Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on May 09, 2011, 05:13:PM
-
DC Hammersley falsified his pocketbook entries, relating to silencer
If police seized a silencer (SBJ/1) during the early stages of their investigation, then of course one of the exhibits officers (DS Davidson and DC Hammersely) would have had to be in on it?
We now know, that DS "Stan" Jones, seized four exhibits from the scene on 7th August 1985 - SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1, and that on 9th August 1985, both DS Jones, and DCI "Taff" Jones, visited Jeremy at his cottage, 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, and questioned Jeremy about whether or not the silencer was fitted to the gun on the evening before the shootings?
If police did originally find or take possession of a silencer from the scene on 7th August 1985, then of course, one of the two exhibit officers would have dealt with the silencer in question (without doubt)...
I am able to report disturbing developments relating to the pocketbook entries of one of those exhibit officers, which relate to mention of the silencer, dated, 9th August 1985 - I am currently in the process of updating Jeremy about my findings...
The following attachments bear witness to this disturbing new development:-
-
Key Evidence, uncovered - silencer scam
Note, page 35 contents, followed by page 36 contents?
-
It now becomes apparent why DS "Stan" Jones also had to falsify his own pocketbook entries:-
-
Do you have a copy of the CID 6 forms referred to?
-
I can barely read a word of that!
-
I can barely read a word of that!
Neither can I.
-
I can read it, but I don't follow where Mike says its been falsified or what it implies.
-
It now becomes apparent why DS "Stan" Jones also had to falsify his own pocketbook entries:-
Does it, where and why?????
-
I can read it, but I don't follow where Mike says its been falsified or what it implies.
----------------------
I need to speak to Jeremy urgently first before I lay everything out, but there are big clues in the attached images:-
Pages 32, 33 and 34, do not have any paper clips attached, whereas all the others do...
Pages, 35, 77, 78 and 36 have paper clips attached, indicating "added notes" which have been inserted into that part of the narrative...
-
I still don't follow, sorry. :-[
Pages, 35, 77, 78 and 36 have paper clips attached, indicating "added notes" which have been inserted into that part of the narrative...
Why does it indicate that? ???
-
I can barely read a word of that!
Neither can I.
Thank god for that, I can cancel my appointment wth Spec savers.
-
it is now known that DC Hammersly used the pages from three separate pocketbooks to falsify evidence about the find and recovery of the silencer (SBJ/1) by DS Jones from the scene, on the 7th August 1985 - pages from these different p/books were attached together in the same p/book by use of paper clips, so that when the material was photocopied, it appeared to have been recorded in the same p/book, not three separate ones...
-
Or maybe paper clips were used as book marks?
Do you have evidence of this? Or is it just a theory?
-
I can barely read a word of that!
Neither can I. I thought doctors wrote badly. But with that I might as well be blind.
-
Or maybe paper clips were used as book marks?
Do you have evidence of this? Or is it just a theory?
Would it be worth trying to isolate the defence arguments in to separate categories, each with their respective paperwork? (i.e. statements, pocket book entries, reports etc).
Then, compare the number of apparent anomalies held within those respective paper records, for example, crossings out, dates altered, paper clip marks, conflicting versions etc etc.
If the paperwork relating to any one particular category contains a high number of anomalies, then that might give an indication there is something fishy, regarding that issue.
So if you had a chart with peaks and troughs, I'm suspecting that the silencer category might translate as a considerable peak, whereas other categories may not.
-
Or maybe paper clips were used as book marks?
Do you have evidence of this? Or is it just a theory?
-------------------
No, I have evidence which I am currently transposing to Jeremy...
I can now reveal that DC Hammersly used the pages from three different pocketbooks issued to him, covering a 55 day period, between 7th August 1985 and 17th November 1985. What he did, was that he re-wrote his contemporaneous notes at a later date, and used the pages from the other pocketbooks by attaching them to one of the books, to make out that he had recorded everything in sequence contemporaneously - this is what he used the paper clips for (to attached the re-written pages from the other pocketbooks, he had obtained, to one pocketbook). He also marked entries in one pocketbook by use of an "*", and the word "END", so that he could piece all of this evidence together, so that photocopies of it all, appeared to show that he had made proper notes contemporaneously, but in fact he had not...
This is why he got very upset when COLP (1991) interviewed him...
He was trying to make up an "excuse" that he had not found the silencer, and that he had used the pages from different pocketbooks that had been issued to him, by attaching some of these pages from different pocketbooks to one of them, to get around the problem which senior officers had forced upon him?
He was an exhibits officer in the case, and senior officers allowed him to forge entries into his pocketbook, and he ended up being investigated by COLP as part of their investigation into these matters...
I will shortly be posting a copy of DC Hammerslys "reaction" when COLP interviewed him / spoke to him, and he got very upset and emotional...
I can't at this stage provide access to the other information, until I have spoken to Jeremy about it...
-
Or maybe paper clips were used as book marks?
Do you have evidence of this? Or is it just a theory?
Would it be worth trying to isolate the defence arguments in to separate categories, each with their respective paperwork? (i.e. statements, pocket book entries, reports etc).
Then, compare the number of apparent anomalies held within those respective paper records, for example, crossings out, dates altered, paper clip marks, conflicting versions etc etc.
If the paperwork relating to any one particular category contains a high number of anomalies, then that might give an indication there is something fishy, regarding that issue.
So if you had a chart with peaks and troughs, I'm suspecting that the silencer category might translate as a considerable peak, whereas other categories may not.
------------------
A very interesting proposal, thank you...
-
Or maybe paper clips were used as book marks?
Do you have evidence of this? Or is it just a theory?
-------------------
No, I have evidence which I am currently transposing to Jeremy...
Okay, well I'll reserve judgement I think, until you can share the evidence. ;)
-
Or maybe paper clips were used as book marks?
Do you have evidence of this? Or is it just a theory?
Would it be worth trying to isolate the defence arguments in to separate categories, each with their respective paperwork? (i.e. statements, pocket book entries, reports etc).
Then, compare the number of apparent anomalies held within those respective paper records, for example, crossings out, dates altered, paper clip marks, conflicting versions etc etc.
If the paperwork relating to any one particular category contains a high number of anomalies, then that might give an indication there is something fishy, regarding that issue.
So if you had a chart with peaks and troughs, I'm suspecting that the silencer category might translate as a considerable peak, whereas other categories may not.
------------------
A very interesting proposal, thank you...
I'm not sure how Jeremy's new document system operates or exactly what it can do in terms of software / technical spec etc. He mentions it on his blog. Maybe it has the ability to assist in this kind of undertaking.