Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Patti on November 09, 2013, 03:05:PM
-
Can anyone explain why this is asterisked on the bottom of the document please....
-
oh i missed that funny thing to put on there.
-
I wonder if that was an afterthought.
-
well spotted patti.
-
I can't make out the signature it looks like Stevenson to me.... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Can anyone explain why this is asterisked on the bottom of the document please....
It's very strange Patti. What an odd comment??
-
I can't make out the signature it looks like Stepenson to me.... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Some letter, perhaps T. Stevenson to me.
-
I'm trying to decipher the signature at the bottom. J.Stevenson ? I'll have another go.
-
Could it have been one of the defence team at the original trial? Where is Caroline when you need her....Ha! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm trying to decipher the signature at the bottom. J.Stevenson ? I'll have another go.
I'll go with Stevenson but I've NO idea what is the initial.
-
Its either a J or a T......But who is it???????
-
Its either a J or a T......But who is it???????
I've been trying to track down a Stevenson/Stephenson who was attached to the case,,but nothing up to now.
-
I've been trying to track down a Stevenson/Stephenson who was attached to the case,,but nothing up to now.
What for Lookout? Tell us more.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'll go with Stevenson but I've NO idea what is the initial.
Think it's a J Stevenson.
-
Having typed many forenames and the surname Stevenson followed by Jeremy Bamber into Google, the first link which appears when I typed 'James Stevenson Jeremy Bamber' into it is for the Miscarriage of Justice website and mentions the 1996 Manchester McKenzie Report whatever that is. I don't know whether the J Stevenson referred to in this post is the same person but maybe worth looking into further. Any ideas? x
-
Having typed many forenames and the surname Stevenson followed by Jeremy Bamber into Google, the first link which appears when I typed 'James Stevenson Jeremy Bamber' into it is for the Miscarriage of Justice website and mentions the 1996 Manchester McKenzie Report whatever that is. I don't know whether the J Stevenson referred to in this post is the same person but maybe worth looking into further. Any ideas? x
From what I gather it was a report set out to on behalf of Jeremy's defence....But, why did he sign that particular document as being fraudulent??????
Has anyone seen this report??????
-
I've heard of that Manchester McKenzie Report,,but I'm blowed if I can find it.It's been mentioned on here quite a while ago.
-
I've heard of that Manchester McKenzie Report,,but I'm blowed if I can find it.It's been mentioned on here quite a while ago.
I can't find anything either Lookout....I'd like to read it though... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I can't find anything either Lookout....I'd like to read it though... ;D ;D ;D ;D
Patti,,if I remember rightly,it was very interesting ( if I could remember what it was about ) It would come back to me if I saw it though.
-
Could it have been one of the defence team at the original trial? Where is Caroline when you need her....Ha! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Well spotted!! ;D ;D ;D ;D. Looks like J Stevenson to me. Never heard of him though.
-
Well spotted!! ;D ;D ;D ;D. Looks like J Stevenson to me. Never heard of him though.
Caroline do you know anything about the Manchester Mckenzie Report? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Caroline do you know anything about the Manchester Mckenzie Report? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes,Patti,,it's on here under the heading Julie Mugfords' claims of rape and violence.
-
Justice for all-Manchester McKenzie organisation.
-
Caroline do you know anything about the Manchester Mckenzie Report? ;D ;D ;D ;D
I've found it but it will take me a while to post. I have seen it before and it may be on the forum.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
Yes,Patti,,it's on here under the heading Julie Mugfords' claims of rape and violence.
I've just looked on there and can't find it lol....mind you I am shattered. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
.
-
There is more but I'll have to post it later!
-
Caroline you are a star..... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm going for a cup of tea because all I got when I googled Manchester McKenzie was busty Alexi. ;D ;D.
-
I'm going for a cup of tea because all I got when I googled Manchester McKenzie was busty Alexi. ;D ;D.
Hahahahaha......
That report is fantastic....Mind you it opens up some more questions. Why did the lab at Huntingdon find no blood in or out of the silencer????????? Yet a year later they do? How odd.
Caroline, could this report be put in the archives please......When you have time that is ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hahahahaha......
That report is fantastic....Mind you it opens up some more questions. Why did the lab at Huntingdon find no blood in or out of the silencer????????? Yet a year later they do? How odd.
Caroline, could this report be put in the archives please......When you have time that is ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes, no problem I'll post the rest first. :)
-
Yes, no problem I'll post the rest first. :)
Thank you!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
And there's our Mr James Stevenson.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
Hahahahaha......
That report is fantastic....Mind you it opens up some more questions. Why did the lab at Huntingdon find no blood in or out of the silencer????????? Yet a year later they do? How odd.
Caroline, could this report be put in the archives please......When you have time that is ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
That is an amazing report and so very interesting....... how amazing, the comments on the discovery of the moderator speaks volumes. How did they all get away with this and what was the judge up to OMG!
-
Thanks for that. Pleased I have been some help. x
-
Thanks to Gillian and Caroline. Some explosive things in that, methinks.
-
I don't know how the case ever went to trial. Flawed evidence won over the truth.Disgusting.
-
Thanks to Gillian and Caroline. Some explosive things in that, methinks.
I'd like to echo those thanks to Gillian and Caroline. It's so explosive it's off the scale.
-
Caroline my love page 10 is missing..... :'( :'(
Please read page 4................its an eye opener. :-[
-
Thanks to Gillian and Caroline. Some explosive things in that, methinks.
Thanks Alias :D - and also to Patti for finding the comment on the silencer report!! :) X
-
Caroline my love page 10 is missing..... :'( :'(
Please read page 4................its an eye opener. :-[
Bugger!! Hang on ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Caroline my love page 10 is missing..... :'( :'(
Please read page 4................its an eye opener. :-[
I don´t know what to think - or say. :-\
-
Caroline my love page 10 is missing..... :'( :'(
Please read page 4................its an eye opener. :-[
Only two people in that jury knew what was what,,the others didn't have a clue.
-
10 should be there now.
-
I don´t know what to think - or say. :-\
Neither do I Alias....I don't even want to go there... :(
-
Only two people in that jury knew what was what,,the others didn't have a clue.
Lookout if they had a clue and was told the truth....I think Jeremy would have been a free man. >:(
-
10 should be there now.
Thank you Caroline....You can take a break now lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Lookout if they had a clue and was told the truth....I think Jeremy would have been a free man. >:(
Of course,Patti.
-
Thank you Caroline....You can take a break now lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I'll be in the cupboard if anyone wants me!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Of course,Patti.
Well at least we got to know who J Stevenson was....Its remarkable that one little thing can lead to another....Have you read Websters report? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'll be in the cupboard if anyone wants me!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Awww bless....Hope you have a flask and sandwich, oh and a candle lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Neither do I Alias....I don't even want to go there... :(
I have heard this before but surely it's just a coincidence?
-
I have heard this before but surely it's just a coincidence?
I hope so Maggie.... :-\ :'(
-
Well at least we got to know who J Stevenson was....Its remarkable that one little thing can lead to another....Have you read Websters report? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Is that the one about the DNA ?.
-
Mark Webster was in dispute with Hayward,wasn't he,,over that flake of blood having been tested ? Some jiggery-pokery there too.
-
Is that the one about the DNA ?.
Yes, Its about the flake found in the silencer....Webster confronts Hayward about the tests and his notes he made. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It is not a moderator....................a moderator runs the full lenghth of the barrel
Some people, mainly plod need to know the difference between a silencer and a moderator....
As far as my opinion stretches, the silencer was not involved in the incident and is primarily an item introduced into the evidence by persons who have distorted the incident.
Jack
-
On their website, the company that made it refer to it as a sound moderator.
-
fascinating documents. Is the parentage of the twins covered anywhere else on here?
-
It is not a moderator....................a moderator runs the full lenghth of the barrel
Some people, mainly plod need to know the difference between a silencer and a moderator....
As far as my opinion stretches, the silencer was not involved in the incident and is primarily an item introduced into the evidence by persons who have distorted the incident.
Jack
The terms silencer, sound moderator and suppressor are in fact interchangeable.
-
The terms silencer, sound moderator and suppressor are in fact interchangeable.
Yes I thought I'd let you say it and not me. ;D As you are our resident lawyer and gun expert. I know narthing. I know narthing. ;D
-
fascinating documents. Is the parentage of the twins covered anywhere else on here?
ignore this post - on reading that document again - to suggest that colin may not have been the twins father based on the blood groups was a pretty bad statement to make considering the rest of the document was quite well written.
-
The terms silencer, sound moderator and suppressor are in fact interchangeable.
Wrong..........You should be RTU'd and do more research,
Sorry Pal.
-
Wrong..........You should be RTU'd and do more research,
Sorry Pal.
This pal is our chief administrator on this forum and very respected Jack. I don't know what RTU'D means but please be mindful.
-
Wrong..........You should be RTU'd and do more research,
Sorry Pal.
Hi Jack could you put up a picture of a moderator please. We all might be talking at crossed purposes?
-
This pal is our chief administrator on this forum and very respected Jack. I don't know what RTU'D means but please be mindful.
I know nothing about guns and firearms, but tried to look around the internet, and people say they are the same thing.
-
I know nothing about guns and firearms, but tried to look around the internet, and people say they are the same thing.
I found the same thing - that they are the same thing.
-
I found the same thing - that they are the same thing.
I'm more interested at the killing a rabbit at 80 yards. ;D Perhaps the rabbit died laughing?
-
Hi Jack could you put up a picture of a moderator please. We all might be talking at crossed purposes?
Will JB's own description do??
Now a silencer is what it says, it silences a gunshot just like in the movies. But they have no place in the real world and you cannot legally buy one for a gun. But the prosecution wanted to hood wink the court by suggesting that we owned a silencer which used to suggest that the shootings were carried out using stealth. No one would put a sound moderator onto a un to lower the volume of a rifle as it makes no difference to the sound we hear.
A sound moderator hardly changes the loudness of a gun’s discharge to the human ear. Its job is to stop the sonic boom reaching the rabbit before the bullet. The sonic boom is created when the gun fires like on a jet fighter or lightning and it’s a high pitched whip crack. If the rabbit hears the sonic boom first it would move out of the way.
-
And it makes a louder noise if it hits the belly of a rabbit as opposed to its head.
-
Does it ?
-
Most of the time they go straight through it, so I guess it is irrelevant....but a body shot is usually louder IMO
......and head hit ones usually somersault into the air......
-
Most of the time they go straight through it, so I guess it is irrelevant....but a body shot is usually louder IMO
......and head hit ones usually somersault into the air......
I'm not just a pretty face. ;D ;D
-
I'm more interested at the killing a rabbit at 80 yards. ;D Perhaps the rabbit died laughing?
Grahame.....the US Marines are trained to hit targets with iron sights on an M16 rifle at 100, 200, 300 yards.......it is a 5.56mm round (basically a .22 the same as the Armalite)
I have seen shooters with a .303 hit 10/10 with iron sights at 500 yards....
My air rifle is FAC.......I have no worries over dispatching vermin over 50 yards range.
-
I'm not just a pretty face. ;D ;D
Don't poke it above the parapet though............ ;)
-
Don't poke it above the parapet though............ ;)
Cheeky thing. ;D
-
Cheeky thing. ;D
LOL :P
-
Will JB's own description do??
Now a silencer is what it says, it silences a gunshot just like in the movies. But they have no place in the real world and you cannot legally buy one for a gun. But the prosecution wanted to hood wink the court by suggesting that we owned a silencer which used to suggest that the shootings were carried out using stealth. No one would put a sound moderator onto a un to lower the volume of a rifle as it makes no difference to the sound we hear.
A sound moderator hardly changes the loudness of a gun’s discharge to the human ear. Its job is to stop the sonic boom reaching the rabbit before the bullet. The sonic boom is created when the gun fires like on a jet fighter or lightning and it’s a high pitched whip crack. If the rabbit hears the sonic boom first it would move out of the way.
No no. You said that a moderator goes the full length of the gun. Perhaps you could put a picture of both a moderator and a silencer so we common unknowledgeable folk could see the difference. :)
-
Grahame.....the US Marines are trained to hit targets with iron sights on an M16 rifle at 100, 200, 300 yards.......it is a 5.56mm round (basically a .22 the same as the Armalite)
I have seen shooters with a .303 hit 10/10 with iron sights at 500 yards....
My air rifle is FAC.......I have no worries over dispatching vermin over 50 yards range.
Yes I know that. But they are much bigger guns and would probably blow the rabbit to bits anyway. I'm not an expert though and I should think you could do as you say you can do? But isn't it well known among sportsmen that 45 yards is to be more certain for a kill with a .22 air rifle. I only heard that mind. As you know I am not very knowledeable in regards to guns. :)
-
No no. You said that a moderator goes the full length of the gun. Perhaps you could put a picture of both a moderator and a silencer so we common unknowledgeable folk could see the difference. :)
Yes, I would be interested to see some pics please. :)
-
Yes I know that. But they are much bigger guns and would probably blow the rabbit to bits anyway. I'm not an expert though and I should think you could do as you say you can do? But isn't it well known among sportsmen that 45 yards is to be more certain for a kill with a .22 air rifle. I only heard that mind. As you know I am not very knowledeable in regards to guns. :)
A non-FAC air rifle max 50-60 yards.........An FAC Theoben or similar much further....
-
Yes, I would be interested to see some pics please. :)
Something like this...........
http://www.saddleryandgunroom.co.uk/Gunroom/SG_Hushpower.htm
-
Something like this...........
http://www.saddleryandgunroom.co.uk/Gunroom/SG_Hushpower.htm
Ooh! that's a bigun. Thanks for the link Jack. So what was used on the murder weapon was a silencer, is that right?
-
Ooh! that's a bigun. Thanks for the link Jack. So what was used on the murder weapon was a silencer, is that right?
Some arms manufacturers advertise their wares as being silent, but to what level 'silent' actually means is open to debate because a supersonic round cannot have it's report removed completely.
Moderators tend to make the report directional, thus not attracting attention from elsewhere.
Without seeing the inside of the PH one fitted to the Anshutz, I imagine it is what PH marketed as a silencer (which was used for air rifles as well)
Howver, you say 'it was used on the murder weapon' and I say it may have been fitted to it before and after the shootings; but I'll bet it wasn't on there when the weapon was being fired.
-
Some arms manufacturers advertise their wares as being silent, but to what level 'silent' actually means is open to debate because a supersonic round cannot have it's report removed completely.
Moderators tend to make the report directional, thus not attracting attention from elsewhere.
Without seeing the inside of the PH one fitted to the Anshutz, I imagine it is what PH marketed as a silencer (which was used for air rifles as well)
Howver, you say 'it was used on the murder weapon' and I say it may have been fitted to it before and after the shootings; but I'll bet it wasn't on there when the weapon was being fired.
Here's a picture of the inside of the silencer in question:
-
The gun was without the end screwcap. Which apparently was found on the floor of the living room?
-
The gun was without the end screwcap. Which apparently was found on the floor of the living room?
Does that mean the threaded end of the barrel?
-
So, Jack All, Wellcome to the 'Blue'
You opine that NGB should be 'Returned To Unit' (HaHa!!), then for your explanatory posts re Guns n' rifles, Certificates n' Licences, Mods n' Suppressors, etc ad infinitem, it is considered you are 'Off Jankers'.
Can you give the Forum the 'lowdown' on Peter Eaton's occupation being given as a Gundealer? Would this generic term include for firearms and ammunition, and other appurtenances of the ilk?
-
Does that mean the threaded end of the barrel?
Yes that is how I interpreted it. To me it suggests that perhaps the silencer was used and that the murderer dropped the rifle end screwcap and could not find it? How do you see it?
-
Will JB's own description do??
Now a silencer is what it says, it silences a gunshot just like in the movies. But they have no place in the real world and you cannot legally buy one for a gun. But the prosecution wanted to hood wink the court by suggesting that we owned a silencer which used to suggest that the shootings were carried out using stealth. No one would put a sound moderator onto a un to lower the volume of a rifle as it makes no difference to the sound we hear.
A sound moderator hardly changes the loudness of a gun’s discharge to the human ear. Its job is to stop the sonic boom reaching the rabbit before the bullet. The sonic boom is created when the gun fires like on a jet fighter or lightning and it’s a high pitched whip crack. If the rabbit hears the sonic boom first it would move out of the way.
The statement on the official website is simply incorrect, in several respects. I have pointed this out to Jeremy.
-
Yes that is how I interpreted it. To me it suggests that perhaps the silencer was used and that the murderer dropped the rifle end screwcap and could not find it? How do you see it?
Where to start........
OK. Right, the silencer and guts that I have see pics of appear to be what PH marketed in the 80s as a silencer for .22 rifles and air rifles...........how they decided it could be suited to both I have no idea as they have an entirely different way of operating.
However, for sub-sonic ammo it may have had some limited effect but IMO, not a lot of good..........but then what would you expect for what you can still buy these days for £25 new..........
I would imagine that its effectiveness would be reduced rapidly every time a weapon was fired through it, and by the time say 30 rounds had gone through it it would have been pretty much useless (applies to air and .22 rifles)
In all fairness to PH they did suggest it would improve accuracy for both .22 and air rifles........and it very probably did, because it acts as a muzzle weight which reduces muzzle flip when the gun is fired.
Note that these days a firearms certifcate is required to buy the same item even if it is for a non-FAC air-rifle, yet I can buy a non-FAC air rifle with one fitted as standard!!
I don't / didn't know PE, 'Gundealer'...well as an RFD, he would have been permitted to deal in any weapons and ammunition that were legal at the time including antiques. That means buy, sell, or hold licensed and unlicensed guns for individuals (and authorities if requested).
He would also have the responsibilty of reporting persons known to have illegal or unlicensed weapons.
He could not have traded guns that required shotgun or firearms certificates if he was not an RFD.
I wonder why NB or JB didn't use him to supply the Anshutz.
With regards to ammo for shooting rabbits a .22 air rifle pellet is perfectly adequate.......a tiny piece of lead, compared with a sub-sonic hollowpoint bullet (and why hollowpoint..............pointless.......geddit?)...
.......in fact a decent .177 air rifle will do the job.
So why was it necssary for a .22 rifle on the farm? Did they keep chickens and a rampaging fox need to be shot?
-
Some arms manufacturers advertise their wares as being silent, but to what level 'silent' actually means is open to debate because a supersonic round cannot have it's report removed completely.
Moderators tend to make the report directional, thus not attracting attention from elsewhere.
Without seeing the inside of the PH one fitted to the Anshutz, I imagine it is what PH marketed as a silencer (which was used for air rifles as well)
Howver, you say 'it was used on the murder weapon' and I say it may have been fitted to it before and after the shootings; but I'll bet it wasn't on there when the weapon was being fired.
Parker Hale have always marketed this as a sound moderator, although in the instruction leaflet they refer to the design being based on the original Maxim silencer. Americans often use the term suppressor.
-
Parker Hale have always marketed this as a sound moderator, although in the instruction leaflet they refer to the design being based on the original Maxim silencer. Americans often use the term suppressor.
Pardon?
Take a look at PH's main trade distribution outlet funded by PH (PH don't deal direct)
http://www.bisley-uk.com/products.php?c=23
Anyway, regardless of what manufacturers say because they obviously can't make their own minds up; be assured there is a difference between a true silencer and a moderator.
-
Pardon?
Take a look at PH's main trade distribution outlet funded by PH (PH don't deal direct)
http://www.bisley-uk.com/products.php?c=23
That proves my point. The dealer in your link uses the term silencer. Parker Hale's own description is sound moderator, and always has been. There is a scan here somewhere of the instruction leaflet supplied by Parker Hale. I still have my copies of this, and it has not changed over the years. However it does not really matter as the terms silencer, sound moderator and suppressor are interchangeable, as I have already explained. I own several of them, of different makes including Parker Hale, and of different calibres, both centerfire and rimfire.
-
Pardon?
Take a look at PH's main trade distribution outlet funded by PH (PH don't deal direct)
http://www.bisley-uk.com/products.php?c=23
http://www.parker-hale.co.uk/mod.htm
See top sentence. It appears that they use both terms to describe one object?
-
That proves my point. The dealer in your link uses the term silencer. Parker Hale's own description is sound moderator, and always has been. There is a scan here somewhere of the instruction leaflet supplied by Parker Hale. I still have my copies of this, and it has not changed over the years. However it does not really matter as the terms silencer, sound moderator and suppressor are interchangeable, as I have already explained. I own several of them, of different makes including Parker Hale, and of different calibres, both centerfire and rimfire.
It does not prove your point one iota.........The link is not to a dealer.....I did tell you that.
The company is PH and via Companies House or any search you will find that PH and Bisley / John Rothery are at exactly the same address.
However, silencer; moderator; suppressor; muzzle brake; whatever..............the d*mn thing is a red herring and I don't know why it has a hold over so many peoples' view of the shootings........ For certain, it wasn't fitted when it took place......
..........and to answer something Grahame asked , the adaptor that connected the silencer to the barrel laying on the floor is a serious indication that it wasn't fitted..............because a spanner is needed to tighten it to the barrel**......so where was the bl**dy spanner???
(**The silencer is then screwed tightly onto the adaptor by hand..........Neither adaptor or silencer can be loose as there is a distinct risk of injury to the shooter )
Jack
-
Sorry if this causes controversy. But this is from the link I supplied.
The classic Parker-Hale .22 calibre sound moderator has been in continuous production for over 50 years and has not been bettered. When used with sub-sonic ammunition it is one of the most effective silencers available today. Both the lightweight alloy and steel options can be easily taken apart for cleaning.
-
Sorry if this causes controversy. But this is from the link I supplied.
Just shows that PH didn't know what to call it...........but it certainly isn't a military standard silencer by any near means.
However, the John Rothery description for the Steel one clearly states 'Silencer' throughout..........and the aluminium ones were pretty sh*te in the 80s.
-
Just shows that PH didn't know what to call it...........but it certainly isn't a military standard silencer by any near means.
But it does appear to support ngb's statement that the terms are interchangeable even if the makers don't know what to call it? Wouldn't you agree Jack? :)
-
But it does appear to support ngb's statement that the terms are interchangeable even if the makers don't know what to call it? Wouldn't you agree Jack? :)
No, I don't agree..........but it is immaterial.
PS, look up four posts........there is an answer to something you asked there.
-
the adaptor that connected the silencer to the barrel laying on the floor is a serious indication that it wasn't fitted..............because a spanner is need to tighten it to the barrel......so where was the bl**dy spanner???
Jack
That's a good point actually. But I thought it was just a knarled cap that could be undone using just a hand grip? Perhaps I just assumed that?
-
It does not prove your point one iota.........The link is not to a dealer.....I did tell you that.
The company is PH and via Companies House or any search you will find that PH and Bisley / John Rothery are at exactly the same address.
However, silencer; moderator; suppressor; muzzle brake; whatever..............the d*mn thing is a red herring and I don't know why it has a hold over so many peoples' view of the shootings........ For certain, it wasn't fitted when it took place......
..........and to answer something Grahame asked , the adaptor that connected the silencer to the barrel laying on the floor is a serious indication that it wasn't fitted..............because a spanner is need to tighten it to the barrel......so where was the bl**dy spanner???
Jack
There is no adapter connecting the silencer to the rifle barrel. The silencer simply screws onto the threaded end of the barrel. No spanner or other tool is required, it is simply screwed on by hand. It takes a few seconds.
-
There is no adapter connecting the silencer to the rifle barrel. The silencer simply screws onto the threaded end of the barrel. No spanner or other tool is required, it is simply screwed on by hand. It takes a few seconds.
Wrong again........My 525 has a threaded barrel end (almost like a S/G multi-choke) and an adaptor is screwed into the barrel, and tightened with a spanner........
....two types clearly seen on the John Rothery Wholesale website (use the same link)....
but again, immaterial..........there was no point in fitting a silencer.
Sorry ngb, as I have other more important things to do, I'm not going to keep repeating myself for the benefit of someone that thinks they have extensive firearms knowledge and who could be leading others up the wrong path, therefore I shall butt out and let you get on with it.
Jack.....ta,ta
-
Wrong again........My 525 has a threaded barrel end (almost like a S/G multi-choke) and an adaptor is screwed into the barrel, and tightened with a spanner........
....two types clearly seen on the John Rothery Wholesale website (use the same link)....
but again, immaterial..........there was no point in fitting a silencer.
Sorry ngb, as I have other more important things to do, I'm not going to keep repeating myself for the benefit of someone that thinks they have extensive firearms knowledge and who could be leading others up the wrong path, therefore I shall butt out and let you get on with it.
Jack.....ta,ta
I have tried in a polite manner to correct you when you have made errors. I do know what I am talking about as I have extensive experience of firearms and I own a number of rifles and sound moderators, including Anschutz and Parker Hale. You are simply wrong in what you say about fitting the sound moderator. Unfortunately instead of accepting the correction with good grace you resort to denigration of me. You clearly do not have the knowledge or experience you claim and it is important that other members are not misled.
-
I have tried in a polite manner to correct you when you have made errors. I do know what I am talking about as I have extensive experience of firearms and I own a number of rifles and sound moderators, including Anschutz and Parker Hale. You are simply wrong in what you say about fitting the sound moderator. Unfortunately instead of accepting the correction with good grace you resort to denigration of me. You clearly do not have the knowledge or experience you claim and it is important that other members are not misled.
http://jga.anschuetz-sport.com/index.php5?produktID=313&menu=106&sprache=1&produktShow=detail&PHPSESSID=77f29b217478cf5d82b7c0201cc4e627
You will see that a barrel thread is not present.
Try downloading the parts manual as well...............no projecting thread.
I wonder how a silencer is fitted..............Hmmmmmmmmm
You do not know a thing about me and therefore you cannot state with any certainty what I do or don't know......What I do know is I am considerably older than you and from what I can tell, I have been involved in relevant issues considerably more than you.
Lets leave it at that, shall we?
-
http://jga.anschuetz-sport.com/index.php5?produktID=313&menu=106&sprache=1&produktShow=detail&PHPSESSID=77f29b217478cf5d82b7c0201cc4e627
You will see that a barrel thread is not present.
Try downloading the parts manual as well...............no projecting thread.
I wonder how a silencer is fitted..............Hmmmmmmmmm
You do not know a thing about me and therefore you cannot state with any certainty what I do or don't know......What I do know is I am considerably older than you and from what I can tell, I have been involved in relevant issues considerably more than you.
Lets leave it at that, shall we?
Do yourself a favour and go to the archive section of this site. Look at the photographs showing the Anschutz rifle used at WHF. You will see that the end of the barrel is threaded. When you have done that perhaps you will be good enough to agree that you have been mistaken. An apology would not go amiss, but I will leave that for you to decide.
I have no idea how old you are so obviously cannot say whether your relevant experience exceeds mine, but for what it is worth I have over 40 years experience of shotguns and firearms.
-
In your previous post you attempted to suggest your knowledge was better than mine, but you obviously cannot make you mind up, which is why I said let's leave it at that......I do not intend disclosing my background.
Those photos are not clear enough to say for certain, but as far as I am concerned it is a threaded insert into the barrel end.........it is virtually the same as the OEM one in mine which has no flats either.
It is a replaceable insert in the event the threading becomes damaged whilst being used without a silencer............and despite the photo quality, if you look hard enough you can see see the thread cutting disappearing into the barrel.
FYI....I also have a PH adaptor for another silencer and an OEM Anshutz barrel end ferrule which is screwed into the barrel end when the OEM adaptor isn't in use, that way no threads inside or outside the barrel are exposed.
I give up!
-
I give up!
I should...see above, Neil.
-
I should...see above, Neil.
You will not let go. You are obviously trying to goad. I know I should ignore you and let others form their own judgement in the light of our respective posts. However, my irritation has got the better of me. You really are a stubborn idiot and you clearly have no idea about the subject of which you profess to be an expert. I suspect your knowledge, such as it is, is gleaned from internet searches rather than experience.
-
Calm down,calm down ( said in Liverpool accent ) you'll be having another heart attack,Jack.
-
Calm down,calm down ( said in Liverpool accent ) you'll be having another heart attack,Jack.
LOL.......Not yet I won't......... ;)
-
You say potatoes I say potaatoes, you say tomatoes I say tomaatoes, potatoes potaatoes, tomatoes, tomaatoes, silencer, moderator - let's sort the whole thing out!! ;D ;D ;D
-
LOL.......Not yet I won't......... ;)
Oh yes you will. You are a troll and I think the forum has benefited from your presence for long enough. Goodbye!
-
You say potatoes I say potaatoes, you say tomatoes I say tomaatoes, potatoes potaatoes, tomatoes, tomaatoes, silencer, moderator - let's sort the whole thing out!! ;D ;D ;D
Or even if he shows you his, perhaps you can show him yours ;D
-
Or even if he shows you his, perhaps you can show him yours ;D
I'm baffled - what are you insinuating ;) :)
-
Calm down,calm down ( said in Liverpool accent ) you'll be having another heart attack,Jack.
No no. That's "kearm down kearm down". ;D
-
No no. That's "kearm down kearm down". ;D
How does an Essex Boy pronounce it Grahame?? ;D
-
I'm baffled - what are you insinuating ;) :)
NEEEEKOS!!!!!!! Absolutely nothing other than silencers and moderators :) :)
-
NEEEEKOS!!!!!!! Absolutely nothing other than silencers and moderators :) :)
Yes, but what do I show him first...... my silencer or my moderator,...... there's only one way to find out.............FIGHT!!! ;D
-
Yes, but what do I show him first...... my silencer or my moderator,...... there's only one way to find out.............FIGHT!!! ;D
That my dear Neeeekos is entirely your choice :D :D
-
You say potatoes I say potatoes, you say tomatoes I say tomatoes, potatoes potatoes, tomatoes, tomatoes, silencer, moderator - let's sort the whole thing out!! ;D ;D ;D
I really can't see anything wrong with this relationship? ???
-
How does an Essex Boy pronounce it Grahame?? ;D
Carm daahn carm daahn.
-
Carm daahn carm daahn.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
NEEEEKOS!!!!!!! Absolutely nothing other than silencers and moderators :) :)
Not Swallows and Amazons? ;D
-
Wrong..........You should be RTU'd and do more research,
Sorry Pal.
NGB is correct they are all synonymous terms. I love when people vehemently attack others who are correct in the fashion you do.
In American English the official term is sound suppressor.
In the Queens English it is officially a sound moderator.
Silencer is informal and is used globally thanks to movies and novels which also results in the informal term being used much more often than the formal designations.
-
Stevenson, I believe was a founder member of 'THE MANCHESTER McKensie', Organisation...
-
Can anyone explain why this is asterisked on the bottom of the document please....
There are actually two asterisks as you can see their is one by the date.
There is a theory about the dates of when the silencer or silencers where found not adding up to the forensic documents.
I have never really looked into it TBH
-
Whose signature is it at the bottom of the page ?
-
There are actually two asterisks as you can see their is one by the date.
There is a theory about the dates of when the silencer or silencers where found not adding up to the forensic documents.
I have never really looked into it TBH
The second is not by the date it is to denote the end of the comment. The comment is contained within the asterisks and denotes this is not part of the original document. Proper protocol is to do this [comment] but asterisks were used instead of brackets. Brackets are also used when changing a word or words within a quote.
-
The second is not by the date it is to denote the end of the comment. The comment is contained within the asterisks and denotes this is not part of the original document. Proper protocol is to do this [comment] but asterisks were used instead of brackets. Brackets are also used when changing a word or words within a quote.
Oh yeah, Reason I thought it was the date is because the moderator was found after the date stated (apparently) ???
-
Oh yeah, Reason I thought it was the date is because the moderator was found after the date stated (apparently) ???
It was found August 10, turned over August 12, sent to the lab August 13, tested by the lab the same day and August 14 the lab notified police of the results of the testing- they had found human blood in/on it and that the red stuff on the knurled tip was paint. Later that same day (August 14) police went to WHF to search for the source of the paint and samples. It was turned back over to police so they could fingerprint it. The plan was for the lab to do a thorough analysis of it after police fingerprinted it out of fear they would disturb any prints that might be on it.
The rest of the month Cook took his time fingerprinting it including superglue fuming it and it sat in the evidence room for a while instead of being turned over the the lab. The Dickinson Report was critical because it said he should have turned it back over to the lab more quickly. He didn't anticipate them finding anything else of value and figured Sheila did it so wasn't concerned about them getting it. Cook and the others were as surprised as Jeremy regarding the concept of drawback and what it proved. So Jeremy was in plenty of company when it came to ignorance about drawback.
-
It was found August 10, turned over August 12, sent to the lab August 13, tested by the lab the same day and August 14 the lab notified police of the results of the testing- they had found human blood in/on it and that the red stuff on the knurled tip was paint. Later that same day (August 14) police went to WHF to search for the source of the paint and samples. It was turned back over to police so they could fingerprint it. The plan was for the lab to do a thorough analysis of it after police fingerprinted it out of fear they would disturb any prints that might be on it.
The rest of the month Cook took his time fingerprinting it including superglue fuming it and it sat in the evidence room for a while instead of being turned over the the lab. The Dickinson Report was critical because it said he should have turned it back over to the lab more quickly. He didn't anticipate them finding anything else of value and figured Sheila did it so wasn't concerned about them getting it. Cook and the others were as surprised as Jeremy regarding the concept of drawback and what it proved. So Jeremy was in plenty of company when it came to ignorance about drawback.
I always thought the moderator was tested in September?
-
I always thought the moderator was tested in September?
The lab conducted the blood typing testing in September and that is when Fletcher tested it. In August the lab did testing to see whether suspected blood was in fact human blood and what the red stuff that looked like paint was.
If it had turned out not to be human blood they probably never would have done any further testing including not bothering to fingerprint it. The fact human blood was found suggested it may have been used in the murders and convinced them to test it in more depth by fingerprinting it, type testing the blood and searching for the source of the paint that was on it. Cook was hoping to find Sheila's prints on it that way he could use it as evidence of her carrying out the killings. He was bummed out by the lack of prints and didn't foresee the wrench in the works that would be posed by it after the lab analyzed it. He figured it was useless since no prints had been found.
As a result of this he was slow to turn it over to the lab for through testing and that thorough testing thus didn't happen till September. So you are right if referring to the thorough testing.
-
I now know who J Stevenson is who made the asterix at the bottom of the document ...here is his report and the document.
-
Wow Patti,that's some report,though it doesn't surprise me in the least. The conditions in which the "blood samples" were kept,were wholly inadequate and as far as I'm concerned-------unacceptable.
-
I wish I understood it more Lookout.... :(
-
I wish I understood it more Lookout.... :(
In other words Patti,the tests were crap.
-
I wish I understood it more Lookout.... :(
The documents they saw didn't prove all the information available on the issues they commented upon. They essentially claimed the documents they saw failed to fully provide a record of everything that was alleged at trial. Webster and others subsequently reviewed more documents and other information and ultimately these allegations were dropped. They didn't make their way into the 2002 appeal because by then it was obvious the claims were wrong. Many allegations made were essentially brainstorming to try to get others to do further research or provide some idea of what to research further.
Not being privy to everything in the defense file means that we don't get to see when and why the defense ended up rejecting and abandoning various allegations.
The lack of disclosure about when and why claims were abandoned or disproved is used by the campaign team among others to press claims that have already been rejected. Such claims are useless legally but are used for propaganda purposes to try to garner public support. There is thus a dichotomy.
The fact the 2 CCRC opinions rejecting the latest submissions hasn't been released is similarly taken advantage of. If the CCRC rejections were published it would eliminate the ability to use such arguments. But since such arguments were not publicly smashed propagandists still use them. If the CCRC's reasoning were disclosed then they in order to keep pressing the claims they would have to try to rebut the criticisms. The lawyers couldn't even manage that so clearly they would not be able to.
Webster made some extraordinarily wacky claims to the Court of Appeals including the suggestion the flake of blood was really just a flake of soot that had a little blood on it. He didn't make the claims Stevenson suggested though so that tells you the claims were subsequently refuted.
The evidence before the COA was that the flake was cut up into 5 parts, each part was dissolved, and 4 of the 5 samples produced blood grouping results.
-
Bubo bubo I have re-read the McKenzie report which I find unprofessional and all over the place. In parts it is factually incorrect. A far more reliable source re the blood evidence are the reports/letters between Bamber's defence and blood serology expert for the defence Dr Patrick Lincoln.
Bizarre that this is without doubt the most important aspect of the case and yet only appears to have been read about a dozen times?
-
Webster's evidence in the 2002 appeal has got a definite match of DNA in the silencer as June's, saying that a contact shot " has put June's blood in the silencer ". This undermined what the prosecution argued.
-
I have always said that. The blood and silencer evidence and Mugfords witheld notes.
Forget the thousands of posts re the phone calls and forget the trick of light
Holly Goodread did tons of research on the blood evidence that could have been used
-
Then Webster was asked if the shot had to be a close one to get blood into it to which he answered no.
The upshot was the possibility of contamination because the silencer had been handled by various people.
-
Webster had remarked on the destruction of such evidence and had said " it is a bad idea to destroy evidential materials in contentious cases " to which Justice Kay answered " That is not really a matter for your expertise ".
-
Poor Webster was treated like an imbecile during the 2002 appeal. Yet Hayward with his basic and useless tests came out victorious. ::)
Webster even had a colleague, another senior forensic scientist in Germany, overlook his theory which he'd said is worth consideration. The theory being that there had been a mixture of bloods.
-
I have always said that. The blood and silencer evidence and Mugfords witheld notes.
Forget the thousands of posts re the phone calls and forget the trick of light
Holly Goodread did tons of research on the blood evidence that could have been used
Forgotten about in 1985.
-
I have always said that. The blood and silencer evidence and Mugfords witheld notes.
Forget the thousands of posts re the phone calls and forget the trick of light
Holly Goodread did tons of research on the blood evidence that could have been used
Not brought up until decades later. By Bamber.
-
Then Webster was asked if the shot had to be a close one to get blood into it to which he answered no.
The upshot was the possibility of contamination because the silencer had been handled by various people.
Source please.
The rifle was barely powerful enough to produce back spatter from Sheila. And she received two contact shots in an area of high blood flow.
-
Source please.
The rifle was barely powerful enough to produce back spatter from Sheila. And she received two contact shots in an area of high blood flow.
The pdf file of the 2002 appeal. Webster2002.
-
Forgotten about in 1985.
Not ‘forgotten’ about in 1985 but getting to appeal should concentrate on the forensic evidence, the finding of the silencer, all blood evidence. It’s my opinion something was seen at WHF by Bews but you are never going to prove it.
The blood evidence when looked at by experts is undeniable and we don’t know yet what is being used for the application to the CCRC
Holly spent years researching the blood evidence
-
The pdf file of the 2002 appeal. Webster2002.
Just read Webster's sections on the COA. Not there.
-
Just read Webster's sections on the COA. Not there.
It certainly is.
-
Over 500 questions and answers. Too boring for you to go through Adam.
-
Bubo bubo I have re-read the McKenzie report which I find unprofessional and all over the place. In parts it is factually incorrect. A far more reliable source re the blood evidence are the reports/letters between Bamber's defence and blood serology expert for the defence Dr Patrick Lincoln.
Bizarre that this is without doubt the most important aspect of the case and yet only appears to have been read about a dozen times?
Thanks for that. Unfortunately I am away for a week/ 10 days and my ability to participate will be much reduced. Possibly just keeping pace with posts. I would appreciate a link to the PL Bamber defence correspondence. It might provide some bed time reading and if too technical put me to sleep. I take it you have read the Webster report on the forum. Again this is an area which had little appeal to me because in these type of circumstances it can often be the case that it turns into an arm wrestle between scientists. In such cases it is difficult for plebs like me to decide who is right. I need to spend some time on Red seeing what HG says. I know she did a lot of work. Have you read her stuff?
-
Thanks for that. Unfortunately I am away for a week/ 10 days and my ability to participate will be much reduced. Possibly just keeping pace with posts. I would appreciate a link to the PL Bamber defence correspondence. It might provide some bed time reading and if too technical put me to sleep. I take it you have read the Webster report on the forum. Again this is an area which had little appeal to me because in these type of circumstances it can often be the case that it turns into an arm wrestle between scientists. In such cases it is difficult for plebs like me to decide who is right. I need to spend some time on Red seeing what HG says. I know she did a lot of work. Have you read her stuff?
The PL defence correspondence is on this thread #39 - #43 incl and in my opinion is where its at so to speak! I was struck by an anomaly and after undertaking my own research reached a conclusion! #40 includes a page from the McKenzie report.
Yes I've read Mark Webster's report. I thought his theory about the blood flake overlaying a flake of soot was wacky. It was funny in parts when one of the judges slapped him down for daring to point out the fact that exhibits had been destroyed against all protocols. Even funnier when the judges put forward their own theories about how blood would behave inside the silencer. MW pointed out it fell outside his own area of expertise and into fluid mechanics but the judges were having none of it and filled the void with their own unqualified theories! MW kept making the point that experiments and tests were needed but again the judges were having none of it! Overall I don't think I really gleaned much from it.
I've heard mention of another forum/posters but I don't take much notice.