Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on January 04, 2014, 02:40:PM
-
It was found on 10th August and handed to police on 11th September 1985...
-
It was found on 10th August and handed to police on 11th September 1985...
Evidence was fabricated with a view to placing it in police possession, one month before it actually was...
-
Evidence was fabricated with a view to placing it in police possession, one month before it actually was...
I believe that may very well be the truth of the matter.
-
It was found on 10th August and handed to police on 11th September 1985...
If that was the case, where does it leave the argument that Basil Cock complained about fingerprint dust when the silencer was found? I believe WHF was fingerprinted on 8th September?
-
If that was the case, where does it leave the argument that Basil Cock complained about fingerprint dust when the silencer was found? I believe WHF was fingerprinted on 8th September?
That was exactly what I was thinking about. If you see fingerprint dust, you see fingerprint dust, you don´t see it if it isn´t there! It speaks volumes that the WHF was fingerprinted in September.
-
If that was the case, where does it leave the argument that Basil Cock complained about fingerprint dust when the silencer was found? I believe WHF was fingerprinted on 8th September?
Mr Basil Cock ( and Bull ) cocked a few things up,I think,and like everyone else,tended to go in the direction of what the relatives said and did.
-
A reasonable point. I don't recall mike tesko ever asserting that any informant specifically confirmed or denied that the date when the silencer was found was 10th August.
-
The truth is, the relatives only took possession of one sound moderator from the scene (DRB/1) which was taken to the home of the Eaton clan, and put into storage on the top of a wardrobe in one of their bedrooms. The silencer seized by DS 'Stan' Jones (SBJ/1) at the scene on morning of 7th August 1985, was the one belonging to Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action Bruno rifle. Ann Eaton handed over the sound moderator (DRB/1) to police on 11th September, the very same day that David Boutflour contacted the police to say he had found a silencer at the farmhouse, and requesting that police meet him at whf on the following day (12th September 1985), which was when additional scratch marks appeared on the aga...
There can be no that red paint got into the knurl end of the moderator at that time, on that occasion, at a time when the relatives, and police were together at the scene. The truth regarding this is very easy to establish, since police officers who were interviewed by the COLP investigators in 1991, swore blind that they did not have the sound moderator with them when 'Ron' Cook, and other officers went to the scene on 12th September 1985, to meet David Boutflour and to take photographs showing the recently gouged scratch marks made on the aga that same day. Cook and the other officers lied about that, do not be fooled into thinking that corrupt police officers always act honestly, and tell the truth - as I was saying you woulds be a fool to trust any police officer of this elk...
Cook was basically a crook, is a crook, and always will be one...
The other crooks who worked alongside him and helped him to fabricate evidence by falsifying police records involving the sound moderator handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985, are all crooks. Non of them can be trusted, all of them know what they have done, they moved the timing of when Ann Eaton gave police the crucial silencer (DRB/1), back one month to 12th August 1985 - this is the absolute truth...
-
How could 'Ron' Crook, keep the silencer upon his person (he claims) and carry it around in his pocket for around 18 days, and not once was it placed in proper packaging, or placed in a secure store within the police system? It just doesn't make any sense for 'Ron' the Crook, to keep the sound moderator handed in by the Eatons in his personal possession for all that time (between 13th August 1985, and 30th August 1985). Careful analysis of available police records that relatives did not bring the find of silencer DRB/1 to the attention of police until 11th September 1985, after which it was used at the scene to make additional marks on the underside of the aga surround, marks which were duly photographed that same day, then Davidson and Eastwood fingerprinted it (DRB/1) on 13th September 1985, before it was sent to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 20th September 1985, too late for the ballistic expert Fletcher to find the crucial flake of blood inside it...
-
How could 'Ron' Crook, keep the silencer upon his person (he claims) and carry it around in his pocket for around 18 days, and not once was it placed in proper packaging, or placed in a secure store within the police system? It just doesn't make any sense for 'Ron' the Crook, to keep the sound moderator handed in by the Eatons in his personal possession for all that time (between 13th August 1985, and 30th August 1985). Careful analysis of available police records that relatives did not bring the find of silencer DRB/1 to the attention of police until 11th September 1985, after which it was used at the scene to make additional marks on the underside of the aga surround, marks which were duly photographed that same day, then Davidson and Eastwood fingerprinted it (DRB/1) on 13th September 1985, before it was sent to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 20th September 1985, too late for the ballistic expert Fletcher to find the crucial flake of blood inside it...
Too late by 10 days, to enable the flake of blood to be found inside it, supposedly trapped between the first two baffle plates of a sound moderator (DRB/1) which could not possibly have been there at the lab', on that earlier occasion...
-
Much too late, for the sound moderator (DRB/1) to have been the same silencer inside which was found the damning flake of blood used so effectively to make sure that Jeremy would be convicted as a murderer...
-
Too late by far, to be the sound moderator which had supposedly been handed over to police on evening of 12th August 1985, by Peter Eaton, of course, the police spun a web of lies about the only sound moderator in the case, starting life out as exhibit SBJ/1, then altered to DB/1, before being given its final exhibit reference of DRB/1 - such lies as these exposed by the fact that on 11th September 1985, when Ann Eaton handed over various exhibits to police, each of these exhibits were labeled, AE/1, AE/2, AE/3 and AE/4, later to become relabeled, CAE/2, CAE/3 and CAE/4 respectively...
-
Too late by far, to be the sound moderator which had supposedly been handed over to police on evening of 12th August 1985, by Peter Eaton, of course, the police spun a web of lies about the only sound moderator in the case, starting life out as exhibit SBJ/1, then altered to DB/1, before being given its final exhibit reference of DRB/1 - such lies as these exposed by the fact that on 11th September 1985, when Ann Eaton handed over various exhibits to police, each of these exhibits were labeled, AE/1, AE/2, AE/3 and AE/4, later to become relabeled, CAE/2, CAE/3 and CAE/4 respectively...
How is it, that all the other exhibits that ended up being handed over to police by Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985, including the silencer, had an exhibit references of AE/1, it had never been SBJ/1, or DB/1...
-
SBJ/1 (not the one found by David Boutflour)
DB/1 (not the one found by David Boutflour)
AE/1
CAE/1
DRB/1 (found by David Boutflour in August, handed over to police in September 1985...
-
Mike, keep going! ;D ;D ;D
-
Mike, keep going! ;D ;D ;D
Hi Alias,
I will update shortly...
-
SBJ/1 (not the one found by David Boutflour)
DB/1 (not the one found by David Boutflour)
AE/1
CAE/1
DRB/1 (found by David Boutflour in August, handed over to police in September 1985...
SBJ/1 (not the one found by David Boutflour)
DB/1 (silencer not the one found by David Boutflour, but could be loose flake handed to police)
AE/1 (found by David Boutflour in August, handed over to police in September 1985, by Ann Eaton)...
CAE/1 (found by David Boutflour in August, handed over to police in September 1985, by Ann Eaton)...
DRB/1 (found by David Boutflour in August, handed over to police in September 1985, by Ann Eaton)...
-
So if we take this line of approach, Cock isn't present during the discovery. Yet he is present between 8th September and 11th September. However that doesn't fit in with the claim being made that the silencer was transported to another premises after having been discovered on 10th Aug... Unless Cock's alleged remark about the fingerprint dust was not connected to any actual presentation of the silencer at all?
-
SBJ/1 (not the one found by David Boutflour)
DB/1 (silencer not the one found by David Boutflour, but could be loose flake handed to police)
AE/1 (found by David Boutflour in August, handed over to police in September 1985, by Ann Eaton)...
CAE/1 (found by David Boutflour in August, handed over to police in September 1985, by Ann Eaton)...
DRB/1 (found by David Boutflour in August, handed over to police in September 1985, by Ann Eaton)...
Sound moderator (AE/1) handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985, had its exhibit reference altered to CAE/1, and later into DRB/1, so that the evidence regarding its discovery, and the alleged handing over of it (DRB/1) to police, could be given as the responsibility of Ann's husband, Peter Eaton, to DS 'Stan' Jones, a month sooner. The excuse that the only sound moderator ever in police possession in connection with this case, originally had an exhibit reference of SBJ/1, which was altered to DB/1 because SBJ/1 clashed with another prosecution witnesses ID, is false, as is the claim that DB/1 had to be altered to DRB/1, using the same pathetic excuse. For a start, what other exhibit did 'Stan' Jones have, which had an exhibit reference of SBJ/1, and when did he take possession of it?
The known facts regarding the seizure of 'Stan' Jones exhibit SBJ/1, is that it was seized along with three other items from the scene on the morning of 7th August 1985, all four exhibits given the identifying marks of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4. If you cannot bring yourselves to accept that / this as being true, then the next available opportunity for 'Stan' to receive a sound moderator, was on the 12th August 1985, when Peter Eaton gets in on the act, supposedly handing over the sound moderator (DRB/1) which David Boutflour had found at the scene in a cupboard in the downstairs office, on 10th August 1985, but this suggestion cannot be true, because if relatives only found one of the two sound moderators known to be present at the scene (the other one belonging to Anthony Pargeter), how could Peter Eaton's wife, Ann Eaton, hand over the same (AE/1, CAE/1 or DRB/1) to police a month later on 11th September 1985...
-
So if we take this line of approach, Cock isn't present during the discovery. Yet he is present between 8th September and 11th September. However that doesn't fit in with the claim being made that the silencer was transported to another premises after having been discovered on 10th Aug... Unless Cock's alleged remark about the fingerprint dust was not connected to any actual presentation of the silencer at all?
Hi Roch,
Basil Cock does not actually say that he saw the sound moderator found, although he does make mention of being present at the scene on 10th August 1985, and also being at the scene later between the 8th and 11th September, 1985 (when we know there was fingerprint dust all over the place) - if Basil Cocks witness statement where he makes mention of the fingerprint dust being all over the place falls on or after 11th September 1985, he could easily have got himself mixed up about whether or not he might have also seen fingerprint dust at the scene on 10th August 1985, or the person taking his witness statement could have paraphrased the detail contained in his statement, thus misrepresenting the true facts...
-
Hi Roch,
Basil Cock does not actually say that he saw the sound moderator found, although he does make mention of being present at the scene on 10th August 1985, and also being at the scene later between the 8th and 11th September, 1985 (when we know there was fingerprint dust all over the place) - if Basil Cocks witness statement where he makes mention of the fingerprint dust being all over the place falls on or after 11th September 1985, he could easily have got himself mixed up about whether or not he might have also seen fingerprint dust at the scene on 10th August 1985, or the person taking his witness statement could have paraphrased the detail contained in his statement, thus misrepresenting the true facts...
Hi Mike, I get your drift.
I'm not sure this will make sense but...
If we remove Cock's alleged remark about the fingerprint dust from being associated with the silencer discovery, then it undermines the case for the silencer having been discovered after the farmhouse had been finger printed. If we cannot prove that the relatives held on to the silencer for one month, it's not really doing the defence any favours to also cancel out Cock's remark as being potential evidence that it was discovered much later than the police / prosecution witnesses' claim. :-\
-
What we find, by the time the case comes to trial in October 1986, is that police have altered all of Ann Eatons exhibit references to items taken from the scene, from AE and CAE references, into DRB references...
-
Hi Mike, I get your drift.
I'm not sure this will make sense but...
If we remove Cock's alleged remark about the fingerprint dust from being associated with the silencer discovery, then it undermines the case for the silencer having been discovered after the farmhouse had been finger printed. If we cannot prove that the relatives held on to the silencer for one month, it's not really doing the defence any favours to also cancel out Cock's remark as being potential evidence that it was discovered much later than the police / prosecution witnesses' claim. :-\
I will answer, shortly...
-
Hi Mike, I get your drift.
I'm not sure this will make sense but...
If we remove Cock's alleged remark about the fingerprint dust from being associated with the silencer discovery, then it undermines the case for the silencer having been discovered after the farmhouse had been finger printed. If we cannot prove that the relatives held on to the silencer for one month, it's not really doing the defence any favours to also cancel out Cock's remark as being potential evidence that it was discovered much later than the police / prosecution witnesses' claim. :-\
Surely it can be ascertained from various sources, when finger print searches took place? :-\
Would common sense not dictate that it occurred whilst the house was still controlled as a crime scene?
-
Surely it can be ascertained from various sources, when finger print searches took place? :-\
Would common sense not dictate that it occurred whilst the house was still controlled as a crime scene?
8th September is the only actual date I'm aware of but I think Vic mentioned something about there having been earlier fingerprinting carried out.
-
8th September is the only actual date I'm aware of but I think Vic mentioned something about there having been earlier fingerprinting carried out.
I agree Roch, think Vic said they fingerprinted soon after the crime and then again at a later date, no doubt in September.
-
8th September is the only actual date I'm aware of but I think Vic mentioned something about there having been earlier fingerprinting carried out.
It seems absurd to me that they wouldn't have searched for fingerprints before releasing the house. :-\
It seems pointless to me to search afterwards. ???
-
It seems absurd to me that they wouldn't have searched for fingerprints before releasing the house. :-\
It seems pointless to me to search afterwards. ???
Why would it have been thought necessary to fingerprint the house when it was considered to be a cut and dried case of 4 murders and a suicide? I can see, however, that once they thought differently, fingerprints would be necessary. It was hard luck if they'd already released the house to the family.
-
Why would it have been thought necessary to fingerprint the house when it was considered to be a cut and dried case of 4 murders and a suicide? I can see, however, that once they thought differently, fingerprints would be necessary. It was hard luck if they'd already released the house to the family.
They finger print tested the rifle and other firearms in the house.
-
They finger print tested the rifle and other firearms in the house.
I can see that they would as one or more had obviously been part of the scene.
-
I can see that they would as one or more had obviously been part of the scene.
Well there we go then, finger print testing took place, Basil complained of the mess it caused.
Do we actually have his statement indicating that? I thought the only reference we have is in one of Ann's statements. :-\
-
Well there we go then, finger print testing took place, Basil complained of the mess it caused.
Do we actually have his statement indicating that? I thought the only reference we have is in one of Ann's statements. :-\
Are you splitting hairs here? I don't think this is a discussion about fingerprinting objects directly associated with the scene, I THOUGHT it was about fingerprinting the house and just because the former occurred at the time, it doesn't indicate conclusively that the latter did.
-
Are you splitting hairs here? I don't think this is a discussion about fingerprinting objects directly associated with the scene, I THOUGHT it was about fingerprinting the house and just because the former occurred at the time, it doesn't indicate conclusively that the latter did.
Not that I was aware of. ???
What I was saying is that it wouldn't be very helpful to search for finger prints after the house was no longer controlled as a crime scene, as there is obviously no way of knowing if prints were made after the house had been returned.
The police went back in September, I thought just to finger print the windows which Julie had told them was used as an access.
The weapons, with the exception of the Anshutz were not removed from the house by the police, but they were checked for finger prints presumably in the house, it may be the source of the mess Basil allegedly complains about.
I'm not sure what the merits of finger print searching the house itself would have been, any prints found wouldn't have been out of place and therefore would not be of evidential value. Maybe the house itself wasn't ever finger print searched?
-
Why would it have been thought necessary to fingerprint the house when it was considered to be a cut and dried case of 4 murders and a suicide? I can see, however, that once they thought differently, fingerprints would be necessary. It was hard luck if they'd already released the house to the family.
it is my understanding that police did fingerprint the various scenes within the premises during the first three days of the investigation, and in fact at least two scenes of crime officers who took part in the search and retention of exhibits from the scene at that time, were fingerprint expert's, namely, DI 'Ron' Cook, and DS 'Neil' Davidson...
-
it is my understanding that police did fingerprint the various scenes within the premises during the first three days of the investigation, and in fact at least two scenes of crime officers who took part in the search and retention of exhibits from the scene at that time, were fingerprint expert's, namely, DI 'Ron' Cook, and DS 'Neil' Davidson...
Police also took fingerprints from the three adult victims at the time of their respective autopsies, which were used to make comparison against prints found at the scene during the first part of the investigation...
-
Not that I was aware of. ???
What I was saying is that it wouldn't be very helpful to search for finger prints after the house was no longer controlled as a crime scene, as there is obviously no way of knowing if prints were made after the house had been returned.
The police went back in September, I thought just to finger print the windows which Julie had told them was used as an access.
The weapons, with the exception of the Anshutz were not removed from the house by the police, but they were checked for finger prints presumably in the house, it may be the source of the mess Basil allegedly complains about.
I'm not sure what the merits of finger print searching the house itself would have been, any prints found wouldn't have been out of place and therefore would not be of evidential value. Maybe the house itself wasn't ever finger print searched?
SNOW-BITS :-* For once we are in complete harmony. How nice. I fail to see the purpose of them returning in September for ANY fingerprinting to be done because of very real probabality of contamination.
-
SNOW-BITS :-* For once we are in complete harmony. How nice. I fail to see the purpose of them returning in September for ANY fingerprinting to be done because of very real probabality of contamination.
Agreed, unless they found prints belonging to Mcdonald of course.
-
What is also relevant is that there was no DRB/1 silencer reference until after Ann Eaton handed a sound moderator and all the other bits and pieces over to police, on 11th September 1985, under AE, CAE and then DRB references...
The sound moderator sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, had the identifying mark SBJ/1, lab' item no. 22, and was clearly a completely different sound moderator to the one which Ann Eaton handed to police (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) on 11th September 1985, which was not sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers, until 20th September 1985...
Incidentally, 'Ron' Cook, the (SOC) fingerprint expert, checked silencer SBJ/1 for fingerprints on 15th August 1985, by reliance on the oblique light technique, and again on, the 23rd August 1985, by super glue technique, whereas, DS Davidson and DS Eastwood, fingerprinted the silencer (DRB/1) on the 13th September 1985, handed into police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985...
For the benefit of doubt, it should be pointed out that once 'Ron' Cook had used the super glue technique to fingerprint the sound moderator (SBJ/1) on 23rd August 1985, it would be hardly worth re-fingerprinting the same sound moderator(DRB/1), again, on 13th September 1985, by Davidson and Eastwood, now would it...
Since, Davidson and Eastwood, are both still very much alive, the most obvious questions to ask them would be, (1) - "what was the exhibit reference to the sound moderator you fingerprinted on the 13th September 1985? (2) - were there any signatures present on the exhibit label prior to handling it? (3) - Do you know how it came to be in police possession at that stage? (4) - What did you physically do with it, once you had fingerprinted it? (5) - Did you find any fingerprints upon it when you examined it on 13th September 1985? (6) - Did you obtain any fingerprints for elimination purposes at that stage? (7) - What date was the silencer you fingerprinted on that date, sent to the lab', and who was it received at the lab' by?
-
What is also relevant is that there was no DRB/1 silencer reference until after Ann Eaton handed a sound moderator and all the other bits and pieces over to police, on 11th September 1985, under AE, CAE and then DRB references...
The sound moderator sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, had the identifying mark SBJ/1, lab' item no. 22, and was clearly a completely different sound moderator to the one which Ann Eaton handed to police (AE/1, CAE/1, DRB/1) on 11th September 1985, which was not sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers, until 20th September 1985...
Incidentally, 'Ron' Cook, the (SOC) fingerprint expert, checked silencer SBJ/1 for fingerprints on 15th August 1985, by reliance on the oblique light technique, and again on, the 23rd August 1985, by super glue technique, whereas, DS Davidson and DS Eastwood, fingerprinted the silencer (DRB/1) on the 13th September 1985, handed into police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985...
For the benefit of doubt, it should be pointed out that once 'Ron' Cook had used the super glue technique to fingerprint the sound moderator (SBJ/1) on 23rd August 1985, it would be hardly worth re-fingerprinting the same sound moderator(DRB/1), again, on 13th September 1985, by Davidson and Eastwood, now would it...
Since, Davidson and Eastwood, are both still very much alive, the most obvious questions to ask them would be, (1) - "what was the exhibit reference to the sound moderator you fingerprinted on the 13th September 1985? (2) - were there any signatures present on the exhibit label prior to handling it? (3) - Do you know how it came to be in police possession at that stage? (4) - What did you physically do with it, once you had fingerprinted it? (5) - Did you find any fingerprints upon it when you examined it on 13th September 1985? (6) - Did you obtain any fingerprints for elimination purposes at that stage? (7) - What date was the silencer you fingerprinted on that date, sent to the lab', and who was it received at the lab' by?
(8) - More importantly, was the sound moderator which you fingerprinted on 13th September 1985, coated in white residue, from a previous super glue examination? Yes, or no?
-
There can be very little doubt, if any at all, that the crucial blood group evidence, (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) was not obtained from a small flake of dried blood found trapped between the first couple of baffle plates inside the sound moderator (AE/1, CAE/1 or DRB/1) handed in to police on 11th September 1985, because that sound moderator could not possible have been the same sound moderator already submitted to the lab' on 30th August 1985, which in turn was examined by the ballistic expert, Fletcher, on 12th September 1985, enabling him, according to his evidence, to discover the crucial flake of blood (aforemtioned) inside it...
It simply is not possible for Fletcher to examine the very same sound moderator on 12th September 1985, and for him to discover the crucial flake of loose blood within it, considering that the one handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September, did not get sent to the lab' for the very first time until the 20th September 1985. The one Fletcher had in his possession on 12th September 1985, was coated in white super glue residue, whereas, the one handed in to police by Ann Eaton had not been exposed to super-glue treatment by 12th September 1985...
-
Fletcher could be asked, "Was the sound moderator you handled on 12th September 1985, inside which you found the all important flake of blood, which eventually produced the blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1, (by John Hayward, between 12th and 19th September 1985), coated in white residue from super glue treatment? Yes, or No?
-
Fletcher could be asked, "Was the sound moderator you handled on 12th September 1985, inside which you found the all important flake of blood, which eventually produced the blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1, (by John Hayward, between 12th and 19th September 1985), coated in white residue from super glue treatment? Yes, or No?
He could also be asked, "Did you have anything at all to do with the other sound moderator received at the lab', on the 20th September 1985? If so, can you confirm the exhibit reference assigned to that item on that occasion?
-
Incidentally, 'Ron' Cook, the (SOC) fingerprint expert, checked silencer SBJ/1 for fingerprints on 15th August 1985, by reliance on the oblique light technique, and again on, the 23rd August 1985, by super glue technique, whereas, DS Davidson and DS Eastwood, fingerprinted the silencer (DRB/1) on the 13th September 1985, handed into police by Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985...
For the benefit of doubt, it should be pointed out that once 'Ron' Cook had used the super glue technique to fingerprint the sound moderator (SBJ/1) on 23rd August 1985, it would be hardly worth re-fingerprinting the same sound moderator(DRB/1), again, on 13th September 1985, by Davidson and Eastwood, now would it...
The allegation document makes reference to COLP documentation, to the effect that DS Davidson examined a silencer for fingerprints on both 9th Aug and 18th September.
-
Relatives have gone on record as saying that they only ever found one silencer, and with this in mind, they could not have handed over two different sound moderators to police, one on the 12th August 1985 (SBJ/1) and another to police on the 11th September 1985 (DRB/1), it would be impossible to have done so, it couldn't be done, not even by a magi...
-
Relatives have gone on record as saying that they only ever found one silencer, and with this in mind, they could not have handed over two different sound moderators to police, one on the 12th August 1985 (SBJ/1) and another to police on the 11th September 1985 (DRB/1), it would be impossible to have done so, it couldn't be done, not even by a magi...
Please no Ali Bongo! ;)
-
Police, relatives, and lab' expert's, were all in on this conspiracy to fabricate evidence involving the only sound moderator recovered from the scene by the relatives...
-
Police, relatives, and lab' expert's, were all in on this conspiracy to fabricate evidence involving the only sound moderator recovered from the scene by the relatives...
A great deal of trouble was entered into, to make it appear as though relatives handed over the sound moderator to police, one month before they actually had done, and did, and that it (DRB/1) was examined sooner than it actually had been...
-
Let's also get something else straight, items of evidential value handed into police are usually given the ID reference of the witness who handed in the said item, so this is really very interesting, since, if Peter Eaton handed the sound moderator over to police on 12th August 1985, what was there to stop such a sound moderator being given the exhibit reference of PE/1? The same can be said, regarding the sound moderator handed to police on 11th September 1985 - only in this example, we now know that the sound moderator in question was given Ann Eatons ID reference of AE/1, subsequently changed to CAE/1, and altered to DRB/1...
-
Let's also get something else straight, items of evidential value handed into police are usually given the ID reference of the witness who handed in the said item, so this is really very interesting, since, if Peter Eaton handed the sound moderator over to police on 12th August 1985, what was there to stop such a sound moderator being given the exhibit reference of PE/1? The same can be said, regarding the sound moderator handed to police on 11th September 1985 - only in this example, we now know that the sound moderator in question was given Ann Eatons ID reference of AE/1, subsequently changed to CAE/1, and altered to DRB/1...
Confusing.
-
Confusing.
Hi Alias,
I think trying to weigh up and consider all these aspects together is rather disorienting, designed to make people accept that there was just the one sound moderator, handed over to police on one occasion, submitted to the lab' for examination on two occasions, after which the crucial flake of blood produced the compelling blood group evidence which helped to seal Jeremy's fate...
-
Hi Alias,
I think trying to weigh up and consider all these aspects together is rather disorienting, designed to make people accept that there was just the one sound moderator, handed over to police on one occasion, submitted to the lab' for examination on two occasions, after which the crucial flake of blood produced the compelling blood group evidence which helped to seal Jeremy's fate...
But...
if you take a closer look at the now known facts, the prosecutions case starts to fall a part...
-
The relatives need to be asked individually, at what stage, and by whom was the only sound moderator found by David Boutflour, 'DRB/1' handed over to police?
Ask, Peter Eaton (12th August, 1985)?
Ask, Ann Eaton? (11th September, 1985)?
Ask, David Boutflour?