Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on March 26, 2011, 01:22:PM
-
Superglue problems when Silencer examined on 23rd August 1985
One thing is absolutely certain - the silencer which was in EP's possession as of 23rd August 1985, was exposed to super glue treatment, and thus it was coated with "cynoacrylate fumes", from that point, onwards...
To be pondered - was the silencer (DB/1) which was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, coated in super glue residue?
More significantly - was the Bamber silencer (DRB/1) which was sent to the Lab' on 20th / 26th September 1985, coated in super glue residue?
Additionally, was the silencer which was examined and checked for DNA as part of the failed 2002 appeal bid, also coated in super glue residue?
Furthermore - was one of the two silencers that was handed back to the relatives, after JB was convicted, covered in super glue residue?
-
Third Paragraph:-
"However, before undertaking such examination it is the usual practice, as in this case, to submit the items to the forensic Science laboratory, to make an initial examination as chemicals involved in any fingerprint treatment may have an adverse effect on Laboratory examination i.e. blood grouping etc"...
Lets get the facts right:-
Silencer (SBJ/1) sent to the lab' to be provisionally examined on 13th August 1985, under Lab' item number 22
A silencer (as per aforementioned report) exposed to super-glue treatment, on 23rd August 1985...
Silencer (DB/1) sent to the Lab' on 30th August 1985, under Lab' item number 23, inside which was found crucial flake of blood that produced blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1...
Silencer (DRB/1) sent to the Lab' on 20 / 26th September 1985...
Not to be overlooked, is that any blood group evidence, (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) was not obtained, until after the super-glue treatment (23rd August 1985) had been carried out on the silencer, not beforehand...
-
The fact that the silencer was exposed to super-treatment on 23rd August 1985, and the crucial blood was not found in the silencer until after 30th August 1985, appears to have been completely overlooked or not taken into consideration, at all...
"as chemicals involved in any fingerprint treatment may have an adverse effect on Laboratory examination i.e. blood grouping etc"...
Exposure of the silencer to super-glue treatment, on 23rd August 1985, serves to seriously undermine the blood group evidence that was obtained from the silencer, on a much later occasion...
in my opinion...
-
There does not appear to have been any notification, from EP to the scientists at the Lab' that the silencer had been exposed to super-glue treatment on 23rd August 1985, or any mention that such an exposure may have adverse effects upon scientific tests, such as blood grouping...
-
If, DI Cook (SOC) and DCS "Mick" Ainsley, knew that exposure of the silencer to super-glue treatment on 23rd August 1985, may have adverse effects upon scientific tests such as blood grouping, etc, why didn't either of them bring this to the attention of the scientists at the lab, once the silencer (DB/1) was submitted to the lab' on 30th August 1985?
How come there is absolutely no mention at all, on any Lab' document, that the silencer they had in their possession, at any stage after 23rd August 1985, was coated in super-glue treatment, as a result of it being exposed to super-glue treatment by DI Cook (SOC)?
Could it mean that it was a different silencer?
-
Which silencer, was coated in super-glue treatment?
The one at the Lab' (DB/1) from 30th August 1985, or the one (DRB/1) which EP still had possession of, between 11th and 20th / 26th September 1985?
-
Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff. I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc. Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it? Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?
-
Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff. I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc. Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it? Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?
--------------------
Not yet...
Here, have a look at this - where on this Lab' general examination record, does it mention that the silencer in question, was / is coated in super-glue residue?
It mentions blood, and paint, but no super-glue...
In my opinion, it can't be the same silencer that was exposed to super-glue treatment on 23rd August 1985...
Please convince me that I am wriobng...
-
Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff. I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc. Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it? Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?
I think it's a question of being able to concentrate for long enough rather than anything else. I must admit I don't really have enough patience for the silencer thing. ;D
-
Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff. I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc. Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it? Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?
--------------------
Not yet...
Here, have a look at this - where on this Lab' general examination record, does it mention that the silencer in question, was / is coated in super-glue residue?
It mentions blood, and paint, but no super-glue...
In my opinion, it can't be the same silencer that was exposed to super-glue treatment on 23rd August 1985...
Please convince me that I am wriobng...
I can see paint mentioned but not blood. However there is a reference to superglue on the right hand side of the sheet, suggesting that the tape attached to the silencer was there for protection during the fingerprinting process using superglue. Am I missing something here? There appear to be two different handwriting styles on the sheet - I do not know whether there is any significance in this.
-
Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff. I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc. Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it? Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?
--------------------
Not yet...
Here, have a look at this - where on this Lab' general examination record, does it mention that the silencer in question, was / is coated in super-glue residue?
It mentions blood, and paint, but no super-glue...
In my opinion, it can't be the same silencer that was exposed to super-glue treatment on 23rd August 1985...
Please convince me that I am wriobng...
I can see paint mentioned but not blood. However there is a reference to superglue on the right hand side of the sheet, suggesting that the tape attached to the silencer was there for protection during the fingerprinting process using superglue. Am I missing something here? There appear to be two different handwriting styles on the sheet - I do not know whether there is any significance in this.
--------------
Excuse me, good points, but adhesive tape refers to paint found upon it, not to Super-glue reside from the tests carried out on 23rd August 1985?
-
Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff. I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc. Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it? Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?
I think it's a question of being able to concentrate for long enough rather than anything else. I must admit I don't really have enough patience for the silencer thing. ;D
----------------------
Silencer evidence is key to these convictions, so perhaps you should try to pay more attention...
-
There is absolutely no mention of the silencer (DRB/1) which was examined and checked for DNA as part of the failed 2002 appeal, having super-glue residue upon it...
How can anybody be absolutely sure that this was the very same silencer (SBJ/1) - Lab' item, number 22() which was submitted to the Lab', on 213th August 1985, or the other silencer, DB/1 - Lab' item number 23, that was sent to the lab'; on 30th August 1985?
-
It doesn't say there was no superglue on it either. I don't really get the superglue thing. Would one expect such a thing to be visible? That document did say that the tape was there to protect the silencer when it was checked for fingerprints, so I don't see what the issue is.
-
Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff. I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc. Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it? Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?
I think it's a question of being able to concentrate for long enough rather than anything else. I must admit I don't really have enough patience for the silencer thing. ;D
----------------------
Silencer evidence is key to these convictions, so perhaps you should try to pay more attention...
I've tried, but all this speculation presented as facts is confusing the issue. You haven't even proved that a silencer was found on 11th September yet.
-
Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff. I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc. Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it? Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?
--------------------
Not yet...
Here, have a look at this - where on this Lab' general examination record, does it mention that the silencer in question, was / is coated in super-glue residue?
It mentions blood, and paint, but no super-glue...
In my opinion, it can't be the same silencer that was exposed to super-glue treatment on 23rd August 1985...
Please convince me that I am wriobng...
I can see paint mentioned but not blood. However there is a reference to superglue on the right hand side of the sheet, suggesting that the tape attached to the silencer was there for protection during the fingerprinting process using superglue. Am I missing something here? There appear to be two different handwriting styles on the sheet - I do not know whether there is any significance in this.
--------------
Excuse me, good points, but adhesive tape refers to paint found upon it, not to Super-glue reside from the tests carried out on 23rd August 1985?
I agree, it does look as if the adhesive tape had flecks of paint on it, picked up when it had at an earlier stage been put over the end of the silencer. The writer of the note has obviously been informed that this was in connection with a fingerprinting process using superglue, but there is no reference to the presence of any superglue residue. Would this be a sticky coating if present and therefore easily detectable? The date on the form appears as if it may have been altered - I do not know if there is any significance in that.
-
Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff. I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc. Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it? Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?
I think it's a question of being able to concentrate for long enough rather than anything else. I must admit I don't really have enough patience for the silencer thing. ;D
----------------------
Silencer evidence is key to these convictions, so perhaps you should try to pay more attention...
I've tried, but all this speculation presented as facts is confusing the issue. You haven't even proved that a silencer was found on 11th September yet.
----------------------------------------------
Lets approach it from another angle - are you saying that EP did not still have a silencer in thier possession by 20th or 26th September 1985?
-
Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff. I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc. Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it? Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?
I think it's a question of being able to concentrate for long enough rather than anything else. I must admit I don't really have enough patience for the silencer thing. ;D
----------------------
Silencer evidence is key to these convictions, so perhaps you should try to pay more attention...
I've tried, but all this speculation presented as facts is confusing the issue. You haven't even proved that a silencer was found on 11th September yet.
----------------------------------------------
Lets approach it from another angle - are you saying that EP did not still have a silencer in thier possession by 20th or 26th September 1985?
I have no idea. I haven't got beyond the claim that a silencer was found on 11th September yet.
-
Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff. I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc. Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it? Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?
I think it's a question of being able to concentrate for long enough rather than anything else. I must admit I don't really have enough patience for the silencer thing. ;D
----------------------
Silencer evidence is key to these convictions, so perhaps you should try to pay more attention...
I've tried, but all this speculation presented as facts is confusing the issue. You haven't even proved that a silencer was found on 11th September yet.
----------------------------------------------
Lets approach it from another angle - are you saying that EP did not still have a silencer in thier possession by 20th or 26th September 1985?
I have no idea. I haven't got beyond the claim that a silencer was found on 11th September yet.
---------------
Look, stop being awkward - look at the following attached document, are you saying that you do not accept that a silencer was sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers, and to be fingerprinted on either 20th or 26th September 1985?
Stop being pathetic, and and tell me the truth...
-
Yes, but it's not clear if it's a new silencer or one which is being resubmitted.
Anyway, I think I understand the superglue method now, so something good has come of this thread. ;D
-
Mike, I admire you dedication to JBs cause, but I feel you were done wrong by the police, and need to get revenge.
Are you clutching at straws, with all this about silencers. The patholgist said that after the first shot[non fatal] to SC it would have rendered her unable to move about. If this was the case it does not matter if the silencer was in place or not.
-
Yes, but it's not clear if it's a new silencer or one which is being resubmitted.
Anyway, I think I understand the superglue method now, so something good has come of this thread. ;D
----------------
Listen - I do not take you or the other members on this forum to be mugs, I know most of you, or if not all of you, are very intelligent, and that sometimes you try to make argument against things which appear or which might be important. Now, am I right in saying that you are conceding that EP had a silencer in their possession, after 30th August 1985, which they submitted to the Lab' on either 20th or 26th September 1985, to be checked for fibers and blood, and to be fingerprinted?
Please answer, yes, or no...
-
Yes, but it's not clear if it's a new silencer or one which is being resubmitted.
Anyway, I think I understand the superglue method now, so something good has come of this thread. ;D
----------------
Listen - I do not take you or the other members on this forum to be mugs, I know most of you, or if not all of you, are very intelligent, and that sometimes you try to make argument against things which appear or which might be important. Now, am I right in saying that you are conceding that EP had a silencer in their possession, after 30th August 1985, which they submitted to the Lab' on either 20th or 26th September 1985, to be checked for fibers and blood, and to be fingerprinted?
Please answer, yes, ior no...
Yes.
-
Mike, I admire you dedication to JBs cause, but I feel you were done wrong by the police, and need to get revenge.
Are you clutching at straws, with all this about silencers. The patholgist said that after the first shot[non fatal] to SC it would have rendered her unable to move about. If this was the case it does not matter if the silencer was in place or not.
----------------------------
Me, after revenge?
Why do I need revenge?
I do accept your criticism, however, but you are wrong about me taking all this on, to get revenge against the police, and the CPS, and the courts...
The pathologist said something completely different to what you report, actually in one of his reports - he said that Sheila could have moved around for a short while after she received the original shot, and before the second shot was inflicted...
I have the actual report that says this...
This is different to EP's argument that both shots were inflicted simultaneously, one shot after the other, in a split second...
in my opinion...
What do you say?
-
yes
-
Did a short while mean sprinting up the stairs.
-
Did a short while mean sprinting up the stairs.
-------------------------------------------------
I think the best way forward, from both sides, is to suggest the there was some delay between both shots being inflicted...
-
I thought that both shots were quite close.
-
Hey! I answered Mike's question and now the subject is being changed. ???
-
I thought that both shots were quite close.
---------------------------
EP originally tried to suggest that both shots were inflicted close together, but the pathologist (Peter Venezis) speaks about there being a delay where the victim could have moved / walked around a bit...
Are you suggesting that both these explanations are consistent, one with the other - or different, please explain what you point of view is with regard to these matters?
-
Sorry.
-
Hey! I answered Mike's question and now the subject is being changed. ???
-------------------
I will come back to dealing with the question I posed to you, and the answer you have given...
-
I thought that both shots were quite close.
---------------------------
EP originally tried to suggest that both shots were inflicted close together, but the pathologist (Peter Venezis) speaks about there being a delay where the victim could have moved / walked around a bit...
Are you suggesting that both these explanations are consistent, one with the other - or different, please explain what you point of view is with regard to these matters?
He doesn't say there was a delay in this report. In fact, he says the opposite.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=156.0;attach=168;image
-
I thought that both shots were quite close.
---------------------------
EP originally tried to suggest that both shots were inflicted close together, but the pathologist (Peter Venezis) speaks about there being a delay where the victim could have moved / walked around a bit...
Are you suggesting that both these explanations are consistent, one with the other - or different, please explain what you point of view is with regard to these matters?
He doesn't say there was a delay in this report. In fact, he says the opposite.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=156.0;attach=168;image
-----------------------
How many reports / statements do you think the pathologist made?
I have a report where he admits that the victim could have walked around a bit before the second shot was inflicted...
Do you think I make these things up deliberately?
-
I thought that both shots were quite close.
---------------------------
EP originally tried to suggest that both shots were inflicted close together, but the pathologist (Peter Venezis) speaks about there being a delay where the victim could have moved / walked around a bit...
Are you suggesting that both these explanations are consistent, one with the other - or different, please explain what you point of view is with regard to these matters?
He doesn't say there was a delay in this report. In fact, he says the opposite.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=156.0;attach=168;image
-----------------------
How many reports / statements do you think the pathologist made?
I have a report where he admits that the victim could have walked around a bit before the second shot was inflicted...
Do you think I make these things up deliberately?
Why don't you post that report?
The one I posted is from May 1986.
-
So, I think we are in agreement that although one of the silencers (DB/1) Lab' item number 23 - was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, inside which was allegedly found the crucial flake of blood (trapped between baffle plates one and two), EP still had another silencer in their possession, that they kept until either 20th or 26th September 1985, that EP sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?
Where did this additional silencer come from?
Please give me an explanation...
-
I thought that both shots were quite close.
---------------------------
EP originally tried to suggest that both shots were inflicted close together, but the pathologist (Peter Venezis) speaks about there being a delay where the victim could have moved / walked around a bit...
Are you suggesting that both these explanations are consistent, one with the other - or different, please explain what you point of view is with regard to these matters?
He doesn't say there was a delay in this report. In fact, he says the opposite.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=156.0;attach=168;image
-----------------------
How many reports / statements do you think the pathologist made?
I have a report where he admits that the victim could have walked around a bit before the second shot was inflicted...
Do you think I make these things up deliberately?
Why don't you post that report?
The one I posted is from May 1986.
-----------------
I will post it...
-
The silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) and the silencer which EP had in their possession until either 20th / 26th September 1985, could not have been / was not the same silencer...
What do you have to say?
-
So, I think we are in agreement that although one of the silencers (DB/1) Lab' item number 23 - was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, inside which was allegedly found the crucial flake of blood (trapped between baffle plates one and two), EP still had another silencer in their possession, that they kept until either 20th or 26th September 1985, that EP sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?
Where did this additional silencer come from?
Please give me an explanation...
No, I didn't say that. I said that a silencer was sent to the lab on either 20th or 26th September. I didn't say it was a different silencer to the one(s) sent to the lab on prevous occasions. I said it might have been resubmitted in September.
-
Mike, I admire you dedication to JBs cause, but I feel you were done wrong by the police, and need to get revenge.
Are you clutching at straws, with all this about silencers. The patholgist said that after the first shot[non fatal] to SC it would have rendered her unable to move about. If this was the case it does not matter if the silencer was in place or not.
It matters a great deal whether the silencer was attached to the rifle during the shootings at WHF. The evidence at trial was that the rifle found on Sheila's body did not have a silencer attached. The prosecution claimed that the forsensic examination of the silencer found later by a relative and handed to police proved that the silencer had been attached to the rifle. Since Sheila obviously could not have killed herself and then removed the silencer they argued that she could not have committed suicide and that Jeremy therefore had to be responsible. If the evidence relating to the silencer can be undermined Jeremy's conviction would be unsafe and his appeal would succeed. Mike Tesko is therefore right to focus on the silencer evidence and even though it is at times hard to follow it is important for anyone with an interest in this case to gain a proper understanding of the evidence relating to the silencer.
-
I will post it...
Thank you.
Don't get me wrong - an amateur sleuth should never take an expert's word for anything, and I'm also going on what I see in the photos of Sheila. However, it's good to have all the information to hand.
-
I do not think you made anything up, but I think you have a grudge against the police.
Let me be clear to you I have no love for the police, as I have been accused of things that were later disregarded. The EP are really wanting, and I think they made a real hash of things, and tried to cover their ars*s.
-
I do not think you made anything up, but I think you have a grudge against the police.
Let me be clear to you I have no love for the police, as I have been accused of things that were later disregarded. The EP are really wanting, and I think they made a real hash of things, and tried to cover their ars*s.
-------------
A grudge against which police?
Relatives of mine are police officers, and I have friends who are police officers, so what is your point, as far as this investigation (the bamber case) is concerned?
-
They are all the same
-
They are all the same
--------------------
Well, I would choose to take issue with that - even in my own case there were many police officers who chose to tell the truth, and who did not falsify any part of the evidence...
So, why would I be taking on EP, and the CPS / DPP in the Bamber case?
-
Bloody hell a copper who told the truth,phone the guiness of records
-
Bloody hell a copper who told the truth,phone the guiness of records
------------------------
Those who choose to introduce a lie, or a number of lies, into their evidence, often mask those lies by surrounding them with elements of the truth...
-
Anyway...
A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?
Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...
By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...
Do you agree, or not?
-
I want to have confirmation from EP, and the lab'. that on either the 20th / 26th September 1985, a different silencer was sent to, or received at the lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted - and the conclusions of those examinations (please)...
Why, after 26 years there is still no confirmation from EP or the Lab' at Huntingdon, that on either the 20th /' 26th September 1985, a silencer was sent to the lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?
-
Anyway...
A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?
Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...
By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...
Do you agree, or not?
No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.
-
Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff. I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc. Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it? Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?
--------------------
Not yet...
Here, have a look at this - where on this Lab' general examination record, does it mention that the silencer in question, was / is coated in super-glue residue?
It mentions blood, and paint, but no super-glue...
In my opinion, it can't be the same silencer that was exposed to super-glue treatment on 23rd August 1985...
Please convince me that I am wriobng...
I can see paint mentioned but not blood. However there is a reference to superglue on the right hand side of the sheet, suggesting that the tape attached to the silencer was there for protection during the fingerprinting process using superglue. Am I missing something here? There appear to be two different handwriting styles on the sheet - I do not know whether there is any significance in this.
-------------------
If there was red paint on the silencer, how did they know it was red paint if it was coated in super-glue residue?
-
Could we perhaps have all the available documents which show when a silencer was sent to the lab and received at the lab?
-
Anyway...
A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?
Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...
By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...
Do you agree, or not?
No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.
---------------------
Taking up that point, where is there any evidence that the silencer (DB/1) which had been sent to the lab', on 30th August 1985, had been returned to EP, to enable them to be in possession of it, to resubmit it to the lab' on 20th / 26th September 1985, to be checked for fibers?
Where is the information about this silencer being submitted to the lab' on either 20th / 26th September 1985, and any conclusions after its examination?
-
Why did the exhibit references to the silencer, became changed, altered, from SBJ/1 to DB/1 and ultimately to DRB/1, after the submission of the silencer to the Lab' on either 20th / 26th September 1985?
-
Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff. I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc. Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it? Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?
--------------------
Not yet...
Here, have a look at this - where on this Lab' general examination record, does it mention that the silencer in question, was / is coated in super-glue residue?
It mentions blood, and paint, but no super-glue...
In my opinion, it can't be the same silencer that was exposed to super-glue treatment on 23rd August 1985...
Please convince me that I am wriobng...
I can see paint mentioned but not blood. However there is a reference to superglue on the right hand side of the sheet, suggesting that the tape attached to the silencer was there for protection during the fingerprinting process using superglue. Am I missing something here? There appear to be two different handwriting styles on the sheet - I do not know whether there is any significance in this.
-------------------
If there was red paint on the silencer, how did they know it was red paint if it was coated in super-glue residue?
I have no expertise on this - I was never involved in a case as a barrister in which superglue fingerprint testing was an issue. Is the residue something which obscures every other detail on the object? If it is a thin film it might still be possible to see red paint. On the other hand there is no reference on the lab report form to the presence of superglue residue, which is perhaps surprising given the reference to the use of the tape in connection with previous superglue testing for fingerprints. What do you believe happened here Mike?
-
Anyway...
A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?
Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...
By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...
Do you agree, or not?
No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.
---------------------
Taking up that point, where is there any evidence that the silencer (DB/1) which had been sent to the lab', on 30th August 1985, had been returned to EP, to enable them to be in possession of it, to resubmit it to the lab' on 20th / 26th September 1985, to be checked for fibers?
Where is the information about this silencer being submitted to the lab' on either 20th / 26th September 1985, and any conclusions after its examination?
Perhaps there is a reference to it in the Dickinson report. I've read that report but it only goes up to 6th September as posted by you on SFJ.
-
Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff. I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc. Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it? Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?
--------------------
Not yet...
Here, have a look at this - where on this Lab' general examination record, does it mention that the silencer in question, was / is coated in super-glue residue?
It mentions blood, and paint, but no super-glue...
In my opinion, it can't be the same silencer that was exposed to super-glue treatment on 23rd August 1985...
Please convince me that I am wriobng...
I can see paint mentioned but not blood. However there is a reference to superglue on the right hand side of the sheet, suggesting that the tape attached to the silencer was there for protection during the fingerprinting process using superglue. Am I missing something here? There appear to be two different handwriting styles on the sheet - I do not know whether there is any significance in this.
-------------------
If there was red paint on the silencer, how did they know it was red paint if it was coated in super-glue residue?
I have no expertise on this - I was never involved in a case as a barrister in which superglue fingerprint testing was an issue. Is the residue something which obscures every other detail on the object? If it is a thin film it might still be possible to see red paint. On the other hand there is no reference on the lab report form to the presence of superglue residue, which is perhaps surprising given the reference to the use of the tape in connection with previous superglue testing for fingerprints. What do you believe happened here Mike?
------------------------
I think they (somebody) tried to match all the different silencers, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, as being one and the same silencer, so that they could rely upon the suggestion that the relatives found the silencer on 10th August 1985, and that inside it (DRB/1) was found the crucial flake of blood (A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1), which produced the crucial blood group evidence that was attributed to SC, and paint upon it which came from the aga surround...
They transfered the blood and the paint evidence form DB/1 to the Bamber (DRB/1) silencer, so that they could introduce and rely upon the argument that if the Bamber silencer was used in the shooting of Sheila, somebody had to remove it and take it downstairs, and hide it inside the gun cupboard, after SC was shot dead...
In my opinion...
This is the way, I see it...
-
Anyway...
A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?
Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...
By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...
Do you agree, or not?
No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.
I am not sure you are correct on this. The "Action" form completed by DS Davison dated 13/9/85 shows him asking for examination of "the following" for blood, fibres and fingerprints. There are then three numbered items listed which are clearly what he is asking to be examined. It is true that item 3 reads "check silencer for fibres" but surely that is just repeating or emphasising the generic request at the top of the form, rather than saying that in the case of the silencer he only wanted an examination to be made for fibres?
-
If silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the Lab' from 30th August 1985, and the crucial blood flake was found inside it, and EP had another silencer (DRB/1) in their possession, which they did not send to the lab' at Huntingdon,. until 20th / 26th September 1985, then it could not have been the same silencer, and EP have not explained how this other silencer (DRB/1) came to be in their possession, from 11th September 1985, onwards?
-
I think they (somebody) tried to match all the different silencers, SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1, as being one and the same silencer, so that they could rely upon the suggestion that the relatives found the silencer on 10th August 1985, and that inside it (DRB/1) was found the crucial flake of blood (A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1), which produced the crucial blood group evidence that was attributed to SC, and paint upon it which came from the aga surround...
They transfered the blood and the paint evidence form DB/1 to the Bamber (DRB/1) silencer, so that they could introduce and rely upon the argument that if the Bamber silencer was used in the shooting of Sheila, somebody had to remove it and take it downstairs, and hide it inside the gun cupboard, after SC was shot dead...
In my opinion...
This is the way, I see it...
Even if you're right, you've still got the problem of how the blood and paint got onto the DB/1 silencer. Is that the one you think David Boutflour found in the garage? If so, that's even worse because it means that someone went and put it in the garage rather than the gun cupboard.
How do you think the blood and paint got onto the DB/1 silencer?
-
Anyway...
A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?
Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...
By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...
Do you agree, or not?
No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.
I am not sure you are correct on this. The "Action" form completed by DS Davison dated 13/9/85 shows him asking for examination of "the following" for blood, fibres and fingerprints. There are then three numbered items listed which are clearly what he is asking to be examined. It is true that item 3 reads "check silencer for fibres" but surely that is just repeating or emphasising the generic request at the top of the form, rather than saying that in the case of the silencer he only wanted an examination to be made for fibres?
Yes it does say that, but it might mean the first two items on that forum. It specifically asks for the silencer to be checked for fibres. People don't always fill in forms properly, or they write something which is ambiguous.
-
Why when to all intents and purposes they were looking at 4 murders, and one suicide.
-
If silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the Lab' from 30th August 1985, and the crucial blood flake was found inside it, and EP had another silencer (DRB/1) in their possession, which they did not send to the lab' at Huntingdon,. until 20th / 26th September 1985, then it could not have been the same silencer, and EP have not explained how this other silencer (DRB/1) came to be in their possession, from 11th September 1985, onwards?
It could be the same silencer if the lab had sent it back after testing it for blood.
-
Anyway...
A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?
Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...
By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...
Do you agree, or not?
No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.
I am not sure you are correct on this. The "Action" form completed by DS Davison dated 13/9/85 shows him asking for examination of "the following" for blood, fibres and fingerprints. There are then three numbered items listed which are clearly what he is asking to be examined. It is true that item 3 reads "check silencer for fibres" but surely that is just repeating or emphasising the generic request at the top of the form, rather than saying that in the case of the silencer he only wanted an examination to be made for fibres?
--------
If, by 30th August 1985, silencer DB/1, was already at the lab' (item number 23), why would the police be referring to (1) ammunition box; (2) cardboard box containing silencer and ammunition, and (3) silencer, if all were not received by the police together at the sane time, and sent to the Lab' at the ame time, to be checked for blood, fibers and to be fingerprinted?
Lets look at what exhibit references, the ammunition box, and the cardboard box containing the silencer, and ammunition, was found inside?
CAE/1, CAE/2 and CAE/3, or alternatively - DRB/1, DRB/2 and DRB3 (in no particular order)?
-
Think you would need to register high on the autism spectrum to fully comprehend all this silencer stuff. I get the gist of it but I'm no good at multiple tracking of several items, dates etc. Maybe a flow chart / diagram might help illustrate it? Is this a key part of the case put to CCRC?
I think it's a question of being able to concentrate for long enough rather than anything else. I must admit I don't really have enough patience for the silencer thing. ;D
----------------------
Silencer evidence is key to these convictions, so perhaps you should try to pay more attention...
I've tried, but all this speculation presented as facts is confusing the issue. You haven't even proved that a silencer was found on 11th September yet.
-------------------
Of course one was found on 11th September 1985, why do you think David Boutflour was phoning up EP on that date to report the find of a silencer in the gun cupboard on that date? Are you suggesting that he phoned up EP on that date, to report a silencer he found in the same gun cupboard a month previously?
-
Anyway...
A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?
Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...
By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...
Do you agree, or not?
No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.
I am not sure you are correct on this. The "Action" form completed by DS Davison dated 13/9/85 shows him asking for examination of "the following" for blood, fibres and fingerprints. There are then three numbered items listed which are clearly what he is asking to be examined. It is true that item 3 reads "check silencer for fibres" but surely that is just repeating or emphasising the generic request at the top of the form, rather than saying that in the case of the silencer he only wanted an examination to be made for fibres?
Yes it does say that, but it might mean the first two items on that forum. It specifically asks for the silencer to be checked for fibres. People don't always fill in forms properly, or they write something which is ambiguous.
Fair point. I agree it can be read either way, but on balance I think it is more likely to be a request for the fulll examination of all three numbered items, but with emphasis in the case of the silencer on examination for fibres Why there should be a concern about the presence of fibres I am not sure, unless it was connected with the box of tampax.
-
Why did DS Eastwood and DS Davidson, take possession of the silencer, on 13th September 1985, to fingerprint it, considering that the other silencers had been fingerprinted on 15th and 23rd August 1985?
-
Anyway...
A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?
Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...
By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...
Do you agree, or not?
No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.
I am not sure you are correct on this. The "Action" form completed by DS Davison dated 13/9/85 shows him asking for examination of "the following" for blood, fibres and fingerprints. There are then three numbered items listed which are clearly what he is asking to be examined. It is true that item 3 reads "check silencer for fibres" but surely that is just repeating or emphasising the generic request at the top of the form, rather than saying that in the case of the silencer he only wanted an examination to be made for fibres?
Yes it does say that, but it might mean the first two items on that forum. It specifically asks for the silencer to be checked for fibres. People don't always fill in forms properly, or they write something which is ambiguous.
Fair point. I agree it can be read either way, but on balance I think it is more likely to be a request for the fulll examination of all three numbered items, but with emphasis in the case of the silencer on examination for fibres Why there should be a concern about the presence of fibres I am not sure, unless it was connected with the box of tampax.
-------------------
Ammunition box, and the box containing the silencer and ammunition was submitted to the lab' on and after 11th September 1985, so why mention the silencer to be checked for fibers in the same document, if the author of that document did not also have possession of all three items at that stage?
It also states at the bottom of the page:-
"Above items (which includes the silencer) forwarded to the lab' on 20th / 26th September 1985, SC/786/85 refers - well, the other silencers were submitted to the lab' on dates when the case was being conducted under SC/688/85, namely SBJ/1 - Lab' item number 22, on 13th August 1985, and similarly, DB/1 - Lab' item numb er 23, , on 30th August 1985, and the submission of the above items to the lab' that took place on 20th / 26th September 1985, was done so when the nature of the investigation was altered into SC/786/85...
That is the point...
Additionally, if this was the same silencer that was coated in super-glue residue, (on 23rd August 1985) how the hell did anyone expect fibers to be found on such a silencer?
-
Of course one was found on 11th September 1985, why do you think David Boutflour was phoning up EP on that date to report the find of a silencer in the gun cupboard on that date? Are you suggesting that he phoned up EP on that date, to report a silencer he found in the same gun cupboard a month previously?
The document you posted is not very clear.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=444.0;attach=1339;image
It could be a mistake. It looks as if that form is a summary of messages received on separate occasions, so maybe the date was misread. If you can find another document which makes it clear that David Boutflour rang on 11th September and said he'd just found a silencer in the cupboard, then you might have a case.
The last sentence on there still doesn't make sense to me.
-
Anyway...
A silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) was at the lab' from 30th August 1985, inside which was found the crucial flake of blood that was discovered trapped between baffles one and two - which led to that flake being tested and examined between 12th and 19th September 1985, which produced the crucial blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK 1 and HP 2-1 - and this could not have been the very same silencer, which EP still had in their possession, from 11th September 1985 until either 20th / 26th September 1985, at which stage that silencer was sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?
Both silencers, could not possibly have been one and the same silencer - because silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) had already, presumably, have already been checked for blood and fingerprinted...
By and from 15th and 23rd August 1985...
Do you agree, or not?
No. The silencer which was sent to the lab on 20th or 26th September was being checked for fibres.
I am not sure you are correct on this. The "Action" form completed by DS Davison dated 13/9/85 shows him asking for examination of "the following" for blood, fibres and fingerprints. There are then three numbered items listed which are clearly what he is asking to be examined. It is true that item 3 reads "check silencer for fibres" but surely that is just repeating or emphasising the generic request at the top of the form, rather than saying that in the case of the silencer he only wanted an examination to be made for fibres?
--------
If, by 30th August 1985, silencer DB/1, was already at the lab' (item number 23), why would the police be referring to (1) ammunition box; (2) cardboard box containing silencer and ammunition, and (3) silencer, if all were not received by the police together at the sane time, and sent to the Lab' at the ame time, to be checked for blood, fibers and to be fingerprinted?Lets look at what exhibit references, the ammunition box, and the cardboard box containing the silencer, and ammunition, was found inside?
CAE/1, CAE/2 and CAE/3, or alternatively - DRB/1, DRB/2 and DRB3 (in no particular order)?
That is a very good point in my view. Something here does not stack up properly.
-
Ammunition box, and the box containing the silencer and ammunition was submitted to the lab' on and after 11th September 1985, so why mention the silencer to be checked for fibers in the same document, if the author of that document did not also have possession of all three items at that stage?
It also states at the bottom of the page:-
"Above items (which includes the silencer) forwarded to the lab' on 20th / 26th September 1985, SC/786/85 refers - well, the other silencers were submitted to the lab' on dates when the case was being conducted under SC/688/85, namely SBJ/1 - Lab' item number 22, on 13th August 1985, and similarly, DB/1 - Lab' item numb er 23, , on 30th August 1985, and the submission of the above items to the lab' that took place on 20th / 26th September 1985, was done so when the nature of the investigation was altered into SC/786/85...
That is the point...
Additionally, if this was the same silencer that was coated in super-glue residue, (on 23rd August 1985) how the hell did anyone expect fibers to be found on such a silencer?
Re your last point, I assumed it meant fibres in the silencer rather than on it - ie, to indicate if there had been an attempt to clean the inside with a tampon.
-
Kaldin, can you tell me the relevance of the silencer
. It has been established that no silencer was in place when SC recieved the final shot. Does it matter what silencer was used for the murders.One last thing the search by boutflour in the garage where he said No bolts. could have been refering to the fact that he removed the bolt from HIS rifle when he left it at the farm. With this in mind why was he searching for the bolt.I am a bit thick.
-
Of course one was found on 11th September 1985, why do you think David Boutflour was phoning up EP on that date to report the find of a silencer in the gun cupboard on that date? Are you suggesting that he phoned up EP on that date, to report a silencer he found in the same gun cupboard a month previously?
The document you posted is not very clear.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=444.0;attach=1339;image
It could be a mistake. It looks as if that form is a summary of messages received on separate occasions, so maybe the date was misread. If you can find another document which makes it clear that David Boutflour rang on 11th September and said he'd just found a silencer in the cupboard, then you might have a case.
The last sentence on there still doesn't make sense to me.
----------------
Yes, there exists an action report, where it clearly states that DB rang up EP on 11th September 1985 (whilst JB was in custody) to inform them that he had found a silencer in the gun cupboard on that date - if true, why was the silencer already at the lab' on two previous occasions (13th August 1985, under SBJ/1 - Lab' item number 22) and again on and from 30th August 1985 (under DB/1 - Lab' item number 23), if he did not find the Bamber silencer in the gun cupboard at whf until 11th September 1985?
-
Kaldin, can you tell me the relevance of the silencer. It has been established that no silencer was in place when SC recieved the final shot. Does it matter what silencer was used for the murders.One last thing the search by boutflour in the garage where he said No bolts. could have been refering to the fact that he removed the bolt from HIS rifle when he left it at the farm. With this in mind why was he searching for the bolt.I am a bit thick.
Hello Clifford.
It hasn't been established that no silencer was in place when Sheila was shot. In fact, the prosecution said that a silencer was indeed in place when Sheila was shot. They said that her blood was found in it, and the jury believed them. The problem is that the silencer was not on the gun when the police found Sheila, so she couldn't have shot herself and then put the silencer away in a cupboard.
-
Of course one was found on 11th September 1985, why do you think David Boutflour was phoning up EP on that date to report the find of a silencer in the gun cupboard on that date? Are you suggesting that he phoned up EP on that date, to report a silencer he found in the same gun cupboard a month previously?
The document you posted is not very clear.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=444.0;attach=1339;image
It could be a mistake. It looks as if that form is a summary of messages received on separate occasions, so maybe the date was misread. If you can find another document which makes it clear that David Boutflour rang on 11th September and said he'd just found a silencer in the cupboard, then you might have a case.
The last sentence on there still doesn't make sense to me.
----------------
Yes, there exists an action report, where it clearly states that DB rang up EP on 11th September 1985 (whilst JB was in custody) to inform them that he had found a silencer in the gun cupboard on that date - if true, why was the silencer already at the lab' on two previous occasions (13th August 1985, under SBJ/1 - Lab' item number 22) and again on and from 30th August 1985 (under DB/1 - Lab' item number 23), if he did not find the Bamber silencer in the gun cupboard at whf until 11th September 1985?
You mean there's another report which clearly says that David Boutflour rang on 11th September to say he'd just found the silencer? Can you please post that report?
-
Kaldin you did not recieve my full question. It was deleted. Sinister
-
Should get a mention on facebook
-
Kaldin, can you tell me the relevance of the silencer. It has been established that no silencer was in place when SC recieved the final shot. Does it matter what silencer was used for the murders.One last thing the search by boutflour in the garage where he said No bolts. could have been refering to the fact that he removed the bolt from HIS rifle when he left it at the farm. With this in mind why was he searching for the bolt.I am a bit thick.
Hello Clifford.
It hasn't been established that no silencer was in place when Sheila was shot. In fact, the prosecution said that a silencer was indeed in place when Sheila was shot. They said that her blood was found in it, and the jury believed them. The problem is that the silencer was not on the gun when the police found Sheila, so she couldn't have shot herself and then put the silencer away in a cupboard.
---------------------------
It should also be pointed out that the ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, who conducted tests to see if any of the 25 crime scene bullets had been fired through the gun / silencer, concluded that he could find no evidence that any of those crime scene bullets had been fired via the use of the silencer...