Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on March 29, 2015, 09:53:PM
-
When police fingerprinted a box of ammunition with a spot of blood upon it which was recovered from the gun cupboard at whf by David Boutflour on the 10th August 1985, they found three different sets of fingerprints on it. One set was identified as belonging to Peter Eaton, the others as yet unidentified...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
Peter Eaton picked up the box multiple times including to hand to police so his prints being found on it is not a surprise.
-
Peter Eaton picked up the box multiple times including to hand to police so his prints being found on it is not a surprise.
Peter Eaton did not handle the box of ammunition at all once David Boutflour recovered it from the scene on the 10th August 1985. There is no reference anywhere to that in any of his witness statements, testimony or interviews by CILP, so I don't know where you have got that idea from. Now the presence of this bloodstained ammunition box in the relatives possession between the 10th August and the 11th September 1985 is very wording indeed, because it demonstrates in the clearest possible terms that blood from the crime scene was transported away from the scene by the relatives and kept by them for a whole month before Ann Eaton hand it over to DC Oakley on the 11th September 1985. This was in addition to the relatives removing from the scene on the 10th August 1985, a sound moderator also contaminated with blood, later attributed as belonging exclusively to Sheila Caffell, took it away and kept by themselves for a whole month until Annie Eaton also handed it over to DC Oakley on the 11th September 1985. As if all of this isn't bad enough, please hang fire because I have even more alarming revelations to make, because relatives also had possession for a whole month between 10th August and the 11th September 1985, a solitary round of Eley .22LR subsonic hollow point ammunition with a spot of blood upon it, (part of lab' item no. 93, exhibit DRH/22), which again Annie Eaton handed over to DC Oakley on the 11th September 1985...
Relatives whisked three separate evidential exhibits away from the scene on the 10th August 1985, all of which were bloodstained in respect or another, (1) sound moderator, DRB/1, (2) box of ammunition DRB/2, and (3) a solitary round of .22 Eley subsonic hollow point ammunition (which eventually became part of DRH/22, lab' item no. 93)...
I am still not yet done, because on the 12th September 1985, David Boutflour met police at the scene (whf) and from within the very same gun cupboard in the downstairs office, he removed the metal ring that normally fitted onto the screw thread end of the anshuzt rifle barrel, and he gave it to the police. Now technically speaking this threaded metal ring was the end part of the anshuzt rifles barrel, and arguably just as significant as any sound moderator later introduced to help to convict Jeremy Bamber of the murders. This is because it was a component part of the rifle which police and their experts say belonged to the only weapon used in the shootings - yet, despite David Boutflour handing the end of the anshuzt rifle. Barrel over to police at the scene on the 12th September 1985, police try to conceal its existence or recovery because its very existence has the potential to seriously undermine the evidence of all these different moderators that were merged together as the same one, bearing at least four different exhibit references. SJ/1, SBJ/1, DB/1, CAE or AE/1, and DRB/1...
We are now very close to understanding exactly how corrupted police officers and dishonest relatives worked together to fabricate the key evidence used in the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber for these murders...
In addition to these matters, let us also not forget that Annie Eaton also removed from the scene on the 10th August 1985, a pair of heavily bloodstained knickers belonging to the victim Sheila Caffell. Annie took them away from the scene in the boot of her car, along with the moderator (DRB/1), the bloodstained box of ammunition, and the solitary round of Eley .22 ammunition with a spit of blood upon it...
All of this collectively, is too serious to ignore...
-
Let us also not forget, that recorded in Annie Eaton's own hand written notes, that she records the fact that on the evening of 9th August 1985, that her husband Peter had returned to whf and put 'THE GUN', back. Yet to be pondered is what is meant by the term she uses 'THE GUN'? Was she referring to the moderator, or the metal ring, which are both component parts of the anshuzt rifle, or to Anthony Pargeters rifle and moderator?
-
How did the solitary round of ammunition which Annie Eaton handed over to DC Oakley on the 11th September 1985, manage to end up as part of exhibit DRH/22 (lab item number 93) recovered from the scene by DC Hammersley, on the 7th August 1985? Now, for those of you who do not know what exhibit DRH/22 was / is, I shall take the liberty of reminding you all that exhibit DRH/22 was the box of 29 rounds tipped out onto the kitchen worktop close to were the telephone hanset was resting off its cradle. What I want an answer to, is how did the relatives end up in possession of the 30th bullet photographed alone and shown to be standing upright in its ammunition box on the worktop in PC Birds crime scene photographs taken at the scene on the 7th August 1985? How did that solitary round end up in the gun cupboard in time for David Biutflour to discover it there by 10th August 1985, in order for the relatives to retain possession of it for a whole month, before Annie Eaton hands it over to DCOakley on the 11th September 1985, which in turn then becomes incorporated as part of exhibit DRH/22 which police took from the scene on the morning of the shootings?
Clearly, something seriously wrong with the way police and relatives have dovetailed these crucial key exhibits together...
-
The jury had a basic right to know, that for a whole month, relatives had possession of bloodstained exhibits, which the police later incorporated into their investigation retrospectively, by tampering with exhibit references, and lab' item numbers, in an effort to produce some form of continuity. It is not acceptable to rely on any evidence involved in these practices, since relatives who are ultimately responsible for these introducing the sound moderator (DRB/1) evidence, had it, and other bloodstained exhibits together with at least one source of blood from the scene (knickers) for a whole month before these key exhibits were handed over to police by Annie Eaton on the 11th September 1985...
Based on this information, the sound moderator evidence introduced by relatives should not have been relied upon in the prosecution f Jeremy Banner, because of the risk that it was deliberately contaminated with blood, and used to make scratch marks on the aga surround in the kitchen, on some other occasion after the keys to whf were handed over to the relatives on the evening of the 9th August 1985...
-
I am left in no doubt whatsoever, that either police, relatives, or both, deliberately scratched the aga surround in the kitchen at the scene, whilst relatives had possession of the sound moderator.I believe I can prove that Steps were taken to keep crucial photographic evidence showing views of the unscratched aga surround from the jury during the trial, because to disclose such photographs would seriously undermine the presence of red paint in the knurl of the moderator, thus exposing the police case as a dishonest prosecution. I will post evidence of this later today - I know the number of the photographic negatives that show the unscratched aga, photographs which were deliberately not part of any photographs disclosed for use during the trial...
-
The COLP investigators discovered as part of their investigation into a series of complaints made by Jeremy Bamber, that a key photograph taken of the kitchen fireplace and aga surround (photograph 22 of the MASTER COPY ALBUM) was deliberately kept from viewing by the defence solicitors, legal team, the court and the jury which tried the case. Photograph 22 showed a clear view of the corresponding part of the red painted aga surround with absolutely no scratch marks there at all. ACC Simpson and other senior officers knew the significance of photograph 22, because it had been taken at the scene on the 7th August 1985 by PC David Bird, and the scratch marks which later appeared their in another photograph taken on the 12th September was absent in the earlier (22) photograph. Of course, particles of red paint which were found ingrained into the kurl of sound moderator DRB/1 handed to police by Annie Eaton on the 11th September 1985, now having new significance, because it was apparent to everyone including ACC Simpson, that the scratch marks on the aga surround and the particles of red paint from the aga surround ingrained into the knurl of the moderator (DRB/1) handed to police by Annie was fabricated / dishonest evidence...
-
PHOTOGRAPH 22 of THE MASTER COPY ALBUM, deliberately withheld to fool the jury into accepting the sound moderator, paint and blood contaminated evidence to justify convicting Bamber as the killer...
-
Currently visiting a prison officer in Full Sutton who I know from my time in custody there between 1989 and 1990, and through being an home office approved prison visitor, Mckensie man. Jeremy is apparently doing fine...
-
It is very disturbing that the relatives had possession of all these blood contaminated evidential items, such as, the moderator, the ammunition box, and the round of .22 ammunution, all with blood found upon them, whilst they had all been removed frim the scene at the same time as a pair of Sheila's heavily soiled knickers covered in menstrual blood. How did Essex police expect to get away with accepting any of this evidence which had been exposed to the risk of being contaminated prior to relatives handing it over to the police
...
-
The live .22 round with a spot of blood upon it (93) did not have an exhibit re
-
Peter Eaton did not handle the box of ammunition at all once David Boutflour recovered it from the scene on the 10th August 1985. There is no reference anywhere to that in any of his witness statements, testimony or interviews by CILP, so I don't know where you have got that idea from. Now the presence of this bloodstained ammunition box in the relatives possession between the 10th August and the 11th September 1985 is very wording indeed, because it demonstrates in the clearest possible terms that blood from the crime scene was transported away from the scene by the relatives and kept by them for a whole month before Ann Eaton hand it over to DC Oakley on the 11th September 1985. This was in addition to the relatives removing from the scene on the 10th August 1985, a sound moderator also contaminated with blood, later attributed as belonging exclusively to Sheila Caffell, took it away and kept by themselves for a whole month until Annie Eaton also handed it over to DC Oakley on the 11th September 1985. As if all of this isn't bad enough, please hang fire because I have even more alarming revelations to make, because relatives also had possession for a whole month between 10th August and the 11th September 1985, a solitary round of Eley .22LR subsonic hollow point ammunition with a spot of blood upon it, (part of lab' item no. 93, exhibit DRH/22), which again Annie Eaton handed over to DC Oakley on the 11th September 1985...
Relatives whisked three separate evidential exhibits away from the scene on the 10th August 1985, all of which were bloodstained in respect or another, (1) sound moderator, DRB/1, (2) box of ammunition DRB/2, and (3) a solitary round of .22 Eley subsonic hollow point ammunition (which eventually became part of DRH/22, lab' item no. 93)...
I am still not yet done, because on the 12th September 1985, David Boutflour met police at the scene (whf) and from within the very same gun cupboard in the downstairs office, he removed the metal ring that normally fitted onto the screw thread end of the anshuzt rifle barrel, and he gave it to the police. Now technically speaking this threaded metal ring was the end part of the anshuzt rifles barrel, and arguably just as significant as any sound moderator later introduced to help to convict Jeremy Bamber of the murders. This is because it was a component part of the rifle which police and their experts say belonged to the only weapon used in the shootings - yet, despite David Boutflour handing the end of the anshuzt rifle. Barrel over to police at the scene on the 12th September 1985, police try to conceal its existence or recovery because its very existence has the potential to seriously undermine the evidence of all these different moderators that were merged together as the same one, bearing at least four different exhibit references. SJ/1, SBJ/1, DB/1, CAE or AE/1, and DRB/1...
We are now very close to understanding exactly how corrupted police officers and dishonest relatives worked together to fabricate the key evidence used in the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber for these murders...
In addition to these matters, let us also not forget that Annie Eaton also removed from the scene on the 10th August 1985, a pair of heavily bloodstained knickers belonging to the victim Sheila Caffell. Annie took them away from the scene in the boot of her car, along with the moderator (DRB/1), the bloodstained box of ammunition, and the solitary round of Eley .22 ammunition with a spit of blood upon it...
All of this collectively, is too serious to ignore...
Nothing you say is worth paying attention do because all you do is ignore the facts and make up nonsense.
This is from one of the sources you posted:
(http://s3.postimg.org/i7urmqc4j/eaton22.jpg) It makes clear Peter Eaton had held the 22 ammunition until police came around to collect it so his print on the 22 box is not unusual and is explained by such being kept at his house. indeed Eaton is the one who handed the moderator to police in August and he wanted to give them the ammunition at the same time but police would not take anything else at that point. So he had to put everything else away to store for another month before police finally decided to take the remaining items.
Another source you posted was from Oakey and it makes clear the box he though had blood was one of the boxes of Raker 12 bore ammunition not the 22 box that had Eaton's prints on it. You lied when you claimed his prints were on the same box that had the red mark.
The statement from Oakey
(http://s2.postimg.org/myerw2zop/oakeyrakerbox.jpg)
You keep accusing police of lying but the only one you demonstrate to be lying is yourself. You could not do a better job of ruining your credibility if you had the desire to do so. I fail to see why you bother which such misrepresentations because all they do is tarnish your reputation nothing more. It is bad enough to make up things and hope no one will figure out the truth but you go a step further and post evidence which rebuts your claims and hope no one who reads the documents will realize they rebut your claims.
-
all this really means is he touched the box at some time its not really smoking gun evedence.
-
all this really means is he touched the box at some time its not really smoking gun evedence.
Unless he carried it between his teeth, I guess he had to carry it to transport it from A to B which is likely to mean that his prints would be on it.
-
Unless he carried it between his teeth, I guess he had to carry it to transport it from A to B which is likely to mean that his prints would be on it.
Or meant to be.
-
Or meant to be.
I'm becoming confused, Lookout. Thus far, those who had a hand in her demise have been:- a scruffy man. An UNKNOWN man who attempted to have sex with her. An assortment of police and NOW Peter Eton seems to have managed to get himself in on the act. What ever -WHO ever next?..................By the way, I DO have an alibi :D
-
Ann Eaton put the property away after her brother recovered it, Peter Eaton was not present - and the extract you refer to is a witness statement prepared by the police for Peter Eaton to sign, which by the way, he did not sign, so you can hardly say that he handled anything legally...
Police took his fingerprints because they suspected him of trying to frame Jeremy for the murders...
-
Ann Eaton put the property away after her brother recovered it, Peter Eaton was not present - and the extract you refer to is a witness statement prepared by the police for Peter Eaton to sign, which by the way, he did not sign, so you can hardly say that he handled anything legally...
Police took his fingerprints because they suspected him of trying to frame Jeremy for the murders...
Would that be before or after THEY tried to frame him?
-
Would that be before or after THEY tried to frame him?
What are you referring to, its not clear what you are asking me...
Ask yourself how police knew that Peter Eaton's fingerprints had been found and identified on that ammunition box? Because there is no mention anywhere at all inside the police file that police took Peter Eaton's fingerprints for comparison purposes, and lo and behold Peter Eaton does not even volunteer such information...
-
What are you referring to, its not clear what you are asking me...
Ask yourself how police knew that Peter Eaton's fingerprints had been found and identified on that ammunition box? Because there is no mention anywhere at all inside the police file that police took Peter Eaton's fingerprints for comparison purposes, and lo and behold Peter Eaton does not even volunteer such information...
Ooops :) It should have read:- Would that be before or after they tried to frame JEREMY?.......SILLY me :D
-
i think the bloodstanis on the box is probely more important than fingerprints id expect prints from nearly everybody involved to be there.
-
Ann Eaton put the property away after her brother recovered it, Peter Eaton was not present - and the extract you refer to is a witness statement prepared by the police for Peter Eaton to sign, which by the way, he did not sign, so you can hardly say that he handled anything legally...
Police took his fingerprints because they suspected him of trying to frame Jeremy for the murders...
Peter Eaton is the one who took out the moderator, scope, weapons and ammo and tried to give it all to police on August 12, 1985 but police refused to take anything except the moderator so he had to put the rest of it away again for safe keeping till they finally changed their minds in September. You accused Peter Eaton of wrongdoing many times int he past with respect to his turning over of the moderator to police so how can you now pretend he had nothing to do with holding onto any of this evidence?
-
Peter Eaton is the one who took out the moderator, scope, weapons and ammo and tried to give it all to police on August 12, 1985 but police refused to take anything except the moderator so he had to put the rest of it away again for safe keeping till they finally changed their minds in September. You accused Peter Eaton of wrongdoing many times int he past with respect to his turning over of the moderator to police so how can you now pretend he had nothing to do with holding onto any of this evidence?
Peter Eaton did not try to hand over everything else to DS Jones on the evening of 12th August, I do not even believe that he handed a moderator to DS Jones on that occasion, I think that part has been made up. If the only moderator recovered from the scene then it was the one retained by the family until Annie Eaton handed it over to DC Oakley on the 11th September. The moderator Cook received from DS Jones on 13th August, which Cook took along to the lab that very same day, to be looked at by Glynis Howard to have been the sound moderator that Jones took from the scene on the 7th August. We all know that there shoud have been two sound moderators at the scene at the time of the shootings, and that by the time house keys were handed over to the relatives on the evening of 9th August, that there was only one remaining moderator still inside whf, because DSaJones had rwmoved the other one days earlier. The moderator recovered by David Boutflour from the scene on 10th August, was retained by the relatives until the 11th September, and handed over to DC Oakley at that time. Therefore, the moderator (DRB/1) found by David Boutflour on 10th August, could not have been the same moderator (SJ/1) taken to the lab' by Cook on the 13th August, (exhibit reference, later amended to SBJ/1), nor could it be the same moderator (DB/1) submitted to the lab' on the 30th August, inside which the crucial and significant small flake of dried blood was found, producing the key blood group activity (A, EAP B, AK/1 and HP 2-1) associated with and to Sheila Caffell. The moderator found in the gun cupboard by David Boutflour in the gun cupboard on the 10th August, could not possibly have been the same moderator (DB/1) sent to the lab' on the 30th August, since the relatives had possession of the other moderator (DRB/1) until the 11th September, and then police retained possession of it (DRB/1) until the 20th September, by which time, it ( DRB/1) had been fingerprinted on the 14th September, by DS Davidson and DS Eastwood. Details written in the submission of articles form, which accompanied the moderator(DRB/1) states that the moderator to be checked for blood and fibers - even though by the date this moderator (DRB/1) was being submitted to the lab' (20th September), the crucial flake of blood (aforementioned) had already been found inside the other moderator (DB/1) at the lab', and already analysed at the lab' (between 12th and 19th September), so there it is, the proof for all to see, the absolute truth being that the key flake of blood, was never present at any stage inside the only sound moderator (DRB/1) found at the scene by David Boutflour on the 10th August, and retained by the family until 11th September, before it was duly handed over to police by Ann Eaton..
-
Peter Eaton did not try to hand over everything else to DS Jones on the evening of 12th August, I do not even believe that he handed a moderator to DS Jones on that occasion, I think that part has been made up. If the only moderator recovered from the scene then it was the one retained by the family until Annie Eaton handed it over to DC Oakley on the 11th September. The moderator Cook received from DS Jones on 13th August, which Cook took along to the lab that very same day, to be looked at by Glynis Howard to have been the sound moderator that Jones took from the scene on the 7th August. We all know that there shoud have been two sound moderators at the scene at the time of the shootings, and that by the time house keys were handed over to the relatives on the evening of 9th August, that there was inly ne rwmaung moderator still inside whf, because DSaJones had rwmoved the other one days earlier. The moderator recovered bt David Boutflour from the scene on 10th August, was retained by the relatives until the 11th September, and handed over to DC Oakley at that time. Therefore, the moderator (DRB/1) found by David Boutflour on 10th August, could not have been the same moderator (SJ/1) taken to the lab' by Cook on the 13th August, (exhibit reference, later amended to SBJ/1), nor could it be the same moderator (DB/1) submitted to the lab' on the 30th August, inside which the crucial and significant small flake of dried blood was found, producing the key blood group activity (A, EAP B, AK/1 and HP 2-1) associated with and to Sheila Caffell. The moderator found in the gun cupboard by David Boutflour in the gun cupboard on the 10th August, could not possibly have been the same moderator (DB/1) sent to the lab' on the 30th August, since the relatives had possession of the other moderator (DRB/1) until the 11th September, and then police retained possession of it (DRB/1) until the 20th September, by which time, it ( DRB/1) had been fingerprinted on the 14th September, by DS Davidson and DS Eastwood. Details written in the submission of articles form, which accompanied the moderator(DRB/1) states that the moderator to be checked for blood and fibers - even though by the date this moderator (DRB/1) was being submitted to the lab' (20th September), the crucial flake of blood (aforementioned) had alrwady been found inside the other moderator (DB/1) at the lab', and already analysed at the lab' (between 12th and 19th September), so there it is, the proof for all to see, the absolute truth being that the key flake of blood, was never present at any stage inside the only sound moderator (DRB/1) found at the scene by David Boutflour on the 10th August, and retained by the family until 11th September, before it was duly handed over to police by Ann Eaton..
You seem to forget who you are dealing with. While lookout and some other Jeremy supporters give your unsupported opinions undue influence I do not. While they are scared or too biased to call your lies out I am not. The evidence you posted established as clear as day that the red dot suspected of being blood was on one of the boxes containing Raker 12 bore shells while Eaton's print was foudn on a 22 box. There is no way you misconstrued those documents to mean the fingerprint and red dot were on the same box you are too clever to misconstrue them you intentionally distorted.
You know you have no evidence to support a moderator being collected by Jones on the day of the murders let alone any evidence to establish 2 different moderators were tested in 1985. You made up such claims. There was only one weapon at WHF capable of having a moderator fitted and only one moderator your claim there were 2 at the murder scene is false.
Your beliefs not only are not supported by any information they are clearly not genuine. You constantly change your assertions and end up contradicting yourself precisely because you are not going with genuine beliefs but rather simply making up arguments as you go along that you think you can use to convince people to believe what you want us to believe. You give us too little credit though in being able to see through such antics given the fact so much evidence in in the public domain including everything you placed in the public domain. You expect us to not be able to comprehend the documents and thus not to realize they refute your claims.
Your supposed beliefs that Eaton didn't hand over the moderator as he and police claimed and that he never touched any of the items that were stored at his house for more than a month are more than simply unsupported and not credible- they are as disingenuous as your claims that the victim's bodies were used as dummies in a training exercise. You couldn't convince me that you honestly believe most of the stuff you try to sell to us let alone can you provide evidence to establish the claims are objectively true. You enjoy toying with us that seems to get your rocks off.
-
You seem to forget who you are dealing with. While lookout and some other Jeremy supporters give your unsupported opinions undue influence I do not. While they are scared or too biased to call your lies out I am not. The evidence you posted established as clear as day that the red dot suspected of being blood was on one of the boxes containing Raker 12 bore shells while Eaton's print was foudn on a 22 box. There is no way you misconstrued those documents to mean the fingerprint and red dot were on the same box you are too clever to misconstrue them you intentionally distorted.
You know you have no evidence to support a moderator being collected by Jones on the day of the murders let alone any evidence to establish 2 different moderators were tested in 1985. You made up such claims. There was only one weapon at WHF capable of having a moderator fitted and only one moderator your claim there were 2 at the murder scene is false.
Your beliefs not only are not supported by any information they are clearly not genuine. You constantly change your assertions and end up contradicting yourself precisely because you are not going with genuine beliefs but rather simply making up arguments as you go along that you think you can use to convince people to believe what you want us to believe. You give us too little credit though in being able to see through such antics given the fact so much evidence in in the public domain including everything you placed in the public domain. You expect us to not be able to comprehend the documents and thus not to realize they refute your claims.
Your supposed beliefs that Eaton didn't hand over the moderator as he and police claimed and that he never touched any of the items that were stored at his house for more than a month are more than simply unsupported and not credible- they are as disingenuous as your claims that the victim's bodies were used as dummies in a training exercise. You couldn't convince me that you honestly believe most of the stuff you try to sell to us let alone can you provide evidence to establish the claims are objectively true. You enjoy toying with us that seems to get your rocks off.
In the Andrew Hunter book draft he claims the blood was found in the wrong silencer(page 21): http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2441.0
-
The link works for me. Sorry if there are problems with members. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2441.0
-
It is documented in police records, namely a PROPERTY REGISTER that DS Jones took possession of four exhibits in connection with the whf investigation:-
SBJ\4
SBJ\3
SBJ\2
SBJ\1
There are no prizes for guessing what the item SBJ\1 was \ is?
-
In the Andrew Hunter book draft he claims the blood was found in the wrong silencer(page 21): http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2441.0
His book is contradictory. At first he admits that the moderator was given no less than 3 different exhibit prefixes but then changes course and suggests each prefix is a different moderator and that the 3 could have been mixed up. He offers no evidence to establish each was referring to a different moderator, he just asserts such without a shred of evidence. The CCRC and COA reject the claim that the 3 references are to different moderators the COLP investigation fully resolved this allegation and established why the prefix was changed. It is not the only item that had its prefix changed the scope and some of the ammo also featured the same progression changes ultimately ending up DRB 2 and 3. He seems to ignore the evidence and just make up accusations that were already refuted years earlier.
His book is riddled with so many errors including the notion that superglue fuming harms blood grouping tests, it doesn't, nor does it inhibit DNA testing of blood. I especially like his claim some "gun enthusiests" found muzzle marks from the moderator on Sheila's non-fatal wound but missing from her fatal wound so that means the moderator was removed and put away before the second shot was fired. The first shot wasn't a contact wound it could not have left a muzzle imprint nor did anyone who examined Sheila find a muzzle imprint on either wound. She would not only have no reason to remove the moderator after the first shot if she could reach he trigger as he claims with the moderator on the weapon but if inclined to do so would have no reason to go put it away and would have left a blood trail as she did so. Worse the second shot was fired within seconds of the first not minutes so she didn't have enough time to go put it away. He takes a claim (that the moderator was used to deliver the non-fatal shot) which if true would be very damning to the defense but ignores such and pretends it helps the defense. His bias could not be anymore clear.
If I were biased like him I would be using such supposed evidence as evidence of Jeremy's guilt because no way did Sheila remove the moderator after the first shot and go put it away in the closet. Since I am objective I reject the notion of there being a muzzle mark from the moderator on her neck around the non-fatal wound. No such mark was seen in photos by any qualified experts, the photos I have seen though being not of great quality show nothing that could reasonably be a muzzle imprint so it is not credible they could see one, it was a non-contact wound so would not have a muzzle imprint and those who actually inspected her body found no evidence of any muzzle imprint.
Not only did Hunter fail to use objective logic to make sure his evidence was solid and thus accept faulty claims worse he then distorted the implications of any and all information (faulty or not) based on his agenda.
-
It is documented in police records, namely a PROPERTY REGISTER that DS Jones took possession of four exhibits in connection with the whf investigation:-
SBJ\4
SBJ\3
SBJ\2
SBJ\1
There are no prizes for guessing what the item SBJ\1 was \ is?
SBJ/1 was the initial prefix given to the moderator it was changed to DB/1 and ultimately ended up DRB/1. After they collected the other evidence they decided to change all the prefixes of the items discovered by Boutflour at WHF on August 10, 1985 to match the initials of the finder because that is proper protocol. After discovering that Boutflour found them they altered the moderator, scope and ammunition to DB/1, DB/2, DB/3 and DB/4. Upon finding out David Bird was using such prefix they added Boutflour's middle initial and ended with DRB 1-4. This was all fully explored and sorted out during the COLP Investigation.
There is no mystery about the prefix revisions.
-
The sound moderator (SBJ\1) taken from the scene by DS Jones on 7th August 1985, which was fingerprinted by DS Davidson on the 9th August, and which DCI Jones, and DS Jones spoke to Jeremy about on that very same day, could not have been the same moderator as the one found in the gun cupboard by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985. The moderator handed to DS Jones by Peter Eaton on the 12th August 1985, was not the same moderator recovered earlier from the scene by David Boutflour. The moderator (unassigned) given to DI Cook by DS Jones on 13th August 1985, which Cook took to the lab' that very same day for Glynis Howard to examine, and which Ron Cook labelled, SJ\1 on that occasion, was not the same moderator found at the scene by David Boutflour three days earlier. The moderator (SJ\1 which Cook fingerprinted by oblique light test on 15th August, and by superglue treatment on the 23rd August 1985, was not the moderator found at the scene by David Boutflour. The moderator (SJ\1) dismantled and rebuilt by Cook on the 29th August, was not the moderator found by David Boutfkour earlier. The moderator (DB\1) sent to the lab' by Essex police on the 30th August 1985, was not the moderator found at the scene by David Boutflour. The moderator (DRB\1) handed to DC Oakly by Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985, was the very same moderator found at the scene on the 10th August, earlier.The moderator (DB\1) inside which the crucial flake of Sheila Caffells blood group activity was discovered at the lab' on the 12th September 1985, was not the same moderator found by David Boutflour on the 10th August, which was not handed over to DC Oakley by Ann Eaton until the day before. The moderator (DB\1) inside which the key blood group evidence was discovered on the 12th September, was found inside the moderator (DB\1) already present at the lab' from 30th August, onward. DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood fingerprinted a moderator (DRB\1) which was still in police possession on the 14th September 1985, this was a separate moderator to the one (DB\1) police had already sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985. On the 20th September 1985, we know at what stage additional scratch marks were made on the red painted aga surround. Police sent moderator (DRB\1) to the lab' to be checked for the presence of blood and fibers, and therefore could not have been, or be the same moderator (DB\1) previously sent to the lab' on the 30th August, inside which the key blood group evidence in the form of the small flake of dried blood had already been discovered (12th September), and already analysed (between 12th and the 19th September 1985), because the moderator (DRB\1) found at the scene by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985, was not handed over to Essex police by Ann Eaton until the 11th September 1985, was not fingerprinted by DS Davidson and DS Eastwood, until 14th September, and was not sent by police to the lab' until 20th September, and not physically examined at all once it had eventually been received at the lab' until the 25th September 1985, by which stage particles of red paint matching the red paint of the aga surround in the main kitchen at the scene, were found to be present in the knurl of moderator DRB\1. Now, we all know at what stage the additional scratch marks first appeared on the red painted surround, so that part is easily accounted for. But the most overwhelming piece of evidence is that the key blood evidence cannot have been found inside the moderator (DRB\1) found at the scene by David Boutflour on the 10th August 1985, because it was not handed over to the police by Ann Eaton until the 11th September 1985, and in any event it (DRB\1) arrived at the lab' too late for the key flake of blood to have been found inside it. The mystery of the blood contaminated (DB\1), and the paint contaminated (DRB\1) moderators has finally, well and truly been exposed as nothing but falsified evidence which was deliberately introduced to help convict Jeremy Bamberg for these murders...
All the dated events, and exhibit references, mentioned here are genuine, not made up by me, all recorded in the police and lab' files...
-
The sound moderator (SBJ\1) taken from the scene by DS Jones on 7th August 1985, which was fingerprinted by DS Davidson on the 9th August, and which DCI Jones, and DS Jones spoke to Jeremy about on that very same day, could not have been the same moderator as the one found in the gun cupboard by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985. The moderator handed to DS Jones by Peter Eaton on the 12th August 1985, was not the same moderator recovered earlier from the scene by David Boutflour. The moderator (unassigned) given to DI Cook by DS Jones on 13th August 1985, which Cook took to the lab' that very same day for Glynis Howard to examine, and which Ron Cook labelled, SJ\1 on that occasion, was not the same moderator found at the scene by David Boutflour three days earlier. The moderator (SJ\1 which Cook fingerprinted by oblique light test on 15th August, and by superglue treatment on the 23rd August 1985, was not the moderator found at the scene by David Boutflour. The moderator (SJ\1) dismantled and rebuilt by Cook on the 29th August, was not the moderator found by David Boutfkour earlier. The moderator (DB\1) sent to the lab'by Essex police on the 30th August 1985, was not the moderator found at the scene by David Boutflour. The moderator (DRB\1) handed to DC Oakly by Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985, was the very same moderator found at the scene on the 10th August, earlier.The moderator (DB\1) inside which the crucial flake of Sheila Caffells blood group activity was discovered at the lab' on the 12th September 1985, was not the same moderator found by David Boutflour on the 10th August, which was not handed over to DC Oakley by Ann Eaton until the day before. The moderator (DB\1) inside which the key blood group evidence was discovered on the 12th September, was found inside the moderator (DB\1) already present at the lab' from 30th August, onward. DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood fingerprinted a moderator (DRB\1) which was still in police possession on the 14th September 1985, this was a separate moderator to the one (DB\1) police had already sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985. On the 20th September 1985ll know at what stage additional scratch marks were made on the red pa, police sent moderator (DRB\1) to the lab' to be checked for the presence of blood and fibers, and therefore could not have been, or be the same moderator (DB\1) previously sent to the lab' on the 30th August, inside which the key blood group evidence in the form of the small flake of dried blood had already been discovered (12th September), and already analysed (between 12th and the 19th September 1985), because the moderator (DRB\1) found at the scene by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985, was not handed over to Essex police by Ann Eaton until the 11th September 1985, was not fingerprinted by DS Davidson and DS Eastwood, until 14th September, and was not sent by police to the lab' until 20th September, and not physically examined at all once it had eventually been received at the lab' until the 25th September 1985, by which stage particles of red paint matching the red paint of the aga surround in the main kitchen at the scene, were found to be present in the knurl of moderator DRB\1. Now, we all know at what stage the additional scratch marks first appeared on the red painted surround, so that part is easily accounted for. But the most overwhelming piece of evidence is that the key blood evidence cannot have been found inside the moderator (DRB\1) found at the scene by David Boutflour on the 10th August 1985, because it was not handed over to the police by Ann Eaton until the 11th September 1985, and in any event it (DRB\1) arrived at the lab' too late for the key flake of blood to have been found inside it. The mystery of the blood contaminated (DB\1), and the paint contaminated (DRB\1) moderators has finally, well and truly been exposed as nothing but falsified evidence which was deliberately introduced to help convict Jeremy Bamberg for these murders...
All the dated events, and exhibit references, mentioned here are genuine, not made up by me, all recorded in the police and lab' files...
No you are simply misrepresenting. You have failed to produce any documentation to establish Jones took a moderator from the site on the day of the murders that was taken for fingerprinting on August 9. You simply allege this you provide no evidence and worse you keep changing your mind of what exhibit number this supposed moderator had. You sometimes allege it was SBJ/1 while other times you claim it was SJ/1 and in fact swore you have documentation proving it was SJ/1 jsu tliek you now swear you have documentation proving it was SBJ/1.
The actual documents establish SBJ/1 was given to the mdoerator collected from the family on August 12. cook's COLP statement explains how he labeled it the same day it was given to him by Jones and how he submitted it to the lab the same day under SBJ/1. You are spinning your wheels for nothing, this argument flopped decades ago is already over and done with.
-
Blood evidence found in one moderator (DB\1), paint found on the other moderator (DRB\1), the dates when each of these two moderators were sent to the lab' by police, cannot be overcome, the former (DB\1) sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, the latter one (DRB\1) not sent to the lab' until the 20th September 1985 - those facts will stand the test of time, and no-one or anybody can alter the truth about these two completely separate moderators being sent by Essex police to the lab' 21 days a part from one another. Now, that's what I call compelling evidence...
-
I have not misrepresented anything, the police are responsible for altering the exhibit references as part of the plan to try and merge these completely separate moderators together as being one and the same.There was no need for police or anybody to alter any exhibit references of any exhibit. Each exhibit was found, recovered, or given to police in its own unique circumstances, at a particular location, on a specific date, and unique time. Police claiming they had to alter the exhibit references of items because they supposedly clashed with other exhibit references of items found or whatever by different people, is an argument in the circumstances of this case, that quite frankly does not hold water...
-
I have not misrepresented anything, the police are responsible for altering the exhibit references as part of the plan to try and merge these completely separate moderators together as being one and the same.There was no need for police or anybody to alter any exhibit references of any exhibit. Each exhibit was found, recovered, or given to police in its own unique circumstances, at a particular location, on a specific date, and unique time. Police claiming they had to alter the exhibit references of items because they supposedly clashed with other exhibit references of items found or whatever by different people, is an argument in the circumstances of this case, that quite frankly does not hold water...
The sound moderator, blood, paint evidence, relied upon in this case to help to prosecute and to convict Jeremy Bamber has well and truly been shot to bits. The so called pan of truth, has now been exposed as a sive full of lies...
-
First Moderator sent to Lab'
13th August 1985 - (unassigned), SJ/1 (later altered to SBJ/1)...
Explanation exists for return of this moderator back into police possession
Second Moderator sent to Lab'
30th August 1985 - DB/1
Small flake of dried blood found inside this moderator
When flake analysed, it produces following blood group results
A
EAP BA
AK/1
HP 2-1
(Above blood group activity obtained between 12th to 19th September 1985)
Third Moderator sent to Lab'
20th September 1985 - DRB/1
To be checked for blood and fibers
Particles of red paint discovered ground into knurl of silencers end cap (25th September, 1985)
-
First Moderator sent to Lab'
13th August 1985 - (unassigned), SJ/1 (later altered to SBJ/1)...
Explanation exists for return of this moderator back into police possession
Second Moderator sent to Lab'
30th August 1985 - DB/1
Small flake of dried blood found inside this moderator
When flake analysed, it produces following blood group results
A
EAP BA
AK/1
HP 2-1
(Above blood group activity obtained between 12th to 19th September 1985)
Third Moderator sent to Lab'
20th September 1985 - DRB/1
The COLP investigation determined there was 1 moderator at WHF on the day of the murder and that moderator was assigned prefix SBJ/1 which was changed to DB/1 and ultimately DRB/1. No one had any evidence to refute these COLP findings. Your allegations are a waste of time.
-
You are wrong, COLP produced two Reports about their findings into Jeremy Bambers Complaints, one report to be disclosed to Jeremy (he being the Complainant), and the official Report, sent to the IPCC. Only mention of one sound moderator mentioned in the former Report, but two separate moderators mentioned in the latter report. The reason why the existence of the second moderator was not disclosed in the Report made available to Jeremy, was that Jeremy had not complained that different moderators had been merged together and presented as the same one, he had wrongly complained that PC David Bird had originally found that moderator, because of the DB/1 exhibit reference to it in police documents which he had in his possession at the time he lodged his complaint - PC David Bird being a member of SOC at the scene on the morning of the shootings. Jeremy also knew about the other exhibit reference, SBJ/1, attributed to the moderator, but he discounted that on the basis that DS Jones was not a SOCO at the time of the investigation. Little did Jeremy know, that after attending his cottage at Head Street, Goldhanger, along with DC Clark, that DS Jones had returned to the scene and taken possession if a sound moderator (which subsequently became SBJ/1. However, in the IPCC Report, COLP confirm the existence of the two separate moderators at the scene on the morning of the shootings. One moderator (SBJ/1) removed from the scene on 7th August 1985, by DS Jones himself, and a second one (DRB/1) removed from the scene by David Boutflour on the 10th August 1985...
One (SBJ/1) of these moderators belonging to Anthony Pargeters .22 rifle, the other (DRB/1) belonging to Ralph Bambers .22 rifle. I don't need to make anything up, because its all true...
-
Why do you think there is no official mention about Ann Eaton handing over the moderator (DRB/1) to DC Oakley, on the 11th September 1985?
Why no witness statements made by DS Davidson and DS Eastwood fingerprinting that (DRB/1) moderator on the 14th September 1975?
Why is there no official account of the identity of the person who physically took moderator (DRB/1) to the lab' on the 20th September 1985?
Think...
-
COLP also obtained copies of all police store room registers, and copies of all entries relating to all items of evidential value connected with or to the case, and in particular, entries made in a police register known as, THE PROPERTY OTHER THAN FOUND BOOK...
As I understand it, this was Essex police's pitfall. Because, details of DS Jones recovery of a sound moderator are documented in TPOTFB, in an entry dated the 7th August 1985, now why do you think that is?
Similarly, a record exists confirming in TPOTFB, dated the 11th September 1985, that Annie Eaton handed a sound moderator to DC Oakley...
So, if the police had a moderator from as long ago as the 7th August 1985, or say the 12th August 1985, what was Annie and the gang doing in possession of a moderator until the 11th September 1985, if the argument is going to continue to be that there was only one sound moderator, but if that be true, the police documents show the existence of two separate ones, where one of these is already at the lab' , whilst Annie and the gang still have possession of the other one...
-
Why do you think there is no official mention about Ann Eaton handing over the moderator (DRB/1) to DC Oakley, on the 11th September 1985
Why no witness statements made by DS Davidson and DS Eastwood fingerprinting that (DRB/1) moderator on the 14th September 1975?
Why is there no official account of the identity of the person who physically took moderator (DRB/1) to the lab' on the 20th September 1985?
Think...
Because you made the claims up. Things that you say happened that there is no documentation to establish happened and no testimony to establish happened obviously didn't happen you simply made the claims up.
-
The police and the relatives and the ballistics expert made it all up, and people like you believed it...
-
Annie Eaton has never yet denied giving DC Oakley that (DRB/1) sound moderator on the 11th September 1985, and DC Oakley has never yet denied receiving it from her on that date. Likewise even though a document exists showing that a sound moderator was sent to the lab' on the 20th September, no-one dare admit to it...
-
The police and the relatives and the ballistics expert made it all up, and people like you believed it...
Your claims are not supported by evidence. That means you have no basis to assert the things you assert and reveals they are simply made up.
In contrast rational objective people believe what the documentary and testimonial evidence proves.
What evidence do you have that a moderator was collected from WHF on the day of the murder? NONE
So based on what did you come up with the suggestion that it happened? None so that means you simply made it up.
Occasionally you claim you have documents yet when challenged to produce them you refuse then on other occasions you admit there are no such documents so effectively admit you lied previously about having seen such documents. You are better off admitting up front you have no evidence than to claim you do and admit the truth later on. When you contradict yourself in such manner it just hurts your credibility.
You have zero evidence to refute the moderator was transferred from the Eatons to police on August 12 as claimed by them and police and instead was transferred at some point in September you simply made that up. You keep trying to fool us by saying the moderator went to the lab different dates and each date it had to be a different moderator but your theory is not supported by any evidence and is flawed. The rifle and moderator were repeatedly transferred to the lab, examined then returned to police then brought back again on other days. There is nothing to establish multiple moderators were in police custody and that each time a different moderator was transferred.
You claim your proof is that each of the 3 prefixes referred to a different moderator but the COLP Investigation reveals that claim to be bogus it established all 3 references were to the same exact moderator and detailed the reason for the change. You intentionally keep misrepresenting that a moderator was collected in September when police picked up the rifle scope and ammunition from the Eatons but the documents discussing such fail to mention any moderator being collected at that time.
The bottom line is that your claims are not based on any evidence they are simply allegations made up based on a desire to make allegations.
The lack of any evidence is why these claims can't be raised in an application for clemency or raised to the courts.
-
Something I find of particular interest is that a Jeremy supporter posted most of the Dickinson report on Sleuthing for Justice but failed to post what are among the most important parts. Harters copied what was posted but paras 305-320 are missing. These paras are the ones that would detail what was collected from Eaton in September, when various test firing of the gun took place and when the lab tested the blood for the grouping tests. Isn't it funny how the supporter refused to post these sections which could demolish the allegations he was making....
-
Where did the sound moderator that police sent to the Lab' at Huntingdon on the 20th September 1985, with instructions to check it for blood and fibers, come from? Who gave it to the police, when was it given to the police, and who by?
-
...
-
Where did the sound moderator that police sent to the Lab' at Huntingdon on the 20th September 1985, with instructions to check it for blood and fibers, come from? Who gave it to the police, when was it given to the police, and who by?
The same moderator and rifle were sent repeatedly. There was only 1 moderator in their possession until they obtained moderators to use for testing which were simply lab property and during the trial the extended family willingly gave up their moderators for testing.
-
...
The allegations made were all rejected as false by the CCRC
-
The same moderator and rifle were sent repeatedly. There was only 1 moderator in their possession until they obtained moderators to use for testing which were simply lab property and during the trial the extended family willingly gave up their moderators for testing.
Just goes to prove you do not know what you are talking about, because the moderator (DB/1) sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, was never returned to the police at all, as confirmed by the property store register entries at Huntingdon Lab'. You want to get your head sorted out because your confusing yourself, let me give you a clue, if it might do you some good. You see, there was Ronny Cook fingerprinting the moderator (SJ/1 - SBJ/1) by superglue treatment on the 23rd August 1985, by which stage this moderator had been lab' item number 22 (at the time of its submission to the lab' on the 13th August 1985). Keep that "FACT" in your head for a minute. Now, on the 14th September 1985, lo and behold, DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood, both fingerprint the second moderator (DB/1) handed to DC Oakley by Annie Eaton on the 11th September, which in turn then gets sent to the lab' by Essex police, on the 20th September, with a request to check it (DRB/1) for blood and fibers - now, why would Essex police be re-fingerprinting the same moderator (SJ/1 - SBJ/1) that Ronnie Cook had coated from top to bottom with superglue residue way back on the 23rd August 1985? Once coated in superglue residue, how the hell did any right thinking police officer expect to find fingerprints, where previously none had existed? Work it out for yourself, it just doesn't add up, or make any sense. And why send a moderator (DRB/1) to the lab' on the 20th September, to be checked for blood, if blood had already been found in the other moderator (DB/1), removed, and analysed between 12th and the 19th September 1985? That would be akin to bolting the stable door, after the horse had already bolted...
-
The allegations made were all rejected as false by the CCRC
No, they weren't, the CCRC made no comment at all about many if not all of these matters...
-
The provenance (continuity) of the sound moderator
27. The original finding of a sound moderator that was labelled SBJ/1 occurred, according to the investigating officers and prosecution witnesses, on 10th August 1985. Namely, it was discovered by a David Boutflour. It was asserted at trial that it was handed to an Essex Police Officer, DS 21 Jones, on 12th August 1985 by Ann Eaton. Then on 13th August 1985 it was submitted for forensic testing at Huntingdon laboratories on by DI Cook.
28. However, in his broadcasts to various media organisations, that were notably later retracted, ACC Simpson was quoted in ‘The Mirror,’ on the 17th September 1985,
‘A heavily bloodstained silencer was found by the police hours after the gruesome massacre,’ in addition, ‘Police discovered a blood stained gun silencer at the farm on the day of the massacre.’
29. Furthermore on 16th September 1985, ACC Simpson informed Paul Davidson of ‘The Essex Gazette,’ ‘Although a silencer was found shortly after police broke into the house, a few hours after the killings on 7th August 1985, it was not until after enquiries were reopened that this was regarded as significant,’
30. The enquiry that was ‘reopened,’ provided suspicion that Jeremy Bamber had committed murder and killed five members of his family, his motive being for his inheritance making it appear that his mentally ill sister had in fact murdered the family members, including her two children.
31. The CPS position at trial was that David Boutflour discovered red paint and blood on the sound moderator SBJ/1. This sound moderator was crucial in the prosecution’s case, where they used it to imply there being a struggle with Jeremy Bamber and his father Nevill Bamber on the 7th August 1985, resulting in scratch marks on the underside of a (The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11, Page 5 of 23)
mantel shelf in White House Farm, thereby depositing red paint on the knurl of a sound moderator, (see the photograph showing the scratch marks; our reference img – 3654. CR2)
32. According to COLP the labelling of the sound moderator in the first instance was SBJ/1, and then for the sake of clarity regarding different officer’s initials it was later entitled DB/1 then later again changed to DRB/1. This was to correspond with David Robert Boutflour’s initials, which were similar to another investigating officer’s namely, DC Bird, (see paragraph 2.2, COLP 001793)
33. The provenance of the exhibit SBJ/1, being later relabelled was not deemed to be an issue by COLP, indeed they asserted that there was nothing sinister in this lack of clarity,
‘My conclusions are that each query…has with stood close scrutiny and found to be an innocent mistake or careless entry – nothing more.’ (paragraph 1.214, COLP 001898; our italics).
34. Yet when COLP interviewed DI Cook in 1991, he stated, ‘I have been shown exhibit label DRB/1 and identify the signature on the second line as mine. I also recognise Glynnis Howard’s signature on the third line. However, I cannot now explain why SBJ/1 is not recorded on the label bearing my signature.’(see Document S10 page 14; Document P – 37, showing a copy of the file exhibit labels, Document share file 04;our italics).
35. COLP left this assertion unchallenged. While later COLP questioned DI Cook, ‘What was the purpose of placing sellotape over the ends of the silencer during the superglue treatment?’ DI Cook replied, ‘It shows superglue by me on 15th August 1985.’
36. COLP failed to point out that SBJ/1 had a white film of superglue all over it on the outside, yet it is submitted it can be found as fact that DRB/1 which was handed to DC Oakey and then on to DCI Wright on 11th September 1985 did not have any white film on it.
37. Similarly, COLP did not sufficiently consider the provenance of the sound moderator and David Boutflour’s assertion that he could identify his signature, but was unable to recall when he signed the exhibit label and whether it was with the silencer, (paragraph 2.44, COLP 001913) The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11 Page 6 of 23
38. It is submitted that COLP should have enquired more robustly and thoroughly why the provenance of the exhibit was altered three times in view of the above. It is submitted that COLP knew full well that this was not due to an ‘innocent mistake,’ or ‘careless entry,’ or indeed the initials of prosecution witnesses and investigating officers becoming confused.
39. It is due to the fact that it can now be proven there were in issue two sound moderators discovered during the investigation at White House Farm.
40. It is submitted that COLP found it as fact that there were two sound moderators back in 1991 and colluded with Essex Police as asserted earlier, in order to maintain the integrity of the officers involved in the case in the first instance.
41. Indeed COLP states, ‘The silencer was sent to the lab on 30.8.85 when additional examinations were made, culminating in its return to the police on 13.11.85.’
While COLP also states, ‘To have saved any dispute as to its identity, ideally the sound moderator should have been photographed in detail in the very early stages. Although a photograph was taken on 11.11.85 it merely showed the rifle and moderator within the gun cupboard at White House Farm.’(see COLP paragraph 2.57, 001918, and Document X2; our italics)
42. While a sound moderator was being forensically tested, the other was being photographed at White House Farm, one was SBJ/1 the other DRB/1. It is, of course impossible for the sound moderator in issue to be in two places at once. Photographs img – 3642. CR2 through to img 3649. CR2, picture the rifle and sound moderator in the gun cupboard on the 20th September 1985. While photographs img – 3650. CR2 through to img 3653. CR2, shows the rifle with a different sound moderator attached in the gun cupboard on the 11th November 1985. Thus the photographs of DRB/1 were taken on 20th September 1985, and the photographs of SBJ/1 were taken on 11th November 1985.
43. In addition, Essex Police informed COLP that the first photograph taken of the sound moderator was on the 11th November 1985, (see paragraph 2.57 COLP Enquiry).
44. However, it is submitted that all the earlier photographs that were taken of the sound moderator were not disclosed to COLP, e.g. it is now known to be fact that DI Cook took photographs of a sound moderator on 21st August 1985, (see Document AB – 25), and that DC Hammersley took photographs of the rifle with a sound moderator on 20th September 1985, (see Documents B – 2, and AB – 25).
The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11 Page 7 of 23
45. Furthermore Document S15, clearly shows a telephone message from David Boutflour on 11th September 1985 at 15.20 stating he has found a silencer with blood on it logged as message 13.
46. Moreover, there are no references to a sound moderator having been found at White House Farm in Ann Eaton’s witness statements until her fifth submission on 12th September 1985.
47. While on the 13th August 1985, DS 21 Jones showed DI Miller the sound moderator and drew his attention to the red paint and blood present upon it, (See DI Miller’s statement dated October 1985, Document AB – 13).
48. On the 14th August 1985 DS 21 Jones took a witness statement from Ann Eaton and there is no mention of a sound moderator having been discovered on the 10th August 1985. While it is also asserted that Ann Eaton spent the day with DI Cook, DS Jones and DI Miller to show them where DRB/1 had scratched the red mantel shelf, (see DI Cook Statement to COLP page 21, Document S 10).
49. It is submitted that if it was true that DRB/1 was found on the 10th August 1985 then it would be logical for her to mention the discovery because it was deemed so relevant by officers and indeed herself.
50. While back in August 1985, at the initial crime scene it is recorded that DS Jones was inside White House Farm on 7th August 1985 between the hours of 09.30 and 13.37. He was noted as taking photographs at the scene, some of which have since been destroyed, notably SBJ/3 which was of the downstairs toilet and where Anthony Pargeter was known to keep his rifle, (see document A-B).
51. Similarly, Anthony Pargeter states this to be the case, (see Anthony Pargeter’s 12th 1985 December witness statement; Doc share: File 67). He asserts that he expected to find his .22 rifle and sound moderator in the downstairs toilet/shower room when he went in search of it on the 26th July 1985, instead he found that his rifle was now being stored in the office gun cupboard. ‘My gun case, containing my rifle and sound moderator was on the floor of this gun cupboard.’
52. This is further proven in photograph img – 3522. CR2, which shows Anthony Pargeter’s .22 rifle on top of Nevill Bamber’s 12 bore shotgun case, on the floor of the office gun cupboard. This photograph was taken on the 7th August 1985. In addition photographs img – 3514. CR2 and img 3513. CR2, pictures Anthony Pargeter’s 12 bore shotgun case in the downstairs toilet/shower room on a bench behind a cabinet, (these were also taken on the 7th August 1985). The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11 Page 8 of 23
53. Photographs were taken of all the items discovered downstairs in the office at white House Farm, in the gun cupboard while the house was being searched on 7th August 1985, yet these photographs have been removed. The inference by Jeremy Bamber’s Defence team is that they did in fact reveal the presence of a second sound moderator, (COLP Enquiry, paragraphs 1 – 211 and 2.57). These photographs are referenced as strip (white label) 0039 and have had eight of the negatives removed, (negatives 1 – 6 missing and 9 and 10). It is submitted that Essex Police did this to conceal that Anthony Pargeter’s .22 rifle and sound moderator were also in the gun cupboard at White House Farm, where David Boutflour later found the second sound moderator on 11th September 1985.
54. Furthermore it is submitted that in view of the fact there were a number of guns at White House Farm (namely 7) it would be inconceivable that Essex Police did not record their presence. Indeed of the 402 photographs disclosed to Jeremy Bamber only one photograph was taken of the 12 bore shotgun. Apart from the murder weapon, no other photographs of the guns at White House Farm have been disclosed.
55. It is submitted that DS Jones would have assisted Scenes of Crimes Officers (SOCO) or indeed the Firearm Services Unit (FSU) seizing and cataloguing the guns at the house. DS Jones was appointed as the investigating detective it was his duty to gather all evidence from the scene, in addition to the material exhibits seized by SOCO.
56. It is assumed that DC 466 Bird photographed each gun and the location in which it was found and it is submitted that these are the pictures missing from the negative strips.
57. COLP also discovered that DI Cook had signed a fabricated exhibit label, DI Cook stated, ‘DS Jones telephoned me on Monday afternoon and told me that the family had found the sound moderator with blood on it.’ He then went on to state, ‘I feel sure that DS Jones did not know who found the silencer when he handed it to me.’ And furthermore he asserts, ‘I can assure the City of London Police there was only one silencer submitted that day,’(see document S10 page 12). It is submitted there is an inference that he was questioned about there being two sound moderators by way of his answer.
58. COLP also found in issue a Police Action Report 88 detailing DC Oakley as attending Ann Eaton’s house on the 11th September 1985. It states that he picked up AE/1 and ‘a silencer,’ which he then referred to SOCO DCI Wright, based at Chelmsford Police Station. This clearly contradicts paragraph 40 above. The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11 Page 9 of 23
59. While DC 769 Oakey states in his 25th October 1985 statement that he visited White House Farm on the 11th September 1985 and collected telescopic sights DRB/2 and Eley Bullets DRB/3. This clearly shows confusion as to whom it was who collected the sound moderator, although they have the same surname they are different officers.
60. The general examination record states that item 22, the sound moderator SBJ/1 was examined on 25th September 1985, (see document S3). Essex Police, however assert that DRB/1 was examined on this date, yet the general examination record dated the 25th September 1985 shows the exhibit reference of the sound moderator was SBJ/1 not DRB/1.
61. COLP also found in issue the following chronology of events -Police Action Report 181 states DS Davidson examined a silencer on the 18th September 1985 for fingerprints and fibres, at the Scenes of Crimes Department, Chelmsford Headquarters. While DI Cook states that he had sound moderator SBJ/1 examined for fingerprinting at Sandridge Police Scientific Development Branch to use their specialist service on 15th August 1985 and 23rd August 1985, (see COLP 2.60, 001919).There was no result indicated for the sound moderator where DI Cook took it on 15th August 1985, (see paragraph 3.5, 001796).
62. DI Cook states that he did not record the results of the fingerprinting to the operational log and that whoever did failed to record the result of the examination of the silencer, (See paragraph 3.5, 001796).
63. Again COLP accept this as being yet another administrative error, (see paragraph 3.7, 001797).
64. Furthermore, a Telephone Message Report 44 states that David Boutflour phoned Essex Police insisting he be interviewed about finding a sound moderator covered in blood, (Message 44 taken between 12th and 17th September 1985, Index Card 1, 18th September 1985/ Holmes 2 Account 49, Document 37/160 ).
65. In addition Telephone Message 38 states, ‘11th September 1985: From David Boutflour. He has found silencer with blood on it. Silencer was in cardboard box in downstairs office,’ (see Document S 15).
66. While Index Card for Silencer states: ‘7. Action 195. Boutflour mentions silencer in gun cupboard at scene and he suggests possible layouts of items in cupboard,’ (see Document P – 32). The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11 Page 10 of 23
67. Similarly, David Boutflour confirms in his witness statement dated 12th September 1985 that he, ‘informed the police of the finding of the telescopic sight and sound moderator,’ (see Document AB – 6).
68. Furthermore, it is also asserted that the HOLAB 3 forms regarding David Boutflour’s entries have, ‘no date when found’ on them. Other exhibit entries on the HOLAB 3 forms have a date attributed to them, as to when they were found.
69. Therefore it is submitted that the evidence illustrates that David Boutflour did not find the silencer on the 10th August 1985.
70. Due to the inference from our above submissions it is asserted that he did in fact find a silencer, but it was not until the 10th or 11th September 1985, and was thus labelled DRB/1.
71. Furthermore COLP states, ‘..as I have already said, the system of continuity regarding the exhibits in this case leaves much to be desired when one comes to try and establish the hard facts. This to a large extent was the fault of the officers chosen to carry out the task of collecting exhibits, recording and finally submitting them for examination,’ (see paragraph 2.125, 001940; our italics)
72. While COLP asserts there is no evidence that a sound moderator was found at White House Farm between the 7th-10th August 1985, by the police, (see Allegation 1, paragraphs 1.80 – 1.211).
73. However, COLP knew full well that there was evidence indicating otherwise. They knew that DS Davidson examined a sound moderator for fingerprints on 9th August 1985, (see COLP Précis, Transcript AH/2 Document S 16 paragraph 17). Therefore, the sound moderator in issue at that time cannot have been DRB/1.
74. Furthermore it is stated in COLP, Superintendent McKay: ‘You’ve already told me Neil that you weren’t aware that a sound moderator had been found by the family,’ (COLP Document AB paragraph 35, 16th October 1991) While at page 48 it states, The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11 Page 11 of 23
Superintendent Mckay: ‘Knowing there was only one silencer there (White House Farm) did you have knowledge at all of the second silencer?’ (our italics). In addition on page 9 it states, Superintendent Mckay: ‘Do you know on that particular day (8th August 1985) if the silencer was found?’ DS Davidson: ‘No I do not Sir.’
75. DS Davidson was the exhibits officer. If he was not informed about a sound moderator being discovered by the family, then who was he instructed had found the sound moderator that he was testing for fingerprints on the 9th August 1985?
76. Moreover, Ann Eaton’s testimony to COLP states, Q: ‘Did you or any other person or otherwise, find more than one silencer at White House Farm?’ A: ‘The only silencer found to my knowledge was the one found by my brother David. There never has been any other silencer found at White House Farm,’ (Document C4 page 41).
77. The assertion by Ann Eaton is clearly untrue and indicates motive as to wanting Jeremy Bamber to be found guilty of the deaths of his family at White House Farm, (see paragraphs 125 - 137).
78. It is submitted that David Boutflour’s discovery has been tampered with in collusion with other prosecution witnesses, including the police, in order to appear that it was discovered on 10th August 1985 and to avoid the discovery of Anthony Pargeter’s sound moderator, found by DS Jones on the 7th August 1985. Furthermore, the forms relating to the submission of the sound moderator to Huntingdon Laboratory on 13thAugust 1985 illustrate why SBJ/1 the sound moderator found by DS Jones on 7th August 1985 was listed as being found in the gun cupboard, (see photograph img – 3522. CR2, and Document Share File 34, Document D – 10). Thus DS Jones removed the sound moderator from Anthony Pargeter’s .22 gun case and this can be seen in the photograph taken on 7th August 1985.
79. Therefore we assert that unlike COLP, its provenance is in issue. Moreover, there is further evidence to support this and it is submitted that COLP clearly disregarded their own findings of fact that there were two sound moderators, which due to the pattern and tenure of the investigation can only be treated as malfeasance.
Blood and Paint Samples on the Sound Moderator The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11 Page 12 of 23
80. It is submitted that Glynnis Howard at Huntingdon Forensics was in receipt of sound moderator SBJ/1 on 13th August 1985. While David Boutflour asserted that the sound moderator he had discovered had paint and blood on it.
81. Glynnis Howard at trial, describes her removing blood. She never stated that she had tested the moderator for paint, instead she had discovered both human and animal blood on the moderator, (see document S10).
82. Indeed COLP found that Glynnis Howard was instructed by DI Cook, ‘basically to look for blood on the silencer, (and rifle),’ (see COLP Allegation 2, paragraph 2.53, 001917), thereby implying that the paint was not tested due to it not being in issue.
83. Indeed, COLP asserts that the issue of paint on the sound moderator and on the underside of the mantel shelf, were not appreciated until the 14th August 1985, (see paragraph 2.58, 001918).
84. Yet it is logical to infer that while testing the sound moderator SBJ/1, she would in fact have discovered and made a note of the paint on the moderator, notwithstanding that it was not in issue at that time in the proceedings. Indeed David Boutflour was emphatic that there were paint and blood on the moderator that he discovered.
85. It is submitted that to test the blood dry it is first dissolved in distilled water, therefore the blood would have dissolved leaving the red paint (which was gloss), that would then have to be recorded on the laboratory notes and examined.
86. Glynnis Howard was cross examined at the trial in 1986 about the blood on the sound moderator,
A: ‘There was some blood staining actually in the knurled end.’ Q: ‘On the outside but in the holes?’ A: ‘The actual ridges formed dips in the surface and the blood was actually in those,’ (see document S11B, page 125 at D).
87. While Brian Elliott the other forensic scientist at Huntingdon Laboratory found paint on the knurled end of the moderator on the 25th September 1985. He stated at trial, Q: ‘Did you discover anything on that?’ (sound moderator) A: ‘Yes, the end of the sound moderator I described as knurled.’ Q: ‘Yes.’ A: ‘And impacted into this pattern are numerous small deposits of paint which showed the layers, the undercoat layers that I have already described.’
88. As stated earlier it would be logical to infer that where there was blood or paint combined upon the sound moderator, then there would be a note made in the laboratory records at that time.
89. Indeed, Brian Elliott testified that there were twenty-eight flakes of paint removed from the knurl, it is submitted they were about the size of a pin head and that the blood would have looked like an additional layer of red paint to the naked eye until tested.
90. The Crown asserted at trial that Sheila Caffell was the last to die. It is logical to infer that it would be her blood that would be on the sound moderator. Instead the DNA tested was of a male and its characteristics were similar to Nevill Bamber’s, however it was not Nevill Bamber’s, it was of a similar loci. Anthony Pargeter is Nevill Bamber’s nephew.
91. In any event, DI Cook stated that he took a paint sample on 14th August, yet he actually waited until the 12th September to photograph the underside of the mantelshelf, where it is submitted, the scratch marks were made in corroboration with there being red paint on a sound moderator, (see DI Cook’s pocket book where it is submitted that he has written the facts of the paint sample at a later date, not on the 14th due to his handwritten submission being squeezed in onto a page filled with text; see also document S2, strip 46/0036).
92. His assertion that he photographed the scratch marks on 12th September coincidently corresponds with the case being changed to that of five murders by Jeremy Bamber. Jeremy Bamber was first arrested on 8th September 1985.
93. Yet COLP Precis, found as fact that two samples were taken, (DS Davidson’s 16th October 1991 interview). The précis states, ‘paragraph 12 CID6 (6.11) paint samples RC/1 and RC/2. RC = Ron cook.’
94. While Ann Eaton stated to COLP in her testimony dated 14th May 1991 that, [on 14th August], ‘I clearly remember one of them (DI Cook, DI Miller or DS Jones) producing a pen knife and cutting a sample of paint from the underside of the mantel. It was either DI Cook or DS Jones that actually took the sample. One of them put some yellow/orange sticky tape over where the sample was taken from, (see COLP Statement Ann Eaton pages 50 – 51).
95. While DI Cook and DS Davidson assert that this was on 14th September 1985. Therefore there is an inference that Ann Eaton as a prosecution witness is not credible.
96. Furthermore, David Boutflour in his witness statement dated 17th September 1985, asserts that when he examined the shelf on the 14th August 1985 there was no yellow sticker, he is correct in his assertion. It is submitted that this was not until the actual finding of the sound moderator DRB/1 after the 10th or 11th of September that DI Cook did in fact take his paint sample and placed a yellow sticker over the mark. Therefore David Boutflour should have stated that there was in fact a yellow sticker placed there by DI Cook, (see also paragraphs 95-96).
97. If COLP had had a true inclination to establish the facts then they would have realised that the issue of the scratch marks and the paint on the sound moderator are linked to the provenance and authenticity of the sound moderator.
98. Photograph img – 3430. CR2 was taken on 7th August 1985. The image clearly shows the aga surround, fascia and mantel shelf in the kitchen and was taken from the doorway. While photograph img – 3669. CR2 was taken on the 10th September 1985 in exactly the same position of the same area in the kitchen. When comparing both photographs it can be seen quite clearly that someone has scored a mark on the red paint of the fascia, the mark appears as a ‘J’ shape and is larger, deeper and a different shape completely from the earlier photograph. It is submitted that this new scoring was made by a sound moderator.
99. When looking at photograph img 3520. CR2 the picture shows in close up the mat placed on the floor before the aga. It is possible to magnify this image so that even single hairs can be seen to the naked eye, yet there are no flakes or chips of red paint on the floor or mat directly underneath where the scratch marks were made.
100. While photograph img 3509. CR2 shows the carpet before the cellar door, this door was forced by Essex Police during the raid on White House Farm. The forcing of the door has caused the paintwork to be damaged. The flakes of paint from the damage caused are clearly visible on the carpet, both large and small. This illustrates that where they are obvious on such a light coloured carpet, then similarly the scoring marks would have left debris on the carpet too, and that it would be visible had they been made during the night of the murders.
101. Furthermore, it is submitted that where an exhibit is discovered or seized by members of the public and not by Police Officers, the provenance of the exhibit is in issue. This is accepted by the Crown Court, (see Document 9, trial transcript John Walter Hayward, 10th October 1986, as question to Mr Rivlin QC by Justice Drake).
102. Similarly it is submitted that Glynnis Howard’s trial transcript states, Q: ‘Of course you had no idea yourself just how that sound moderator had been handled by other people before it came to you?’ A: ‘No I didn’t,’ (see Document P – 21).
103. There are certain protocols that have to be followed in order to allow for evidential weight to be accorded to that item. The public’s witness statement must contain the following; a) The laboratory item and exhibit number. b) The item must be described. c) The location from where it was discovered must be stated. d) The date and time it was found must be stated. e) How it was handled, i.e. was it placed with other items where it could have been contaminated, did the handler wear gloves? f) The method of transportation of the item, from where it was stored prior to being given to the Police. g) Who handled the exhibit between its discovery, and it being submitted to the forensic team at the laboratory. h) Finally, how was it packaged.
104. Similarly, Insp. Cranwell as the Laboratory Liaison Officer was assisted by DS Lovell, (see Document C-8/9) and that they gave testimony to COLP when they made their enquiry.
105. Both officers made a declaration that their original witness statements were four pages in length, however, both of these witness statements have been edited prior to their disclosure and are now three pages in length.
106. In addition both statements can be seen to be word for word identical, yet A/Insp. Cranwell made his statement on 7th August 1991, while DS Lovell wrote his on 29th August 1991.
107. It is submitted that these two officers colluded in falsifying corroboration and that COLP found this as fact and concealed it from Jeremy Bamber when he made his complaint to the Police Complaints Commission.
108. While COLP admits, ‘The question of the evidential quality appertaining to this silencer has been reflected on at length in the reports dealing with Allegations 1 and 3. In the main it has revolved around its integrity and whether continuity can be established. This whole area is open to debate and none more so than the custody of the silencer between 13th August 1985 and 30th August 1985,’
COLP then goes on to state, ‘I believe we can establish, to reasonable satisfaction, that the silencer was properly retained by police during this period. I say ‘reasonable satisfaction’ advisably because unless something is retained under indisputably secure conditions with guaranteed records then a small area of uncertainty will always remain,’ (see COLP Allegation 2 paragraphs 2.61, 2.62, 001919, 001920; our italics).
109. It could be argued that prima facie COLP failed in their duty of care to Jeremy Bamber in establishing that the protocol that governs the provenance of an exhibit, not found by a Police Officer, was clearly breached, calling into question the whole tenure of his trial in the first instance. However we allege that this lack of enquiry has to do with the motive asserted earlier, that COLP had an agenda in not undertaking their investigation with impartiality, (see paragraphs 164 - 165 of this submission).
110. Indeed their enquiry lacks probity. Their investigation clearly shows incongruity in the assertions and factual information gathering of the crime scene in the first instance by officers of Essex Police, which they have culpably ignored.
-
There were clearly at least two separate moderators, recovered at different times from the scene, lets get the facts straight, one moderator belonging to Anthony Pargeter, and the other belonging to Ralph Bamber, merged into one moderator...
-
Police admitted publicly that they took possession of a sound moderator on the day of the shooting:-
28. However, in his broadcasts to various media organisations, that were notably later retracted, ACC Simpson was quoted in ‘The Mirror,’ on the 17th September 1985,
‘A heavily bloodstained silencer was found by the police hours after the gruesome massacre,’ in addition, ‘Police discovered a blood stained gun silencer at the farm on the day of the massacre
-
A silencer found hours after police broke into the farmhouse:-
29. Furthermore on 16th September 1985, ACC Simpson informed Paul Davidson of ‘The Essex Gazette,’ ‘Although a silencer was found shortly after police broke into the house, a few hours after the killings on 7th August 1985, it was not until after enquiries were reopened that this was regarded as significant,’
-
Cook tying himself in knots:-
34. Yet when COLP interviewed DI Cook in 1991, he stated, ‘I have been shown exhibit label DRB/1 and identify the signature on the second line as mine. I also recognise Glynnis Howard’s signature on the third line. However, I cannot now explain why SBJ/1 is not recorded on the label bearing my signature.’(see Document S10 page 14; Document P – 37, showing a copy of the file exhibit labels, Document share file 04;our italics).
-
How did superglue present on one moderator (SJ/1 - SBJ/1), disappear on the moderator (DRB/1) a month later?
36. COLP failed to point out that SBJ/1 had a white film of superglue all over it on the outside, yet it is submitted it can be found as fact that DRB/1 which was handed to DC Oakey and then on to DCI Wright on 11th September 1985 did not have any white film on it.
-
I keep telling you all that there were two separate moderators:-
39. It is due to the fact that it can now be proven there were in issue two sound moderators discovered during the investigation at White House Farm.
-
The Lab' did not hand the moderator (DB/1) sent to the lab' on the 30th August, back to the police until the 13th November 1985:-
41. Indeed COLP states, ‘The silencer was sent to the lab on 30.8.85 when additional examinations were made, culminating in its return to the police on 13.11.85.’ While COLP also states, ‘To have saved any dispute as to its identity, ideally the sound moderator should have been photographed in detail in the very early stages. Although a photograph was taken on 11.11.85 it merely showed the rifle and moderator within the gun cupboard at White House Farm.’(see COLP paragraph 2.57, 001918, and Document X2; our italics)
-
How can one silencer be in two different places at the same time:-
42. While a sound moderator was being forensically tested, the other was being photographed at White House Farm, one was SBJ/1 the other DRB/1. It is, of course impossible for the sound moderator in issue to be in two places at once. Photographs img – 3642. CR2 through to img 3649. CR2, picture the rifle and sound moderator in the gun cupboard on the 20th September 1985. While photographs img – 3650. CR2 through to img 3653. CR2, shows the rifle with a different sound moderator attached in the gun cupboard on the 11th November 1985. Thus the photographs of DRB/1 were taken on 20th September 1985, and the photographs of SBJ/1 were taken on 11th November 1985.
-
The FACTS don't add up:-
43. In addition, Essex Police informed COLP that the first photograph taken of the sound moderator was on the 11th November 1985, (see paragraph 2.57 COLP Enquiry).
-
Photographs taken of a sound moderator, were taken out of sequence, mystery:-
44. However, it is submitted that all the earlier photographs that were taken of the sound moderator were not disclosed to COLP, e.g. it is now known to be fact that DI Cook took photographs of a sound moderator on 21st August 1985, (see Document AB – 25), and that DC Hammersley took photographs of the rifle with a sound moderator on 20th September 1985, (see Documents B – 2, and AB – 25).
-
David Boutflour reports find of silencer to police in a telephone message, dated, 11th September 1985:-
45. Furthermore Document S15, clearly shows a telephone message from David Boutflour on 11th September 1985 at 15.20 stating he has found a silencer with blood on it logged as message 13.
-
Links are starting to come into play:-
46. Moreover, there are no references to a sound moderator having been found at White House Farm in Ann Eaton’s witness statements until her fifth submission on 12th September 1985.
-
Dodgy references to Paint and Blood:-
47. While on the 13th August 1985, DS 21 Jones showed DI Miller the sound moderator and drew his attention to the red paint and blood present upon it, (See DI Miller’s statement dated October 1985, Document AB – 13).
48. On the 14th August 1985 DS 21 Jones took a witness statement from Ann Eaton and there is no mention of a sound moderator having been discovered on the 10th August 1985. While it is also asserted that Ann Eaton spent the day with DI Cook, DS Jones and DI Miller to show them where DRB/1 had scratched the red mantel shelf, (see DI Cook Statement to COLP page 21, Document S 10).
-
Ann Eaton forgets to mention finding of moderator in her first witness statement:-
49. It is submitted that if it was true that DRB/1 was found on the 10th August 1985 then it would be logical for her to mention the discovery because it was deemed so relevant by officers and indeed herself.
-
Photograph (SBJ/3) taken by DS Stan Jones at scene on the 7th August 1985, showing view of downstairs toilet, destroyed:-
50. While back in August 1985, at the initial crime scene it is recorded that DS Jones was inside White House Farm on 7th August 1985 between the hours of 09.30 and 13.37. He was noted as taking photographs at the scene, some of which have since been destroyed, notably SBJ/3 which was of the downstairs toilet and where Anthony Pargeter was known to keep his rifle, (see document A-B).
-
Anthony Pargeter Rifle and his Sound Moderator kept at the scene:-
51. Similarly, Anthony Pargeter states this to be the case, (see Anthony Pargeter’s 12th 1985 December witness statement; Doc share: File 67). He asserts that he expected to find his .22 rifle and sound moderator in the downstairs toilet/shower room when he went in search of it on the 26th July 1985, instead he found that his rifle was now being stored in the office gun cupboard. ‘My gun case, containing my rifle and sound moderator was on the floor of this gun cupboard.’
-
Anthony Pargeter rifle photographed on top of Ralph's shotgun in Cupboard (minus moderator) on the 7th August 1985:-
52. This is further proven in photograph img – 3522. CR2, which shows Anthony Pargeter’s .22 rifle on top of Nevill Bamber’s 12 bore shotgun case, on the floor of the office gun cupboard. This photograph was taken on the 7th August 1985. In addition photographs img – 3514. CR2 and img 3513. CR2, pictures Anthony Pargeter’s 12 bore shotgun case in the downstairs toilet/shower room on a bench behind a cabinet, (these were also taken on the 7th August 1985).
-
Key photographs taken of gun cupboard, on 7th August 1985, have been deliberately removed, to conceal for the fact that Pargeters rifle and sound moderator were present at the scene, at the time of the shootings:-
53. Photographs were taken of all the items discovered downstairs in the office at white House Farm, in the gun cupboard while the house was being searched on 7th August 1985, yet these photographs have been removed. The inference by Jeremy Bamber’s Defence team is that they did in fact reveal the presence of a second sound moderator, (COLP Enquiry, paragraphs 1 – 211 and 2.57). These photographs are referenced as strip (white label) 0039 and have had eight of the negatives removed, (negatives 1 – 6 missing and 9 and 10). It is submitted that Essex Police did this to conceal that Anthony Pargeter’s .22 rifle and sound moderator were also in the gun cupboard at White House Farm, where David Boutflour later found the second sound moderator on 11th September 1985.
-
Police deliberately failed to record the presence of all 7 weapons present at the scene at the time of the shootings:-
54. Furthermore it is submitted that in view of the fact there were a number of guns at White House Farm (namely 7) it would be inconceivable that Essex Police did not record their presence. Indeed of the 402 photographs disclosed to Jeremy Bamber only one photograph was taken of the 12 bore shotgun. Apart from the murder weapon, no other photographs of the guns at White House Farm have been disclosed.
-
DS Stan Jones, attended scene, in role of investigating Detective, and had powers to seize exhibits, and to take photographs, including the Sound moderator (belonging to Anthony Pargeters rifle):-
55. It is submitted that DS Jones would have assisted Scenes of Crimes Officers (SOCO) or indeed the Firearm Services Unit (FSU) seizing and cataloguing the guns at the house. DS Jones was appointed as the investigating detective it was his duty to gather all evidence from the scene, in addition to the material exhibits seized by SOCO.
-
Photographs taken of all the weapons found at the scene, removed deliberately to try and conceal possible involvement of two or more in the shootings (in addition to the anshuzt rifle):-
56. It is assumed that DC 466 Bird photographed each gun and the location in which it was found and it is submitted that these are the pictures missing from the negative strips.
-
Only one silencer submitted to lab' on that (13th August 1985) that date:-
57. COLP also discovered that DI Cook had signed a fabricated exhibit label, DI Cook stated, ‘DS Jones telephoned me on Monday afternoon and told me that the family had found the sound moderator with blood on it.’ He then went on to state, ‘I feel sure that DS Jones did not know who found the silencer when he handed it to me.’ And furthermore he asserts, ‘I can assure the City of London Police there was only one silencer submitted that day,’(see document S10 page 12). It is submitted there is an inference that he was questioned about there being two sound moderators by way of his answer.
-
Police action report (88) confirms silencer collected from Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985:-
58. COLP also found in issue a Police Action Report 88 detailing DC Oakley as attending Ann Eaton’s house on the 11th September 1985. It states that he picked up AE/1 and ‘a silencer,’ which he then referred to SOCO DCI Wright, based at Chelmsford Police Station. This clearly contradicts paragraph 40 above.
-
Two police officers with similar Surnames, added to confusion, creating a smokescreen to try and disguise fact that Ann Eaton handed over a silencer to one of them on the 11th Sepetember 1985 (Oakley and Oakey:-
59. While DC 769 Oakey states in his 25th October 1985 statement that he visited White House Farm on the 11th September 1985 and collected telescopic sights DRB/2 and Eley Bullets DRB/3. This clearly shows confusion as to whom it was who collected the sound moderator, although they have the same surname they are different officers.
-
Exhibit references altered deliberately as part of the plan to merge different sound moderators together as the same one:-
60. The general examination record states that item 22, the sound moderator SBJ/1 was examined on 25th September 1985, (see document S3). Essex Police, however assert that DRB/1 was examined on this date, yet the general examination record dated the 25th September 1985 shows the exhibit reference of the sound moderator was SBJ/1 not DRB/1.
-
Fingerprinting record for Cooks examination of sound moderator at Sandridge, does not exist:-
61. COLP also found in issue the following chronology of events -Police Action Report 181 states DS Davidson examined a silencer on the 18th September 1985 for fingerprints and fibres, at the Scenes of Crimes Department, Chelmsford Headquarters. While DI Cook states that he had sound moderator SBJ/1 examined for fingerprinting at Sandridge Police Scientific Development Branch to use their specialist service on 15th August 1985 and 23rd August 1985, (see COLP 2.60, 001919).There was no result indicated for the sound moderator where DI Cook took it on 15th August 1985, (see paragraph 3.5, 001796).
-
Excuses, excuses, excuses:-
62. DI Cook states that he did not record the results of the fingerprinting to the operational log and that whoever did failed to record the result of the examination of the silencer, (See paragraph 3.5, 001796).
-
Police telephone message report (44), establishes that David Boutflour contacted police about wanting to make a witness statement about finding a sound moderator, between 12th to 18th September 1985:-
64. Furthermore, a Telephone Message Report 44 states that David Boutflour phoned Essex Police insisting he be interviewed about finding a sound moderator covered in blood, (Message 44 taken between 12th and 17th September 1985, Index Card 1, 18th September 1985/ Holmes 2 Account 49, Document 37/160 ).
-
David Boutflour phones police on the 11th September 1985, to report the find of the silencer:-
65. In addition Telephone Message 38 states, ‘11th September 1985: From David Boutflour. He has found silencer with blood on it. Silencer was in cardboard box in downstairs office,’ (see Document S 15).
-
66. While Index Card for Silencer states: ‘7. Action 195. Boutflour mentions silencer in gun cupboard at scene and he suggests possible layouts of items in cupboard,’ (see Document P – 32).
-
Boutflour witness statement, concerning find of silencer, not made until 12th September 1985:-
67. Similarly, David Boutflour confirms in his witness statement dated 12th September 1985 that he, ‘informed the police of the finding of the telescopic sight and sound moderator,’ (see Document AB – 6).
-
Police fail to record date Boutflour finds silencer, in entries on HOLAB 3 forms:-
68. Furthermore, it is also asserted that the HOLAB 3 forms regarding David Boutflour’s entries have, ‘no date when found’ on them. Other exhibit entries on the HOLAB 3 forms have a date attributed to them, as to when they were found.
-
Confusion over the date David Boutflour finds the silencer:-
69. Therefore it is submitted that the evidence illustrates that David Boutflour did not find the silencer on the 10th August 1985.
-
Date silencer (DRB/1)found altered
70. Due to the inference from our above submissions it is asserted that he did in fact find a silencer, but it was not until the 10th or 11th September 1985, and was thus labelled DRB/1.
-
Continuity of silencer (DRB/1) exhibit in ruin:-
71. Furthermore COLP states, ‘..as I have already said, the system of continuity regarding the exhibits in this case leaves much to be desired when one comes to try and establish the hard facts. This to a large extent was the fault of the officers chosen to carry out the task of collecting exhibits, recording and finally submitting them for examination,’ (see paragraph 2.125, 001940; our italics)
-
Denial:-
72. While COLP asserts there is no evidence that a sound moderator was found at White House Farm between the 7th-10th August 1985, by the police, (see Allegation 1, paragraphs 1.80 – 1.211).
-
Silencer, fingerprinted by DS Davidson, on the 9th August 1985, sensation:-
73. However, COLP knew full well that there was evidence indicating otherwise. They knew that DS Davidson examined a sound moderator for fingerprints on 9th August 1985, (see COLP Précis, Transcript AH/2 Document S 16 paragraph 17). Therefore, the sound moderator in issue at that time cannot have been DRB/1.
-
DS Davidson admits only one silencer at scene, did not know about other silencer found by family, mystery:-
74. Furthermore it is stated in COLP, Superintendent McKay: ‘You’ve already told me Neil that you weren’t aware that a sound moderator had been found by the family,’ (COLP Document AB paragraph 35, 16th October 1991) While at page 48 it states, The Case of Jeremy Bamber 22.08.11 Page 11 of 23
Superintendent Mckay: ‘Knowing there was only one silencer there (White House Farm) did you have knowledge at all of the second silencer?’ (our italics). In addition on page 9 it states, Superintendent Mckay: ‘Do you know on that particular day (8th August 1985) if the silencer was found?’ DS Davidson: ‘No I do not Sir.’
-
Davidson fingerprinted a silencer (9th August 1985) not found by family:-
75. DS Davidson was the exhibits officer. If he was not informed about a sound moderator being discovered by the family, then who was he instructed had found the sound moderator that he was testing for fingerprints on the 9th August 1985?
-
Family, did not know police had found other silencer (SJ/1 - SBJ/1) at the scene on the 7th August 1985:-
76. Moreover, Ann Eaton’s testimony to COLP states, Q: ‘Did you or any other person or otherwise, find more than one silencer at White House Farm?’ A: ‘The only silencer found to my knowledge was the one found by my brother David. There never has been any other silencer found at White House Farm,’ (Document C4 page 41).
-
Police and Family involved in a conspiracy, as a result of merging the two separate sound moderators, as being one and the same:-
78. It is submitted that David Boutflour’s discovery has been tampered with in collusion with other prosecution witnesses, including the police, in order to appear that it was discovered on 10th August 1985 and to avoid the discovery of Anthony Pargeter’s sound moderator, found by DS Jones on the 7th August 1985. Furthermore, the forms relating to the submission of the sound moderator to Huntingdon Laboratory on 13thAugust 1985 illustrate why SBJ/1 the sound moderator found by DS Jones on 7th August 1985 was listed as being found in the gun cupboard, (see photograph img – 3522. CR2, and Document Share File 34, Document D – 10). Thus DS Jones removed the sound moderator from Anthony Pargeter’s .22 gun case and this can be seen in the photograph taken on 7th August 1985.
-
There were two sound moderators (the Pargeter one, and the Bamber family one):-
79. Therefore we assert that unlike COLP, its provenance is in issue. Moreover, there is further evidence to support this and it is submitted that COLP clearly disregarded their own findings of fact that there were two sound moderators, which due to the pattern and tenure of the investigation can only be treated as malfeasance.
-
Inconsistent:-
80. It is submitted that Glynnis Howard at Huntingdon Forensics was in receipt of sound moderator SBJ/1 on 13th August 1985. While David Boutflour asserted that the sound moderator he had discovered had paint and blood on it.
-
No Paint on silencer examined by Glynis Howard, on the 13th August 1985:-
81. Glynnis Howard at trial, describes her removing blood. She never stated that she had tested the moderator for paint, instead she had discovered both human and animal blood on the moderator, (see document S10).
-
Paint not an issue, on the 13th August 1985:-
82. Indeed COLP found that Glynnis Howard was instructed by DI Cook, ‘basically to look for blood on the silencer, (and rifle),’ (see COLP Allegation 2, paragraph 2.53, 001917), thereby implying that the paint was not tested due to it not being in issue.
-
Paint, not an issue until the 14th August 1985:-
83. Indeed, COLP asserts that the issue of paint on the sound moderator and on the underside of the mantel shelf, were not appreciated until the 14th August 1985, (see paragraph 2.58, 001918).
-
Paint ignored during silencer examination on 13th August 1985, suggesting at that time, there was no paint present upon it by that stage;-
84. Yet it is logical to infer that while testing the sound moderator SBJ/1, she would in fact have discovered and made a note of the paint on the moderator, notwithstanding that it was not in issue at that time in the proceedings. Indeed David Boutflour was emphatic that there were paint and blood on the moderator that he discovered.
-
Blood on knurl - did it desolve?
85. It is submitted that to test the blood dry it is first dissolved in distilled water, therefore the blood would have dissolved leaving the red paint (which was gloss), that would then have to be recorded on the laboratory notes and examined.
-
Blood found in the ridges of the knurl pattern around end of silencer during examination on the 13th August 1985:-
86. Glynnis Howard was cross examined at the trial in 1986 about the blood on the sound moderator,
A: ‘There was some blood staining actually in the knurled end.’ Q: ‘On the outside but in the holes?’ A: ‘The actual ridges formed dips in the surface and the blood was actually in those,’ (see document S11B, page 125 at D).
-
Only paint ingrained in knurl of silencer, when examined on the 25th September 1985 (what happened to blood observed there by Howard a month earlier):-
87. While Brian Elliott the other forensic scientist at Huntingdon Laboratory found paint on the knurled end of the moderator on the 25th September 1985. He stated at trial, Q: ‘Did you discover anything on that?’ (sound moderator) A: ‘Yes, the end of the sound moderator I described as knurled.’ Q: ‘Yes.’ A: ‘And impacted into this pattern are numerous small deposits of paint which showed the layers, the undercoat layers that I have already described.’
-
Blood and paint was not present upon the same Sound moderator:-
88. As stated earlier it would be logical to infer that where there was blood or paint combined upon the sound moderator, then there would be a note made in the laboratory records at that time.
-
Puzzle of the mixed paint and blood:-
89. Indeed, Brian Elliott testified that there were twenty-eight flakes of paint removed from the knurl, it is submitted they were about the size of a pin head and that the blood would have looked like an additional layer of red paint to the naked eye until tested.
-
Sheila's blood found inside a moderator, unidentified male DNA found on the outside of the moderator, where visible blood had been allegedly mixed with paint (possibly Anthony Pargeters DNA, certainly not Jeremy's):-
90. The Crown asserted at trial that Sheila Caffell was the last to die. It is logical to infer that it would be her blood that would be on the sound moderator. Instead the DNA tested was of a male and its characteristics were similar to Nevill Bamber’s, however it was not Nevill Bamber’s, it was of a similar loci. Anthony Pargeter is Nevill Bamber’s nephew.
-
Ron Cook, forges paint sample (RWC/1) reference into his pocketbook entry, dated, 14th August 1985:-
91. In any event, DI Cook stated that he took a paint sample on 14th August, yet he actually waited until the 12th September to photograph the underside of the mantelshelf, where it is submitted, the scratch marks were made in corroboration with there being red paint on a sound moderator, (see DI Cook’s pocket book where it is submitted that he has written the facts of the paint sample at a later date, not on the 14th due to his handwritten submission being squeezed in onto a page filled with text; see also document S2, strip 46/0036).
-
Red letter day (12th September 1985) in the police investigation - how the case turned on the introduction of the silencer, blood, paint evidence, at the stroke of a pen:-
92. His assertion that he photographed the scratch marks on 12th September coincidently corresponds with the case being changed to that of five murders by Jeremy Bamber. Jeremy Bamber was first arrested on 8th September 1985.
-
Ron Cook, took two paint samples from the kitchen aga, first one (RC/1) he took on the 8th August 1985, and the second (RWC/1) one (if we believe what he is saying) was taken on the 14th August 1985:-
93. Yet COLP Precis, found as fact that two samples were taken, (DS Davidson’s 16th October 1991 interview). The précis states, ‘paragraph 12 CID6 (6.11) paint samples RC/1 and RC/2. RC = Ron cook.’
-
Who took the second sample (RWC/1)of paint from the aga surround, Ron Cook, or Stan Jones:-
94. While Ann Eaton stated to COLP in her testimony dated 14th May 1991 that, [on 14th August], ‘I clearly remember one of them (DI Cook, DI Miller or DS Jones) producing a pen knife and cutting a sample of paint from the underside of the mantel. It was either DI Cook or DS Jones that actually took the sample. One of them put some yellow/orange sticky tape over where the sample was taken from, (see COLP Statement Ann Eaton pages 50 – 51).
-
Paint sample, taken on 14th September 1985, not the 14th August 1985, conundrum:-
95. While DI Cook and DS Davidson assert that this was on 14th September 1985. Therefore there is an inference that Ann Eaton as a prosecution witness is not credible.
-
Ron Cook took paint sample from the kitchen aga surround at the scene, after handing over of second sound moderator by Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985:-
96. Furthermore, David Boutflour in his witness statement dated 17th September 1985, asserts that when he examined the shelf on the 14th August 1985 there was no yellow sticker, he is correct in his assertion. It is submitted that this was not until the actual finding of the sound moderator DRB/1 after the 10th or 11th of September that DI Cook did in fact take his paint sample and placed a yellow sticker over the mark. Therefore David Boutflour should have stated that there was in fact a yellow sticker placed there by DI Cook, (see also paragraphs 95-96).
-
Dodgy silencer, blood and paint evidence, introduced to secure conviction:-
97. If COLP had had a true inclination to establish the facts then they would have realised that the issue of the scratch marks and the paint on the sound moderator are linked to the provenance and authenticity of the sound moderator.
-
Two photographs, taken a month a part, from the same vantage point, illustrates how the scratch mark evidence upon the aga surround has been manufactured between the police and the family conspirators:-
98. Photograph img – 3430. CR2 was taken on 7th August 1985. The image clearly shows the aga surround, fascia and mantel shelf in the kitchen and was taken from the doorway. While photograph img – 3669. CR2 was taken on the 10th September 1985 in exactly the same position of the same area in the kitchen. When comparing both photographs it can be seen quite clearly that someone has scored a mark on the red paint of the fascia, the mark appears as a ‘J’ shape and is larger, deeper and a different shape completely from the earlier photograph. It is submitted that this new scoring was made by a sound moderator.
-
No paint particles on floor mat in photograph taken on 7th August 1985, of aga surround, establishes marks were scoured on a much later occasion:-
99. When looking at photograph img 3520. CR2 the picture shows in close up the mat placed on the floor before the aga. It is possible to magnify this image so that even single hairs can be seen to the naked eye, yet there are no flakes or chips of red paint on the floor or mat directly underneath where the scratch marks were made.
-
No paint particles, anywhere on the kitchen floor / carpet, in photographs taken on the 7th August 1985, establishes that scratch marks were not made during a purported struggle in the kitchen, between Ralph Bamber, and his killer:-
100. While photograph img 3509. CR2 shows the carpet before the cellar door, this door was forced by Essex Police during the raid on White House Farm. The forcing of the door has caused the paintwork to be damaged. The flakes of paint from the damage caused are clearly visible on the carpet, both large and small. This illustrates that where they are obvious on such a light coloured carpet, then similarly the scoring marks would have left debris on the carpet too, and that it would be visible had they been made during the night of the murders.
-
It has not been proven that the family found any sound moderator containing blood which was unique to Sheila, or red paint from the aga surround:-
101. Furthermore, it is submitted that where an exhibit is discovered or seized by members of the public and not by Police Officers, the provenance of the exhibit is in issue. This is accepted by the Crown Court, (see Document 9, trial transcript John Walter Hayward, 10th October 1986, as question to Mr Rivlin QC by Justice Drake).
-
Absence of exhibit label, casts serious doubt on the integrity of Sound Moderator:-
102. Similarly it is submitted that Glynnis Howard’s trial transcript states, Q: ‘Of course you had no idea yourself just how that sound moderator had been handled by other people before it came to you?’ A: ‘No I didn’t,’ (see Document P – 21).
-
Procedures not followed, allowing dodgy silencer, blood and paint evidence, to be introduced to help convict Jeremy Bamber of the murders:-
103. There are certain protocols that have to be followed in order to allow for evidential weight to be accorded to that item. The public’s witness statement must contain the following; a) The laboratory item and exhibit number. b) The item must be described. c) The location from where it was discovered must be stated. d) The date and time it was found must be stated. e) How it was handled, i.e. was it placed with other items where it could have been contaminated, did the handler wear gloves? f) The method of transportation of the item, from where it was stored prior to being given to the Police. g) Who handled the exhibit between its discovery, and it being submitted to the forensic team at the laboratory. h) Finally, how was it packaged.
-
The missing pages of evidence from witness statements:-
104. Similarly, Insp. Cranwell as the Laboratory Liaison Officer was assisted by DS Lovell, (see Document C-8/9) and that they gave testimony to COLP when they made their enquiry.
105. Both officers made a declaration that their original witness statements were four pages in length, however, both of these witness statements have been edited prior to their disclosure and are now three pages in length.
-
Word perfect witness statements, made three weeks a part:-
106. In addition both statements can be seen to be word for word identical, yet A/Insp. Cranwell made his statement on 7th August 1991, while DS Lovell wrote his on 29th August 1991.
-
Like peas in a pod, identical in every way, even to the extent that both had a page missing - except for the names of the witnesses, which have not been changed, to protect the guilty:-
107. It is submitted that these two officers colluded in falsifying corroboration and that COLP found this as fact and concealed it from Jeremy Bamber when he made his complaint to the Police Complaints Commission.
-
No police records to show sound moderator properly kept in police possession between 13th and 30th August 1985:-
108. While COLP admits, ‘The question of the evidential quality appertaining to this silencer has been reflected on at length in the reports dealing with Allegations 1 and 3. In the main it has revolved around its integrity and whether continuity can be established. This whole area is open to debate and none more so than the custody of the silencer between 13th August 1985 and 30th August 1985,’
COLP then goes on to state, ‘I believe we can establish, to reasonable satisfaction, that the silencer was properly retained by police during this period. I say ‘reasonable satisfaction’ advisably because unless something is retained under indisputably secure conditions with guaranteed records then a small area of uncertainty will always remain,’ (see COLP Allegation 2 paragraphs 2.61, 2.62, 001919, 001920; our italics).
-
COLP investigation was bias (not impartial):-
109. It could be argued that prima facie COLP failed in their duty of care to Jeremy Bamber in establishing that the protocol that governs the provenance of an exhibit, not found by a Police Officer, was clearly breached, calling into question the whole tenure of his trial in the first instance. However we allege that this lack of enquiry has to do with the motive asserted earlier, that COLP had an agenda in not undertaking their investigation with impartiality, (see paragraphs 164 - 165 of this submission).
-
Misguided intentions:-
110. Indeed their enquiry lacks probity. Their investigation clearly shows incongruity in the assertions and factual information gathering of the crime scene in the first instance by officers of Essex Police, which they have culpably ignored.
-
Something I find of particular interest is that a Jeremy supporter posted most of the Dickinson report on Sleuthing for Justice but failed to post what are among the most important parts. Harters copied what was posted but paras 305-320 are missing. These paras are the ones that would detail what was collected from Eaton in September, when various test firing of the gun took place and when the lab tested the blood for the grouping tests. Isn't it funny how the supporter refused to post these sections which could demolish the allegations he was making....
I have come to the conclusion that Mike is too frightened to post those paragraphs.
-
I have come to the conclusion that Mike is too frightened to post those paragraphs.
I agree, I think these paragraphs contain details that severely harm his allegations.