fired. For some reason police did not want the jury to know about these two additional rounds which someone fired at one of the victims...
Withholding evidence from the court which tried these matters, both at the inquest, and the trial by jury, almost certainly changed the outcome of the verdict, since, if Sheila killed the others and then herself, police would have found 27 bullet cases at the scene. Well, since two bullet cases are missing from the scene, it proves that somrone else killed Sheila...
-
Now...
Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion, citing Jeremy as the killer, hold your horses a minute...
Why would a killer who fired 27 shots remove two of the 27 bullet cases from the scene during the stage managing stage of the crime? If somebody had done that, it would only serve to highlight that Sheila had been killed by another...
Not so, if you were the police, and not only did you remove two of the bullet cases and hide then away, it then allowed them to suggest that only 25 rounds had been fired...
-
Yes,Mike,,,I see what you're getting at. Cunning,eh.?
-
Hi Mike :)
When I add all the cases up it comes to 25 which matches the shots on the victims. However, there does appear to be a couple of bullets missing....One of them can be accounted for. The one I can't find is the exit bullet to Nevill's left arm....It has been said that this fragmented into the chest cavity....Impossible in my opinion, for there would have been another entry wound. Not all the PV's match up either...nor do the weights...and you are right there are two entry wounds that are larger than the others.....but are not contact shots.....Once I counted 26, but soon realised, that I had counted the one in the tray on the sink side..... :) :) :) :) :)
-
Now...
Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion, citing Jeremy as the killer, hold your horses a minute...
Why would a killer who fired 27 shots remove two of the 27 bullet cases from the scene during the stage managing stage of the crime? If somebody had done that, it would only serve to highlight that Sheila had been killed by another...
Not so, if you were the police, and not only did you remove two of the bullet cases and hide then away, it then allow them to suggest that only 25 rounds had been fired...
Correct!! It defects logic of removing two cases unless the police are trying to hide something... plus with the bodies gone and buried with some bullets left in them, then police statement stands and can be falsed as no prove of bullets because they went with the bodies!
Bullets found fragments then transformed into a whole one give it away.
-
Hi Mike :)
When I add all the cases up it comes to 25 which matches the shots on the victims. However, there does appear to be a couple of bullets missing....One of them can be accounted for. The one I can't find is the exit bullet to Nevill's left arm....It has been said that this fragmented into the chest cavity....Impossible in my opinion, for there would have been another entry wound. Not all the PV's match up either...nor do the weights...and you are right there are two entry wounds that are larger than the others.....but are not contact shots.....Once I counted 26, but soon realised, that I had counted the one in the tray on the sink side..... :) :) :) :) :)
Yes, it is very confusing, and needs an indepth study to get to the truth, but official documents do exist where the number of shots fired during the incident appear to be contradictive, in some 27 shots had been fired, in others 26 shots had been fired, and in the end they settled for 25 shots being fired. To get around this they suggest that one or more bullets fragmented and ended up in different parts of the body, but when you adopt that approach and because it then allows the police case to suggest there was only 25 shots fired, you are then faced with bullets not recovered from the bodies of the victims, If you add these to the configuration of 25 bullets arrived at in the police case that was brought against Jeremy Bamber, it increases the tally of bullets fired into the victims from 25 to 26, or 27, so with this in mind, the estimate they officially come up with that 25 shots had been fired has to be wrong and very misleading. For this reason, and all things being equal, there must have been 27 shots fired in total, and 27 corresponding bullet cases available for collection at the scene by the police, but we only have 25. Even if I am wrong about there should be 27 bullet cases, at worst there has to have been 26, and so at least one bullet case is missing from the scene. Now if Sheila killed the others and herself then that bullet case could not possibly have gone missing from the scene at all - impossible...
This brings me back to the subject of who killed Sheila, I know there are many who think that if Sheila did not kill herself then it must have been Jeremy, but I think that approach is fundamentally wrong, since if there was / is one or two bullet cases missing from the scene, it means that he took them or that with him, but why would he have done that? Not only that, but the prosecution would have seized upon the fact that there were missing bullet cases which could have only been taken from the scene after Sheila had been killed and her body stage managed (Sheila could not have got rid of these / those two missing bullet cases, after she was already dead). Rather than enlarge upon the missing two bullet cases (or as the case may be, one bullet case) the police sought to conceal for the fact that they existed at all, by claiming only 25 shots had been fired, and that 25 bullets or part bullets had been recovered, along with the corresponding 25 bullet cases - it is the police who are guilty of covering up for the fact that there had been, and was more than 25 shots fired, and that for me is very telling...
You do not hide facts like these from the courts that deal with deaths (Coroners court) or any criminal investigation or prosecution, or trial), you do not try to hide these facts from a jury unless you know that to declare them during a trial, is likely to lead to the collapse of the case in question, proceeding any further...
Essex police / Special Branch, hid facts about additional shots being fired during the incident, and they would only have done that if it involved one or more of the victims having been shot by the police. It must follow that if this was / is true, then any shooting of any of the victims could only have occurred after the raid team went into the premises after 7:30am, not beforehand...
Now...
We know the police or somebody connected with thier investigation, have substituted one of the bullets (PV/20) retrieved from Sheila's neck by the pathologist, Peter Venezis, at autopsy on 7th August 1985. We know that before Venezis removed that bullet that an Xray had been taken of the same bullet in a badly fragmented condition insitu, inside her neck, but by the time the police were building a case to prosecute Jeremy Bamber (20th September 1985) that that badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) had become transformed into a whole bullet, to enable the prosecutions ballistic expert to confirm that the new whole bullet (PV/20) had been loaded into the magazine of the gun, and fired from it - now how can a badly fragmented bullet, as of 7th August 1985, grow into a whole bullet, by 20th September 1985?
Police substituted the original badly fragmented bullet, for a whole one, so that it could be said that it had been fired through the anshulz rifle, when it might not have been, was not...
If the original badly fragmented bullet (PV/20) was fired through a different gun, this would explain why there is an imbalance, between the number of shots which were actually fired, and the number of spent cartridge cases, the police are saying were recovered from the scene, there is this difference, because the bullet case in question (the one linked to the original badly fragmented PV/20 bullet) had to be taken out of the equation, otherwise its presence amongst the batch of crime scene ammunition, would provide confirmation, that police had opened fired upon entering the premises...
Allow me to mention, that once the handling of Jeremy's case changed hands from Ewen Smith to GDS, I once raised the question about the possibility that the bodies of the two child victims should be resumed, so that at least two bullets which were not recovered during autopsy by Venezis, on 8th August 1985, could be retrieved, examined and identified, but GDS said he would not take that course of action, and not allow anybody to disturb the last resting places of the child victims (or words to that effect). Well, what I am saying is that if there were 25 shots fired, and police have 25 bullets or part bullets, and 25 bullet cases, if you add these two bullets not recovered from the child victims, to that total, it produces 27 shots fired altogether, and establishes that there are two bullet cases missing, or unaccounted for? There is nothning complicated about any of this, you can work it out by using simple mathematics - 25 + 2 = 27...
Perhaps this sheds some light on why two control rounds went missing or are unacccounted for, from the batch of control ammunition (DRH/42) once it arrived into the possesssion of the ballistic expert. Malcom Fletcher, on 20th September 1985, which the COLP investigation (1991 /92) looked into, but failed to resolve...
I wonder what happened to those two missing bullets, and two spent cartridge cases (from DRH/42)?
-
First of all, lets look at where police claim to have recovered or found the 25 bullet cases:-
Main Bedroom
13 (?)
These are supposed to relate to the 7 shots inflicted on June Bamber, four of the shots inflicted on Ralph Bamber, and the two shots relating to Sheila Caffell. a big question mark hangs over the credibility of four of these bullet cases, namely, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4...
-
First of all, lets look at where police claim to have recovered or found the 25 bullet cases:-
Main Bedroom
13 (?)
These are supposed to relate to the 7 shots inflicted on June Bamber, four of the shots inflicted on Ralph Bamber, and the two shots relating to Sheila Caffell. a big question mark hangs over the credibility of four of these bullet cases, namely, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4...
For arguments sake, lets disregard these four dodgy bullet cases, which reduces the total number of bullet cases found in the main bedroom, from 13 to 9. These 9 bullet cases might relate to the 7 shots to June Bamber, and the two shots to Sheila. Equally, we could say, that 7 relate to the shots inflicted on June, one to Ralph, and the remaining one to Sheila - if we were to take this approach, it would open up for the possibility that Sheila must have been shot non fatally in the side of the neck, in another part of the house, and that the four dodgy bullet cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, were introduced later into the main bedroom scenario by the police to try and hide that fact...
-
For arguments sake, lets disregard these four dodgy bullet cases, which reduces the total number of bullet cases found in the main bedroom, from 13 to 9. These 9 bullet cases might relate to the 7 shots to June Bamber, and the two shots to Sheila. Equally, we could say, that 7 relate to the shots inflicted on June, one to Ralph, and the remaining one to Sheila - if we were to take this approach, it would open up for the possibility that Sheila must have been shot non fatally in the side of the neck, in another part of the house, and that the four dodgy bullet cases, DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, were introduced later into the main bedroom scenario by the police to try and hide that fact...
On this approach, it is conceded that Ralph Bamber was shot once whilst he was present in the main bedroom, and that the other three non fatal shots he sustained, occurred in another part of the farmhouse...
-
On this approach, it is conceded that Ralph Bamber was shot once whilst he was present in the main bedroom, and that the other three non fatal shots he sustained, occurred in another part of the farmhouse...
Trying to identify where these other three non fatal shots on Ralph occured can be measured against the fixed locations of the other 12 bullet cases found in the kids bedroom (8), main stair (1), and kitchen, and with regard to the unfixed dodgy four bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4)...
-
Trying to identify where these other three non fatal shots on Ralph occured can be measured against the fixed locations of the other 12 bullet cases found in the kids bedroom (8), main stair (1), and kitchen, and with regard to the unfixed dodgy four bullet cases (DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4)...
Anyone who thinks I do not know what I am talking about when I speak about these features of the case, should be careful, because no-one has spent more time than me trying to reconstruct what took place, nor has anyone else to my knowlege uncovered the documentary evidence to back it all up. I have decided to release information about these matters now, in the hope and belief that Jeremys campaign will benefit from it...
-
Anyone who thinks I do not know what I am talking about when I speak about these features of the case, should be careful, because no-one has spent more time than me trying to reconstruct what took place, nor has anyone else to my knowlege uncovered the documentary evidence to back it all up. I have decided to release information about these matters now, in the hope and belief that Jeremys campaign will benefit from it...
Hi Mike,,,I've never doubted you,,,and have always held the belief that there's more from where that knowledge came from,,,but it's your prerogative to hang on to what information you have to further the case into a winning situation.
-
Hi Mike,,,I've never doubted you,,,and have always held the belief that there's more from where that knowledge came from,,,but it's your prerogative to hang on to what information you have to further the case into a winning situation.
Hi lookout,
Yeah, there's more to come, its all about timing from here on in...
Do you know, it used to be such a puzzle to me, as to why Essex police had to slip those four dodgy Eley type bullet cases into the bedroom scenario once the nature of the case changed and they arrested Jeremy, charged him, etc., but now it is oh so clear what the police did, why they had to do what they did, and most importantly of all, why Jeremy Bamber has been wrongly convicted for these murders - one thing remains clear to me and that is that Jeremy Bamber could not have kilked Sheila after the raid team set foot inside the premises at around 7.30am...
-
I am currently at Glasgow central station, on my way to the airport, but when I get home tonight I will be posting some new documents and material...
-
I am currently at Glasgow central station, on my way to the airport, but when I get home tonight I will be posting some new documents and material...
Interesting,Mike. Look forward to that. Take care.
-
Thought i recognised that ststion mike.
-
What were you doing in glasgow mike?
-
Here is some material the contents of which should be studied:-
-
Silencer, sent to lab' late September 1985:-
-
DS Jones seized or took possession of four exhibits from the scene on 7th August 1985, including a silencer marked SBJ/1:-
-
Has anybody got any idea what this item in this photograph is / was?
-
Has anybody got any idea what this item in this photograph is / was?
It looks like some kind of giant safety pin but it's difficult to make out. Just tried to zoom in on it, it looks as though it's made of metal. Just a crazy idea but could it have been used to make those marks on Neville's back?
-
It looks like some kind of giant safety pin but it's difficult to make out. Just tried to zoom in on it, it looks as though it's made of metal. Just a crazy idea but could it have been used to make those marks on Neville's back?
Hi Caroline,,,I too was thinking it was a safety pin until I got my jewellers magnifying glass which I then made it out to be a hat-pin with what looks like a " burnt " ornamental end. You know when something has been seared/discoloured through heating.?
Do we know if June wore hats which needed a hat-pin.?
-
One important piece of infomation / evidence that everyone should be made aware of, concerns the occasion when DI Cook, took the first sound moderator to the lab', on 13th August 1985 - he tpld the COLP investigators in 1992, that the silencer which DS Jones had given him did not have an exhibit label attached to it when he got to the lab' that day, so when he got there he attached a blank / brown coloured label to it, and wrote the exhibit reference, SJ/1 upon it, and both he and expert Glynis Howard both signed the label at positoons 2 and 3, leaving a space at gap 1 for the finder of the silencer to sign later. He told COLP that he was under the impression that DS Jones had found that silencer, also adding that he did not know DS Jones had a middle name, hence why he had handwritten the exhibit mark on the label as SJ/1...
This is interesting for a number of different reasons, since, no signed exhibit label exists signed by Cook and Howard, bearing the mark of SJ/1. The only signed exhibit labels in existence have the exhibit references of DB/1 and DRB/1. Furthermore, on the same exhibit label signed by Cook and Howard, at positions 2 and 3, the signature of the gun dealor appears at position 1, supposedly earmarked for the finder of the silencer. This does not sit well with what Cook told the COLP investigators in 1992, about him thinking DS Jones found this silencer (SJ/1), and later finding out David Boutflour supposedly found it, nor with the signature of the gun dealor, Radcliffe appearing in position 1, on the same exhibit label that is signed by Cook and Howard at positions 2 and 3, on a label bearing a completely different exhibit reference than SJ/1...
Another oddity arisies on the General Examination from the lab' dated 13 August 1985, since it does not bear the exhibit mark of SJ/1...
Yet, on 29th August 1985, when Cook dismantles the silencer, and photographs the procedure, it still has an exhibit mark of SJ/1 upon it..
How is it possible therefore, for anyone to refer to this silencer by any other exhibit reference than SJ/1? How can anyone refer yo it as exhibit SBJ/1, or DB/1, or DRB/1?
-
If what Cook told COLP was / is true, about attaching a label to the silencer he took to the lab', on 13th August 1985, and that he had handwritten the exhibit reference of SJ/1 upon it, why does the General Examination Record relating to the same item, on that date, have DB/1 as its exhibit reference?
-
If what Cook told COLP was / is true, about attaching a label to the silencer he took to the lab', on 13th August 1985, and that he had handwritten the exhibit reference of SJ/1 upon it, why does the General Examination Record relating to the same item, on that date, have DB/1 as its exhibit reference?
Expert, Glynis Howard, refers to the silencer she examined on 13th August 1985, by the exhibit reference of SBJ/1, which does not match the details on lab' records, which have it as DB/1. By the time the matter came to court, she was referring to the same silencer she had examined on 13th August 1985, by exhibit reference DRB/1. When she was spoken to by COLP in 1992 about these descrepancies, she told them that somebody had altered the exhibit rwference from SBJ*1 to DRB/1, without her knowlege...
Worse still...
Non of the General Examination records from the lab', refer to the silencer by the exhibit mark DRB/1...
-
In addition, none of the signed exhibit labels bear the identfying mark of either SJ/1, or SBJ/1, so it is not pissible to say that there was / is only one silencer, at the very least therw were two different ones, worse case scenario there were three separate silencers all of which appear to have been merged into the same one, where SBJ/1 has been turned into DB/1, which in turn has become DRB/1...
The problem with someone merging all these different silencers into one, is exposed as a lie, because events involving use of, examination of, and submission to lab', of the same do not sit well together, qhere one or other of these silencers, appears to be at the lab', and not be at the lab', at one or the same time...
-
Has anybody got any idea what this item in this photograph is / was?
Yes it is an imprint on the carpet...Something had been there and recently been moved prior to the picture having been taken.. :) :) :) :)
-
In addition, none of the signed exhibit labels bear the identfying mark of either SJ/1, or SBJ/1, so it is not pissible to say that there was / is only one silencer, at the very least therw were two different ones, worse case scenario there were three separate silencers all of which appear to have been merged into the same one, where SBJ/1 has been turned into DB/1, which in turn has become DRB/1...
The problem with someone merging all these different silencers into one, is exposed as a lie, because events involving use of, examination of, and submission to lab', of the same do not sit well together, qhere one or other of these silencers, appears to be at the lab', and not be at the lab', at one or the same time...
All the experts signed an exhibit label marked DB/1 (Crossed out), DRB/1, serial number 22, when DB/1 was serial number 23. It is interesting to note that no experts signature appears on a label marked SBJ/1, or SJ/1...
All the relatives signed an exhibit label bearing the mark DRB/1, when there does not exist any General Examination Record relating to a silencer bearing the identifying mark of DRB/1, so where does that leave the silencer, blood and paint evidence that was relied upon to successfully prosecute Jeremy Bamber for these murders...
-
Expert, Glynis Howard, refers to the silencer she examined on 13th August 1985, by the exhibit reference of SBJ/1, which does not match the details on lab' records, which have it as DB/1. By the time the matter came to court, she was referring to the same silencer she had examined on 13th August 1985, by exhibit reference DRB/1. When she was spoken to by COLP in 1992 about these descrepancies, she told them that somebody had altered the exhibit rwference from SBJ*1 to DRB/1, without her knowlege...
Worse still...
Non of the General Examination records from the lab', refer to the silencer by the exhibit mark DRB/1...
This lab' form is a forgery - it is dated 13th August 1985, and bears information about evidence found on and inside it, which did not materialize until many weeks later, furthermore, how could this silencer (13th August 1985) have the exhibit reference of DB/1, which did not come into play until on or after 30th August 1985?
-
Lets look at the exhibit muddle relating to the so called solitary silencer evidence:-
A silencer starts off being referred to by the exhibit reference of SJ/1 (13th August 1985),, OK, lets assume they altered this slightly and made it into SBJ/1, from 7th August 1985, onward. You then get a resubmission of a silencer to the lab', on 30th August 1985, the silencer at this stage is now being referred to as DB/1. So, on the face of it, the only silencer present at the lab' on and after 30th August 1985, was one bearing the exhibit mark of DB/1...
So, why is it that on 25th September 1985, that when a silencer is sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres, it is docurmnrtd by use of the original exhibit mark of SBJ/1? Shouldn't it have been changed to DB/1 by that / this stage? Furthermore, how can you send a silencer (SBJ/1) to the lab' if that same silencer (DB/1) has already been sent to the same lab' on 30th August 1985?
-
Has anybody got any idea what this item in this photograph is / was?
I can't see how the blood flowed under Sheila's arm pit....It doesn't look right to me. Even if she was sat up or lent on her right side the blood trail does not match the wounds....There is a slight trial going vertically, but not prolific enough to trail the distance to her arm pit...its quite odd. :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Sheila would have been half-sitting when that blood collected to the right of her,in line with the wound,,,,and obviously as she lay flat it would flow down her neck. That last wound would have caused the blood to pool because before she died,,it would have pumped out.
-
Has anybody got any idea what this item in this photograph is / was?
It seems too large for a hat pin (but I'm no expert on hat pins). Could it be a W-shaped clothes hanger?
-
It seems too large for a hat pin (but I'm no expert on hat pins). Could it be a W-shaped clothes hanger?
I've changed my mind on the hatpin,,,though there were some weird and wonderful ones in Victorian and Edwardian days.
It could be something to do with the Aga,,,a lid lifter thingy. As you can see,I'm not familiar with the tools connected to such burners.