Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on July 21, 2014, 02:30:PM
-
The police and relatives have made fools of the lot of us...
-
Evidence exists to confirm that the silencer found at the scene by David Boutflour was not sent to the lab' to be checked for blood until 20th September 1985...
-
Other evidence exists to confirm that the crucial flake of blood which produced the key blood group evidence upon which the decision to prosecute Bamber for the murdets wad fiscovered inside a different silencer already at the lab' on 111th Septemober 1985, and therefore taking these facts into account it stands to reason that the court which dealt with the case was seriously misled into believing the key blood evidence had been found inside one particular silencer with all the implications of the key blood evidence having been found in that silencer, when all along the key blood evidence was found inside a different silencer with its own implications not yet considered or rejected by a jury or any court...
-
Evidence exists to confirm that the silencer found at the scene by David Boutflour was not sent to the lab' to be checked for blood until 20th September 1985...
It was already checked for blood the day it arrived at the lab 8/13/85 and the results were a large quantity of blood detected and if was determined to be human blood. Police were notified of these findings on 8/14/85. COLP found lab records that proved police were notified of such findings and questioned Davidson on the basis of such documents:
(http://s9.postimg.org/ftvpn4j6n/cookblood.jpg)
-
It is a great leap of faith to try and suggest that the human blood detected in the silencer which Ron Cook marked as exhibit SJ/1 when he took it along to the lab' on 13th August 1985, for Glynis Howard to examine, and to say without any evidence whatsoever that the blood she refers to as being human, was in fact the same blood which between 12th and 19th September 1985, produced distinctive blood group activity of A, EAP BA, HP 2-1, and AK1, from inside a totally different silencer...
To begin with, the silencer (SJ/1) which had its exhibit reference altered into SBJ/1, because of a misunderstanding between Ron Cook and Stan Jones regarding the fact that Stan Jones had got a middle name (Brian), was not the same silencer which police sent along to the lab' on 30th August 1985 (DB/1), inside which the crucial key blood group evidence was detected between 12th and 19th September 1985. Silencers, SBJ/1 and DB/1 were completely different silencers to one another, easily distinguishable one from the other by the consecutive lab' item numbers of 22 and 23...
The same silencer could not possibly have had two different lab' item numbers...
Human blood was found in silencer 22, and the key blood group evidence, A, EAP BA, HP2-1, and AK/1, was foubd inside silencer 23...
The silencer relatives handed over was 22, which went to the lab' twice, once on 13th August 1985, and secondly, on 20th September 1985...
What this tells us in the clearest possible terms imaginable, is that between 13th August 1985 and 20th September 1985, the silencer handed to police by relatives was not present at the lab, so obviously the key blood group evidence cannot be physically linked to it (22)...
Police and prosecuting authorities have used the various exhibit references (SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1) in order to try and confuse everybody into believing these all related to one silencer, but in fact there were at least two key silencers, (22 and 23) as described, with others thrown into the melting pot for good measure...
But, what they did, has now become exposed...
-
For almost 29 years, the scum who brought the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber have sought to present the silencer, key blood and paint evidence as eminating from and to a solitary silencer, which everyone now refers to as 'the Bamber owned silencer', or silencer 22, DRB/1...
Yet, at the time of the shootings, there was known to be kept at the scene an identical looking parker hale silencer, owned by one of the relatives...
-
For almost 29 years, the scum who brought the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber have sought to present the silencer, key blood and paint evidence as eminating from and to a solitary silencer, which everyone now refers to as 'the Bamber owned silencer', or silencer 22, DRB/1...
Yet, at the time of the shootings, there was known to be kept at the scene an identical looking parker hale silencer, owned by one of the relatives...
Conseqiently. I pose the following question for all and sundry to consider:-
Was this the other silencer (DB/1) 23 inside which the key blood group evidence (A, EAP BA, HP 2-1,and AK/1, was discovered at the lab' on 12th September 1985...
-
The investigation into the silencer issue has thrown up disturbing new evidence, that two different silencers had blood upon or inside them, for example, one (22) DRB/1, had human blood upon it, whilst the other (23) DB/1, had key blood group evidence found in the form of a loose flake within it...
-
Mike,I was led to believe that because the so-called flake was dissected to such a degree,for testing,that it disintegrated anyway and was useless. It'd probably been inside since Adam was a lad !
-
It is a great leap of faith to try and suggest that the human blood detected in the silencer which Ron Cook marked as exhibit SJ/1 when he took it along to the lab' on 13th August 1985, for Glynis Howard to examine, and to say without any evidence whatsoever that the blood she refers to as being human, was in fact the same blood which between 12th and 19th September 1985, produced distinctive blood group activity of A, EAP BA, HP 2-1, and AK1, from inside a totally different silencer...
To begin with, the silencer (SJ/1) which had its exhibit reference altered into SBJ/1, because of a misunderstanding between Ron Cook and Stan Jones regarding the fact that Stan Jones had got a middle name (Brian), was not the same silencer which police sent along to the lab' on 30th August 1985 (DB/1), inside which the crucial key blood group evidence was detected between 12th and 19th September 1985. Silencers, SBJ/1 and DB/1 were completely different silencers to one another, easily distinguishable one from the other by the consecutive lab' item numbers of 22 and 23...
The same silencer could not possibly have had two different lab' item numbers...
Human blood was found in silencer 22, and the key blood group evidence, A, EAP BA, HP2-1, and AK/1, was foubd inside silencer 23...
The silencer relatives handed over was 22, which went to the lab' twice, once on 13th August 1985, and secondly, on 20th September 1985...
What this tells us in the clearest possible terms imaginable, is that between 13th August 1985 and 20th September 1985, the silencer handed to police by relatives was not present at the lab, so obviously the key blood group evidence cannot be physically linked to it (22)...
Police and prosecuting authorities have used the various exhibit references (SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1) in order to try and confuse everybody into believing these all related to one silencer, but in fact there were at least two key silencers, (22 and 23) as described, with others thrown into the melting pot for good measure...
But, what they did, has now become exposed...
All you are doing is continuing to humilate yourself.
The Holab forms never stated SJ/1 but rather stated SBJ/1. That is what the forms signed by Howard on 8/13/85 had as an exhibit number. There were multiple SBJ exhibits turned in to the lab that day. Right off the bat you are lying. You got SJ/1 from Cook's statement. He noted that in his notebook he wrote SJ/1 but upon speaking to Jones and finding out his middle name he ende dup using SBJ/1 on the Holab forms, so there never was a SJ/1. That was just what he initially contemplated assigning but didn't.
It was changed to DB/1 after they already did all the tests on the blood and still later changed to DRB/1. Each time a change occurred ALL the exhibits with the SBJ prefix changed to DB and then DRB.
Your whol fantasy acount is easily shown to be lies you made up there never was more than 1 moderator in custody in conncetion with the case in 1985.
-
COLP notes relating to the interview of Ron Cook hives a comprehensive explanation as to whu Cook attached a brown CJA exhibit label to the silencer he took along to the lab' for the attention of Hlynis Howard on 13th August 1985. Cook says that thesilencer he took there on that occasion did not have any exhibit label or identifying mark. So Ron attached a label and marked it, SJ/1...
Cook and Howard both signed this particular label (SJ/1) at positions two and three. Cook says yhe first space on the exhibit label was left blank for thr finder of the silencer to sign it latsr. Copk says that he was indet the impression that Stan Jones found the silencer, and that he expected him to sign the label (SJ/1), and Cook says he did not know thay Stan Jones had a middle christian name (Brian), otherwise, he would have labelled the silencer SBJ/1...
However, DS Jones already had seized four exhibits from the scene on the morning of the shootings, which had exhibits references of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
Therefore, by the time Ron Cook introduced the exhibit label which he attached to the silencer he took to the lab on 13th August 1985, there existed twi different identical looking parker hale silencers, one marked SBJ/1, and anither which Ron Cook had earmarked SJ/1...
Cook and Howard signed the exhibit label (SJ/1) that Cook had put on the silencer he took to the lab on 13th August 1985...
All these details are recorded in the case files, and help to make a nonsense of those fron the dark side of life...
-
Glynis Howard told COLP investigators that she only ever examined one silencer, on one occasion, and that was the silencer Ron Cook brought to the lab' on that occasion...
-
COLP notes relating to the interview of Ron Cook hives a comprehensive explanation as to whu Cook attached a brown CJA exhibit label to the silencer he took along to the lab' for the attention of Hlynis Howard on 13th August 1985. Cook says that thesilencer he took there on that occasion did not have any exhibit label or identifying mark. So Ron attached a label and marked it, SJ/1...
Cook and Howard both signed this particular label (SJ/1) at positions two and three. Cook says yhe first space on the exhibit label was left blank for thr finder of the silencer to sign it latsr. Copk says that he was indet the impression that Stan Jones found the silencer, and that he expected him to sign the label (SJ/1), and Cook says he did not know thay Stan Jones had a middle christian name (Brian), otherwise, he would have labelled the silencer SBJ/1...
However, DS Jones already had seized four exhibits from the scene on the morning of the shootings, which had exhibits references of SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
Therefore, by the time Ron Cook introduced the exhibit label which he attached to the silencer he took to the lab on 13th August 1985, there existed twi different identical looking parker hale silencers, one marked SBJ/1, and anither which Ron Cook had earmarked SJ/1...
Cook and Howard signed the exhibit label (SJ/1) that Cook had put on the silencer he took to the lab on 13th August 1985...
All these details are recorded in the case files, and help to make a nonsense of those fron the dark side of life...
They are not in the case file you made all these claims up.
(http://s21.postimg.org/xx0tji5p3/cookinitials.jpg)
Cook wrote SJ/1 in his pocketbook but after speaking with Jones he ended up writing SBJ/1 SBJ/2 SNJ/3 and SBJ/4 on the Holab forms that accompanied the moderator to the lab.
The holab forms were exbits the people questioning him had provided so he could see as plain as day what they stated since he could not be expected to remember after years passed.
Making things up is not doing you any good so it is a waste of time to bother.
-
Glynis Howard told COLP investigators that she only ever examined one silencer, on one occasion, and that was the silencer Ron Cook brought to the lab' on that occasion...
Ron Cook is clear and specific, there was no label at all on the silencer Stan Jones had given him earlier that same date, so when Ron arrived at the lab he attached a blank brown coloured CJA. exhibit label to it. Which he marked SJ/1, that both he and Glynis Howard both signed. So we have it from the horses mouth, the exhibit label which both Ron and Glynis signed, had an identifying mark of SJ/1, item 22, not SBJ/1, not DB/1, and not DRB/1...
-
Ron Cook is clear and specific, there was no label at all on the silencer Stan Jones had given him earlier that same date, so when Ron arrived at the lab he attached a blank brown coloured CJA. exhibit label to it. Which he marked SJ/1, that both he and Glynis Howard both signed. So we have it from the horses mouth, the exhobit label which both Ron and Glynis signed, had an identifying mark of SJ/1, item 22, not SBJ/1, not DB/1, and not DRB/1...
The passage I posted proves you are lying. The document Howard signed is the same one COLP provided to Cook to look at and it listed the exhibits as SBJ/1-SBJ/4. Your claim the document listed them as SJ/1-SJ/4 is a lie and easy to see as a lie jsut from reading the passage above. SJ/1-4 was liste din hsi pocketbook only.
-
We then find that somebody attempted to merge the two different identical looking parker hale silencers (SJ/1) and (SBJ/1), into the same silencer...
The person responsible for doing this has been identified as PI Bob Miller...
Ron Cook misread the situation when Stan Jones handed him that (SJ/1) silencer on 13th August 1985, because on the morning of the shootings (7th August 1985, Ron was the senior SOCO at the scene when Stan had taken possession of a silencer, amongst other things. This was why he labelled the silencer Stan had given him as SJ/1, he thought it was the silencer Stan had took at the scene on that first morning, nobody mentioned to Ron anything at all abiut the silencer which Stan had given him had been found by a relative...
So, silencer handed to DS Jones by Peter Eaton, on evening of 12th August 1985, that Stan Jones showed to PIMiller in the following morning, that Miller advised Stan to hand it to Ron Cook that same day because Ron was due to do a lab run, which was the same silencer which Ron took to the lab and which Glynis Howard examined, was, is, can only ever have been the one bearing the rather unique exhibit reference of SJ/1...
-
The passage I posted proves you are lying. The document Howard signed is the same one COLP provided to Cook to look at and it listed the exhibits as SBJ/1-SBJ/4. Your claim the document listed them as SJ/1-SJ/4 is a lie and easy to see as a lie jsut from reading the passage above. SJ/1-4 was liste din hsi pocketbook only.
Hold on a sec scipio. Didn't you argue one time that there never was any record of an "SJ1"? Now you have posted that this chap wrote in his pocket book SJ1. So Mike was right in the first place, there was an SJ1 after all?
-
Hold on a sec scipio. Didn't you argue one time that there never was any record of an "SJ1"? Now you have posted that this chap wrote in his pocket book SJ1. So Mike was right in the first place, there was an SJ1 after all?
No I said there were no documents assigning any exhibitts with the SJ prefix. I noted that the only reference to any SJ/1 was in Cook's pocketbook and that this is where Mike got the idea to make up a SJ/1 moderator.
This was all in that thread where Mike first asserted there was a moderator taken from WHF on 8/7/85 that had exhibit SJ/1 and that the Boutflour moderator was SBJ/1 and that SJ/1 became DB/1 while SBJ/1 became DRB/1 and eventually DB/1 and DRB/1 were merged.
After I posted about the pocketbook he flipped things and claimed SBJ/1 was a moderator found on 8/7/85 and the Boutflour moderaor was SJ/1.
But it is all lies there were no forms sent to the lab or int he evidence book of any exhits with the SJ prefix. That is just what Cook wrote in his pocketbook before the forms were actually filled out. Mike took the pocketbook entry reference and MADE UP the claim that the Boutflour moderator and other evidence was referenced as SJ/1-SJ/4 on the forms. If one looks at the forms they say SBJ/1-SBJ/4. Mike is lying as he is prone to do.
Since Mike has no actual evidence to refute Jeremy's conviction he just makes up things. You and lookout seem to be the only ones he manages to fool with it though. It's an open secret that he is making things up but most people don't want to confront him the way I do so just let him post away without responding.
Since it is not accomplishing anything I don't know why he doesn't give up the antics and join in the discussion with everyone else.
-
COLP questioned Cook about the exhibit reference (SJ/1) he had assigned to the silencer given to him by Stan Jones, and he told them what I have repeated in this thread, he said he labelled the silencer on that occasion, SJ/1 because he didn't know that Stan Jones had a middle christian name of Brian...
Just for the record, Ron Cook had nothing whatsoever to do with the four exhibits, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, until much later in the investigation, and as far as I know Stans four exhibits, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3, SBJ/4, were never referred to by the exhibit references of SJ/1, SJ/2, SJ/3 and SJ/4...
By all accounts, the original exhibit reference to the silencer found at the scene by David Boutflour was SJ/1, lab item number 22...
with this in mind, it looks almost certain that there was no need to change the original exhibit reference of SJ/1 because there could be no clash involving the need to change it because it was confusing...
Why change SJ/1?
-
Oh, I get it - nobody was to know the silencer which Cook took from Stan Jones, was to have an exhibit reference of SJ/1, only Ron and Glynis...
-
You know...
the funny thing is, is that the brown coloured CJA exhibit label, bearing the identifying mark of SJ/1 is missing altogether with Rons and Glynis's signatures upon them, its nowhere to be seen, nobody appears the slightest bit concerned that it appears to have vanished off the face of the earth. None of the experts at the lab' refer to the silencer by the exhibit reference SJ/1 despite it now being confirmed that this was the very first exhibit reference given to the silencer found at the scene by relatives, handedto Stan Jones by Peter Eaton on 12th August, shown to Bob Miller on mirning of 13th August, given to Ron Cook the same day and taken to the lab' for Glynis to examine the same day...
The relatives themselves appear to be unaware that the silencer they handed to police ever had the original exhibit reference of SJ/1...
-
COLP questioned Cook about the exhibit reference (SJ/1) he had assigned to the silencer given to him by Stan Jones, and he told them what I have repeated in this thread, he said he labelled the silencer on that occasion, SJ/1 because he didn't know that Stan Jones had a middle christian name of Brian...
Just for the record, Ron Cook had nothing whatsoever to do with the four exhibits, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, until much later in the investigation, and as far as I know Stans four exhibits, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3, SBJ/4, were never referred to by the exhibit references of SJ/1, SJ/2, SJ/3 and SJ/4...
By all accounts, the original exhibit reference to the silencer found at the scene by David Boutflour was SJ/1, lab item number 22...
with this in mind, it looks almost certain that there was no need to change the original exhibit reference of SJ/1 because there could be no clash involving the need to change it because it was confusing...
Why change SJ/1?
I posted the actual statement. "The Holab reflects his full initials" Crash and burn on your claims it was assigned SJ/1 on the forms. SInce the cat is alreayd out of the bag no point in your trying to keep up the charade.
-
Here are the FACTS...
Cook attaches a brown CJA exhibit label to the silencer which he marks SJ/1 at the lab' on 13th August 1985. Ron and Glynis both signed this (SJ/1), and it is trult shocking that none of the other prosecution witnesses signatures appear on such an exhibit label bearing the identifying mark of SJ/1, since this was the very first identifying mark put to the silencer found by David Boutfliur, the very same silencer which Peter Eaton handed to Stan Jones, same silencer Stan showed to Bob Miller, same silencer (SJ/1) Stan gave to Ron Cook, same silencer (,SJ/1) examed at lab' by Glynis Howard on 13th August 1985, yet the original exhibit label bearing the identifying matk SJ/1 containing the two signayures of Ron and Glynis is missing, and nobody else ever refers to the silencer we are talking about (SJ/1) by its true refence. Instead, they refer to the silencer found by Boutflour as exhibit SBJ/1, or exhibit DB/1, and ultimately as exhibit DRB/1...
There is a complete lack of continuity involving the find and examination of the silencer found at the scene by relatives, there is no way of knowing or showing that all these different exhibit references ( SJ/1, SBJ/1, DB/1 DRB/1) refer to the very same silencer...
-
Order silencer exjibit references came into force:-
(1) - SBJ/1 - 7th August 1985 (SC/688/85)
(2) - SJ/1 - 13th August 1885 (SC/688/85)
(3) - DB/1 - 30th August 1985 (SC/688/85)
(4) - DRB/1 - 20th September. 1985 (SC/786/85)
-
Any body who had involvement with a silencer in this case could not identify the silencer in question by any exhibit reference until on or after the date the different exhibit references came into existence...
-
Just a suggestion if someone has got time could we have a "sticky thread" with copies of ALL the documents related to the moderator in a times sequence .
So every document that mentions the collection or inspection of the moderator /s
And then perhaps jsut the dates of statements of the persons who found it .
I would like to also see copies of their descriptions of how they found it and the appearance.
This would be useful for "newbies" that we might get if the case comes more into public view over the next few months
-
Just a suggestion if someone has got time could we have a "sticky thread" with copies of ALL the documents related to the moderator in a times sequence .
So every document that mentions the collection or inspection of the moderator /s
And then perhaps jsut the dates of statements of the persons who found it .
I would like to also see copies of their descriptions of how they found it and the appearance.
This would be useful for "newbies" that we might get if the case comes more into public view over the next few months
Not all of the documents are available in the public domain. The only one's which are, have been provided in an attempt to mislead people in to believing that there was more than one sound moderator and that the sound moderator containing blood stains was not actually found by the relatives in the gun cupboard (despite the independent witness of Basil Cock).
-
Not all of the documents are available in the public domain. The only one's which are, have been provided in an attempt to mislead people in to believing that there was more than one sound moderator and that the sound moderator containing blood stains was not actually found by the relatives in the gun cupboard (despite the independent witness of Basil Cock).
I could be wrong, but I don't think Basil Cock mentions it?
-
I could be wrong, but I don't think Basil Cock mentions it?
We've only got one statement from Basil, and that is concerned with the estate.
Basil being present during the silencer find is mentioned in David Boutflour's court transcript, and also in the Dickenson Report. Probably in other statements of the relatives also (memory fails me).
I don't know, but I suspect Basil either made a statement detailing his presence and/or was called as a witness at the trial.
-
There is something very odd about Basil Cocks witness statement in which he describes him being present at whf when the silemcer was found. Yet, he says he can specifically rwmember the occasion when the silencer was discovered because there was white fingerprint dust on everything at the scene...
How very remarkable...
-
I could be wrong, but I don't think Basil Cock mentions it?
Not that I've seen it, but it appears Mr T is saying otherwise. :-\
There is something very odd about Basil Cocks witness statement in which he describes him being present at whf when the silemcer was found. Yey
-
There is something very odd about Basil Cocks witness statement in which he describes him being present at whf when the silemcer was found. Yet, he says he can specifically rwmember the occasion when the silencer was discovered because there was white fingerprint dust on everything at the scene...
How very remarkable...
Go on then, why odd and remarkable? ???
-
Go on then, why odd and remarkable? ???
Bearing in mind that a mere 199 days ago you posted this:
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...
-
I think you were about to tell everybody that Basil Cock couldn't have seen the silencer at the time the relatives state that it was found, because fingerprinting hadn't been done yet, like you stated here:
The presence of this fingerprint dust would provide key information about the actual date when the Bamber silencer was found in the gun cupboard, since the executor of the Bamber parents estate, would recall that he was present at whf when the silencer was found by David Boutflour, and that he remembered the incident well, because there was fingerprint dust all over the place and upon everything - well, police did not carry out a fingerprint examination at the scene, until the nature of the investigation changed from being four murders and a suicide, into a full scale murder investigation, under SC/7856/85, which came into force on 6th September 1985...
All I can say is, oops. ::)
-
Fingerprint dust during the first days of the new investigation (SC/786/85) - OOPS...
BY THE WAY, THOUGHT YOU WERE PROMOTING THE CASE FOR EVERYONE TO IGNORE ME - OOPS (again)...
-
Bear in mind everyone, whether the original silencer exhibit was SJ/1 (true), or SBJ/1, FACT IS, that none of the relatives signed an exhibit label with either of these exhibit refences written upon an attached CJA LABEL to it...
-
Fingerprint dust during the first days of the new investigation (SC/786/85) - OOPS...
BY THE WAY, THOUGHT YOU WERE PROMOTING THE CASE FOR EVERYONE TO IGNORE ME - OOPS (again)...
The police said they fingerprinted the house early on. Your claim they didn't do so until September is absurd but also you can't produce any evidence to prove it.
At any rate here is what was related to the 10th of August:
(http://s1.postimg.org/qnik9n57j/bout.jpg)
-
Basil Cocks version of events differs considerably, he recalls that there was white fingerprint dust all over everything - take it from me that Basil Cock was referring to a visit to the scene in September 1985, at the same time that David Boutflour attended the scene to show police where he found the silencer. This was the same occasion when David Boutflour told police that the same silencer had been found in two different positions inside the gun cupboard - Basil Cock was present at the scene at this time, as were police officers fingerprinting the various rooms at the farmhouse...
I estimate that the date which Basil Cock referred to, was 11th September 1985, not 10th August 1985...
-
I have an abundance of material relating to the silencer conspiracy not yet touched upon, or posted by me, which in the following days I shall be making available to everyone, thus disproving what those from the dark side have been saying about me...
The main thing to remember is that key blood group evidence was not found inside the same silencer (SJ/1) found at the scene by David Boutflour...
-
I have an abundance of material relating to the silencer conspiracy not yet touched upon, or posted by me, which in the following days I shall be making available to everyone, thus disproving what those from the dark side have been saying about me...
The main thing to remember is that key blood group evidence was not found inside the same silencer (SJ/1) found at the scene by David Boutflour...
Is that because everybody has been ignoring you? So your going to post some case documents to get their attention?
I'm sure people will look forward to that, but I bet you can't post information without your own leading commentary, now there's a challenge for you!!!
-
Order silencer exjibit references came into force:-
(1) - SBJ/1 - 7th August 1985 (SC/688/85)
(2) - SJ/1 - 13th August 1885 (SC/688/85)
(3) - DB/1 - 30th August 1985 (SC/688/85)
(4) - DRB/1 - 20th September. 1985 (SC/786/85)
Any prosecution witness who mentions his or her involvement with a silencer by the exhibit reference DRB/1, IN ANY WITNESS STATEMENT, POLICE or LAB' DOCUMENT, prior to the 20th September 1985, IS A CONSPiRATOR...
-
I pose the following question to each and everyone of these Conspirators:-
"How could you know the exhibit reference (DRB/1) of the silencer when at the time you are referring to, such an exhibit refence was not in existence, and in fact was being referred to by a different exhibit reference of either, SBJ/1, SJ/1 and or DB/1?
-
Each prosecution witness responsible for deliberately misquoting the exhibit reference to the silencer, is a conspirator...
-
Each prosecution witness responsible for deliberately misquoting the exhibit reference to the silencer, is a conspirator...
Anyone who deliberately falsifies evidence of this nature should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice...
-
Lets get the facts right, the silencer seized at the scene by Stan Jones on 7th August 1985, was not exhibit SJ/1, it was not exhibit DB/1, and it was not exhibit DRB/1 - it was exhibit SBJ/1...
The silencer Stan Jones received from Peter Eaton on evening of 12th August 1985, did not have an exhibit label of any sort, not SBJ/1, not SJ/1, not DB/1, and not DRB/1 - it didn't have an exhibit reference at all by that stage...
The silencer shown to PI Bob Miller on the morning of 13th August 1985, did not have an exhibit reference by this stage...
The silencer handed to Ron Cook to enable him to take it along to the lab for examination by Glynis Howard on 13th August 1985, did not have any exhibit reference attached or associated with it...
This silencer had no exhibit reference at all, until Ron Cook attached a brown CJA exhibit label to the aforementioned silencer, marking it by the reference SJ/1...
-
I pose the following question to each and everyone of these Conspirators:-
"How could you know the exhibit reference (DRB/1) of the silencer when at the time you are referring to, such an exhibit refence was not in existence, and in fact was being referred to by a different exhibit reference of either, SBJ/1, SJ/1 and or DB/1?
All you are doing is humilating yourself.
There is no lab paperwork period referencing an exhibit SJ/1. Nor any police paperwork wxcept a pocketbook entry that this is tentatively what Cook was going to assign to the Boutflour moderator but INSTEAD he assigned it SJB/1 so the lab on 8/13/85 received SBJ/1-SBJ/4 and the paperwork clearly denotes such.
You entirely made up a moderator being seized on 8/7/85 there is not a shred of evidence, not a single document that asserts this.
The orignial documents all reference SBJ/1 for th emoderator. DOwn the road when it was assigned DB/1 and later stil DRB/1 new paperword was generated with the correct exhibit numbers BUT the originals with the SBJ/1 designation all still existed and were looked at by COLP.
ALl your distortions and games are for nothing. You are clearly making things up, we all know it so just drop the antics and try posting like a normal person for a change.
-
David Boutflour did not find silencer SBJ/1 in the gun cupboard at the scene on the 10th August 1985, because Stan Jones had already seized a silencer from the scene on 7th August 1985, bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1, together with a further three exhibits, bearing correspinding exhibit references of SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
-
David Boutflour did not find silencer SBJ/1 in the gun cupboard at the scene on the 10th August 1985, because Stan Jones had already seized a silencer from the scene on 7th August 1985, bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1, together with a further three exhibits, bearing correspinding exhibit references of SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
Nope.
Do you have Basil Cocks statement describing the find?
-
Items received at the lab' have to be properly packaged and labelled, if not such items will normally be rejected and not scientifically examined...
-
Two of the four SBJ exhibits taken by Stan Jones at the scene on 7th August 1985, were photographs. One of these photographs was taken in the vicinity of the downstairs toilet where Anthony Pargeter normally kept all his firearms, ammunition and accessories, such as his Parker Hale silencer...
The other photograph Stan Jones took at the scene was in the main kitchen...
Now, for some reason both of the photographs did not form any part of the official police photographic album...
-
Two of the four SBJ exhibits taken by Stan Jones at the scene on 7th August 1985, were photographs. One of these photographs was taken in the vicinity of the downstairs toilet where Anthony Pargeter normally kept all his firearms, ammunition and accessories, such as his Parker Hale silencer...
The other photograph Stan Jones took at the scene was in the main kitchen...
Now, for some reason both of the photographs did not form any part of the official police photographic album...
Information contained in official police records suggest that the two key photographs taken by Stan Jones at the scene on 7th August 1985, were destroyed without any explanation...
-
The removal of these two photographs from the batch of four exhibits taken at the scene by Stan Jones raises a number of key issues, as does the fact that a third exhibit, SBJ/1 (a silencer) has also been taken out of the equation altogether...
-
Not all of the documents are available in the public domain. The only one's which are, have been provided in an attempt to mislead people in to believing that there was more than one sound moderator and that the sound moderator containing blood stains was not actually found by the relatives in the gun cupboard (despite the independent witness of Basil Cock).
well all the ones that are available then - that would be a start .
-
David Boutflour did not find silencer SBJ/1 in the gun cupboard at the scene on the 10th August 1985, because Stan Jones had already seized a silencer from the scene on 7th August 1985, bearing the identifying mark SBJ/1, together with a further three exhibits, bearing correspinding exhibit references of SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
I challenged yo uat least 15 times to post evidence to prove a moderator was seized on 8/7/85. You have never been able to do so.
The above claims are all simply made up by you. No matter how many times you repeate the claim it will not change that you simply made it up.
The documents all indicate only 1 moderator, the Boutflour one submitted 8/13/85 under SBJ/1 along with the other items like the scope SBJ/2.
You can post the same made up claim 500 times but it will not make it any less fiction and will not change that you have no evidence at all to support your fictional claims.
-
I challenged yo uat least 15 times to post evidence to prove a moderator was seized on 8/7/85. You have never been able to do so.
The above claims are all simply made up by you. No matter how many times you repeate the claim it will not change that you simply made it up.
The documents all indicate only 1 moderator, the Boutflour one submitted 8/13/85 under SBJ/1 along with the other items like the scope SBJ/2.
You can post the same made up claim 500 times but it will not make it any less fiction and will not change that you have no evidence at all to support your fictional claims.
Scope SBJ/2? Erm Okay, but I'm not so sure that's right. :-\
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=738.0;attach=3233;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=738.0;attach=3231;image)
-
Scope SBJ/2? Erm Okay, but I'm not so sure that's right. :-\
4 pieces of evidence were recieved by the lab transferred from Ann Eaton to Jones and then from Jones to Cook. The rifle scope was SBJ/2, a box was SBJ/3 and I forget off hand what SBJ/4 was.
I will have to look to see what document has the evidence but I assure you unlike Mike I not making this up and there was evidence I saw that made me aware of this.
-
4 pieces of evidence were recieved by the lab transferred from Ann Eaton to Jones and then from Jones to Cook. The rifle scope was SBJ/2, a box was SBJ/3 and I forget off hand what SBJ/4 was.
I will have to look to see what document has the evidence but I assure you unlike Mike I not making this up and there was evidence I saw that made me aware of this.
Hartley has posted a document showing the evidence associated with those reference numbers. You don't have to be making it up, perhaps you are simply mistaken. 'Wrong' doesn't equal 'liar'.
-
images
Those exhibits were either designated SBJ after the prefix change from SBJ to DB or there was at one point different items with overlapping SBJ designations.
The moderator changed from SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1
The scope from SBJ/2 to DB/2 to DRB/2
The box from SBJ/3 to DB/3 to DRB/3
and the last item that I am not positive if it is a box of bullets or not was SBJ/4 to DB/4 to DRB/4
I don't feel like reading all the various statements right now to look for the SBJ/2-4 references but I did bookmark something to prove the telescopic sight was changed to the DRB prefix as well not just the moderator:
(http://s27.postimg.org/jvrrs2mkj/gunseller.jpg)
I did so to challenge the claim that SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 were different moderators. The sights went through the same set of changes (as did the other 2 items found by Boutflour) and there was no allegation of there being 3 sights because of this so that shows how dishonest the claim is when it is applied only to the moderator despite the same conditions applying to 4 different items that had a prefix change not just the moderator.
-
Hartley has posted a document showing the evidence associated with those reference numbers. You don't have to be making it up, perhaps you are simply mistaken. 'Wrong' doesn't equal 'liar'.
See post 58
-
Those exhibits were either designated SBJ after the prefix change from SBJ to DB or there was at one point different items with overlapping SBJ designations.
The moderator changed from SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1
The scope from SBJ/2 to DB/2 to DRB/2
The box from SBJ/3 to DB/3 to DRB/3
and the last item that I am not positive if it is a box of bullets or not was SBJ/4 to DB/4 to DRB/4
I don't feel like reading all the various statements right now to look for the SBJ/2-4 references but I did bookmark something to prove the telescopic sight was changed to the DRB prefix as well not just the moderator:
(http://s27.postimg.org/jvrrs2mkj/gunseller.jpg)
I did so to challenge the claim that SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 were different moderators. The sights went through the same set of changes (as did the other 2 items found by Boutflour) and there was no allegation of there being 3 sights because of this so that shows how dishonest the claim is when it is applied only to the moderator despite the same conditions applying to 4 different items that had a prefix change not just the moderator.
Yeah, yeah, I go along with all that, I just wasn't aware that the scope was once designated SBJ/2, it wasn't collected until much later by Oakey. It's not making immediate sense to me why it would be given a Jones reference, that's all. :-\
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=625.0;attach=18795;image)
-
If you see those same exhibits referenced as SBJ's, or indeed a statement explaining the change, then I'd appreciate if you could point it out.
Obviously we're all aware of Howard's and Jones statements regarding the SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1 change.
Cheers.
-
Yeah, yeah, I go along with all that, I just wasn't aware that the scope was once designated SBJ/2, it wasn't collected until much later by Oakey. It's not making immediate sense to me why it would be given a Jones reference, that's all. :-\
Okey's statement is useless at tellign us when the other exhibits were collected because the dates are wrong. The dates do not match the days and make no sense because the dates are before Jones actually got the moderator.
This is one of the areas where if we saw the entire COLP report we coudl find out what they figured out as the the actual dates.
SInce the dates are worng could other parts of the acocutn be wrong too about him collecting them alone?
My only GUESS is that the person issuing the exhibit number presumably Davidson but could have been Cook for all we know) wanted to remain consistent for the evidence taken from Oak Farm. Unless Jones took part in the collection and this is not on any of the information publicly released it is all I can think of.
We are at a big disadvantage because these items were not used to establish guilt so the police statements do not really reference them besides the Oakey one containing errors.
Not even the defense cares about these items so the parts of the COLP report that address such are largely not published by them either. It is one of those things we have an "academic" interest in and will likely never get an answer unless someone decided to publish everything where we could access it.
I would have expected it to be addressed though since the mistakes are rather significant. I am surprised Mike doesn't make more of it given his imagination. Police go on the 11th but don't collect the moderator and wait instead till the 12th? Golden opportunity to claim something nefarious and we cna't explain it because the answer was not publicly released :-\.
-
Okey's statement is useless at tellign us when the other exhibits were collected because the dates are wrong. The dates do not match the days and make no sense because the dates are before Jones actually got the moderator.
This is one of the areas where if we saw the entire COLP report we coudl find out what they figured out as the the actual dates.
SInce the dates are worng could other parts of the acocutn be wrong too about him collecting them alone?
My only GUESS is that the person issuing the exhibit number presumably Davidson but could have been Cook for all we know) wanted to remain consistent for the evidence taken from Oak Farm. Unless Jones took part in the collection and this is not on any of the information publicly released it is all I can think of.
We are at a big disadvantage because these items were not used to establish guilt so the police statements do not really reference them besides the Oakey one containing errors.
Not even the defense cares about these items so the parts of the COLP report that address such are largely not published by them either. It is one of those things we have an "academic" interest in and will likely never get an answer unless someone decided to publish everything where we could access it.
I would have expected it to be addressed though since the mistakes are rather significant. I am surprised Mike doesn't make more of it given his imagination. Police go on the 11th but don't collect the moderator and wait instead till the 12th? Golden opportunity to claim something nefarious and we cna't explain it because the answer was not publicly released :-\.
Before seeing SBJ/2 as the sight on Ratcliffes statement, I'd assumed the sight and ammo cases were given DRB references from the outset as it was after the silencer exhibit reference had already been corrected. I haven't seen the items referred to as SBJ's anywhere else.
As you say, we don't have all of the information.
-
Before seeing SBJ/2 as the sight on Ratcliffes statement, I'd assumed the sight and ammo cases were given DRB references from the outset as it was after the silencer exhibit reference had already been corrected. I haven't seen the items referred to as SBJ's anywhere else.
As you say, we don't have all of the information.
Do you know when exactly the items were collected? I have not seen anything to indicate the correct dates but maybe you came across somethign I didn't. I just know Oakey is wrong not what the truth is.
-
Do you know when exactly the items were collected? I have not seen anything to indicate the correct dates but maybe you came across somethign I didn't. I just know Oakey is wrong not what the truth is.
I thought the sight wasn't collected until September, but it was ages ago that I looked at it, so not sure. :-\
-
Okey's statement is useless at tellign us when the other exhibits were collected because the dates are wrong. The dates do not match the days and make no sense because the dates are before Jones actually got the moderator.
This is one of the areas where if we saw the entire COLP report we coudl find out what they figured out as the the actual dates.
SInce the dates are worng could other parts of the acocutn be wrong too about him collecting them alone?
My only GUESS is that the person issuing the exhibit number presumably Davidson but could have been Cook for all we know) wanted to remain consistent for the evidence taken from Oak Farm. Unless Jones took part in the collection and this is not on any of the information publicly released it is all I can think of.
We are at a big disadvantage because these items were not used to establish guilt so the police statements do not really reference them besides the Oakey one containing errors.
Not even the defense cares about these items so the parts of the COLP report that address such are largely not published by them either. It is one of those things we have an "academic" interest in and will likely never get an answer unless someone decided to publish everything where we could access it.
I would have expected it to be addressed though since the mistakes are rather significant. I am surprised Mike doesn't make more of it given his imagination. Police go on the 11th but don't collect the moderator and wait instead till the 12th? Golden opportunity to claim something nefarious and we cna't explain it because the answer was not publicly released :-\.
What do you mean the dates are wrong because the days don't match the dates?
-
I thought the sight wasn't collected until September, but it was ages ago that I looked at it, so not sure. :-\
The change from SBJ/1 to DB/1 was made in October. The earliest reference we have to the change is a memo from Cook sent to Fletcher on 10/17/85. Whether the change was made that exact day or he took a couple of days to notify Fletcher we can't be sure.
My understanding was that all DRB items were collected and labeled prior to this so that there were no items given a DB prefix from the outset but rather all relabeled to DB and then subsequently relabeled again to DRB.
-
The change from SBJ/1 to DB/1 was made in October. The earliest reference we have to the change is a memo from Cook sent to Fletcher on 10/17/85. Whether the change was made that exact day or he took a couple of days to notify Fletcher we can't be sure.
My understanding was that all DRB items were collected and labeled prior to this so that there were no items given a DB prefix from the outset but rather all relabeled to DB and then subsequently relabeled again to DRB.
Given Ratcliffes statement, that certainly seems to be the case.
-
What do you mean the dates are wrong because the days don't match the dates?
Nevermind there is a misprint in my book. I have a book that has all calendar cycles and used it to look at 1985. A misprint caused 1985 to be listed under the wrong cycle.
I found a neat site for future reference
http://www.timeanddate.com/
I also found a reference that he turned the items in to Wright, (the guy who shared an office with Cook) but Wright makes no reference to the oitems or how he catalogued them in in his statements because they were not used against Jeremy and his statements only pertained to such.
Well anyway at least we know they were not found after the change to DB/1 made in October.
My only guess as to why the items were given SBJ/2-4 would be to remain consistent with the previous item taken form Oak Farm- the moderator or maybe SBJ told Oakey to go them them?
SInce it is of no consequence I guess we are just being anal about it.
-
Given Ratcliffes statement, that certainly seems to be the case.
But as they say inquiring minds want to know why. The cops seemed to play fast and loose with the rules of what prefix to use to label items even though the purpose was to reflect who found that item.
Isn't it funny how they corrected the record to reflect Boutflour found it once they actually realized he would have to help authenticate it. If they didn't need th eitem chances are none would have been changed from SBJ and there would have been ultiple items with the same number...
I will give critics that, the police were sloppy in these kinds of regards though it doesn't undermine the evidence found on the items like critics would have hoped.
Why didn't Jones want these items and only take the moderator? The police seemed to handle things piecemeal instead of in a sensible manner. It is a good thing Jeremy was not more clever in his frame methodology because these cops would have been outsmarted in my opinion.
-
One of the silencers found at the scene by relatives was not given an exhibit reference of SJ/1 until it ended up in Ron Cooks possession at the lab' on 13th August 1975...
On the other hand, a collection of four exhibits taken from and at the scene on the moring of the shootings, weree all given. Consecutive numbers. SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
-
Sorry to interrupt the conversation - Mike, as far as I recall, you once posted a scan of a letter Jeremy wrote to Julie after he was in prison.
Is that orrect or did I dream it? :P
-
If that rifle was heated up at 60 degrees,any blood inside would alter the composition of any sample so it would be no use.
-
Sorry to interrupt the conversation - Mike, as far as I recall, you once posted a scan of a letter Jeremy wrote to Julie after he was in prison.
Is that orrect or did I dream it? :P
I think he wrote to her asking her to tell the truth, or something like that?
-
I think he wrote to her asking her to tell the truth, or something like that?
That is what I remember too, his tone quite civil. I don´t think I would have been quite so civil!
I would like to know why Mike has that letter. Mike?
-
I think he wrote to her asking her to tell the truth, or something like that?
I was under the same impression, Grahame. My understanding is that she didn't respond.
-
The truth Jeremy refers to might be that she was involved.
He doesn´t write: you know very well that you lied, you know very well that I didn´t do it, you B(/#&
-
The truth Jeremy refers to might be that she was involved.
He doesn´t write: you know very well that you lied, you know very well that I didn´t do it, you B(/#&
I also think if julie was aware so too was Brett?
-
I also think if julie was aware so too was Brett?
Jeremy was close to Brett, so maybe.
-
Jeremy was close to Brett, so maybe.
I think i read that when jeremy was first questioned, he was put on bail and all three went to France together? I thought when they were bailed they took the passport off them?
-
i dont think julie went to France with him.
what allways suprised me was that a murder suspect was allowed to leave the country.
-
That is what I remember too, his tone quite civil. I don´t think I would have been quite so civil!
I would like to know why Mike has that letter. Mike?
Maybe it's a fake, like Mike's fake statement to COLP? :-\
jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4775.msg200547.html#msg200547 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4775.msg200547.html#msg200547)
-
Why doesn't Jeremy dob them all in ?