Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on July 08, 2017, 02:17:PM
-
Stokenchurch Box 76 Item 174 Interview notes of DS 291 Neil Davidson, pages 48-49.
"Paint sample. DS Davidson thinks it was taken because there was some red paint on the end of the barrel of the weapon which was found downstairs, which had a good knock. DS Davidson confirmed, the barrel, not the silencer"
and, pages 61-63,
"It was during the supposed struggle between Ralph and Jeremy that the barrel, the weapon, somehow caught the underside of the mantle during the struggle, that is how I recall it Sir. DS Davidson re-confirmed barrel, not the silencer".
So, the alleged paint on the silencer was never there.
-
Goodness me,what's been the point of all these mistakes ?
-
Goodness me,what's been the point of all these mistakes ?
Must admit, there was an awful lot Lookout
-
Must admit, there was an awful lot Lookout
Right the way through we have the blooming silencer with paint on it and clearly this hasn't been true. I don't know about Sheila " not knowing one end from the other as regards the rifle ",it would seem that those investigating didn't either.
-
The paint & blood were inside the silencer.
-
The paint & blood were inside the silencer.
I see. Is that what it says ? ::)
-
For those that are interested, the above extracts are taken from Davidson's COLP interview in 1991.
The full document can be viewed here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,590.msg12022.html#msg12022
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,590.msg12022.html#msg12022)
Rather than the sensational title of this thread, it seems that Davidson wasn't involved in this aspect of the case and he is relying on memory. It appears that he is simply mistaken.
-
For those that are interested, the above extracts are taken from Davidson's COLP interview in 1991.
The full document can be viewed here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,590.msg12022.html#msg12022
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,590.msg12022.html#msg12022)
Rather than the sensational title of this thread, it seems that Davidson wasn't involved in this aspect of the case and he is relying on memory. It appears that he is simply mistaken.
Thanks Hartley, I thought there would be something somewhere, I like to take a back seat, you only get accused if you post, pack of hyenas etc and I've had an exhausting morning doing nothing.
-
Thanks Hartley, I thought there would be something somewhere, I like to take a back seat, you only get accused if you post, pack of hyenas etc and I've had an exhausting morning doing nothing.
;D
Yes we should all stop and go out and enjoy the susnshine.
-
For those that are interested, the above extracts are taken from Davidson's COLP interview in 1991.
The full document can be viewed here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,590.msg12022.html#msg12022
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,590.msg12022.html#msg12022)
Rather than the sensational title of this thread, it seems that Davidson wasn't involved in this aspect of the case and he is relying on memory. It appears that he is simply mistaken.
He is a SOC officer. I think he knows the difference between a barrell and a silencer - in a case in which the silencer was the main exhibit. He knows in advance that he's going to be interviewed.
I'm hardly sensationalising the title of the thread!
-
He is a SOC officer. I think he knows the difference between a barrell and a silencer - in a case in which the silencer was the main exhibit. He knows in advance that he's going to be interviewed.
I'm hardly sensationalising the title of the thread!
I'll let people read the interview if they want to. The first time Davidson sees the silencer is the real killer - in 1991. ;D
-
For those that are interested, the above extracts are taken from Davidson's COLP interview in 1991.
The full document can be viewed here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,590.msg12022.html#msg12022
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,590.msg12022.html#msg12022)
Rather than the sensational title of this thread, it seems that Davidson wasn't involved in this aspect of the case and he is relying on memory. It appears that he is simply mistaken.
Mistaken ? Sorry but this was a mass murder case,there shouldn't have been any mistakes at all.
-
I'll let people read the interview if they want to. The first time Davidson sees the silencer is the real killer - in 1991. ;D
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=590.0;attach=2017;image)
-
Half of them should have been put out to grass given their fading memories.
-
Half of them should have been put out to grass given their fading memories.
He just wasn't involved in it, can't really blame him for not remembering something he didn't know in the first place.
-
He just wasn't involved in it, can't really blame him for not remembering something he didn't know in the first place.
Why not a straight forward " no " instead of " I don't remember " ? It cuts no ice with me when someone states that they don't remember---------unless they're in their 90's.
-
Why not a straight forward " no " instead of " I don't remember " ? It cuts no ice with me when someone states that they don't remember---------unless they're in their 90's.
It was in the 90's, it was 1991. :))
-
Why not a straight forward " no " instead of " I don't remember " ? It cuts no ice with me when someone states that they don't remember---------unless they're in their 90's.
I'm always interested in what people tell me they remember. My friend's daughter, because she remembered telling her, insisted that her mother knew something from years back. Her mother didn't. It appears quite simple to me. Clearly, because she felt the need to relay the tale to her mother, the story had impacted heavily on the daughter. It didn't have the same impact on the mother so she didn't retain it. It's hardly surprising then, if those present at WHF, can't recall, with clarity, every detail of it. I'm certain they'll recall that which impacted most heavily. What's important to us, in the here and now, may NOT have been as important to them, at the time.
-
It was in the 90's, it was 1991. :))
::)
He wasn't though was he ?
-
;D
Yes we should all stop and go out and enjoy the susnshine.
That's what I did :)
-
That's what I did :)
I'm very jealous. :'(
-
I'm always interested in what people tell me they remember. My friend's daughter, because she remembered telling her, insisted that her mother knew something from years back. Her mother didn't. It appears quite simple to me. Clearly, because she felt the need to relay the tale to her mother, the story had impacted heavily on the daughter. It didn't have the same impact on the mother so she didn't retain it. It's hardly surprising then, if those present at WHF, can't recall, with clarity, every detail of it. I'm certain they'll recall that which impacted most heavily. What's important to us, in the here and now, may NOT have been as important to them, at the time.
I'd have thought that the tragedy at WHF would have been embedded for life,especially with those concerned in the investigation. It's something that's not easily forgotten. This is why people are counselled for PTSD in some circumstances because of their flashbacks,as I would have counted what had happened,as a trauma to those who were present.
-
That's what I did :)
Just going out to our pool to cool down .
-
Just going out to our pool to cool down .
Blimey,I have to pump mine up ::) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
I'd have thought that the tragedy at WHF would have been embedded for life,especially with those concerned in the investigation. It's something that's not easily forgotten. This is why people are counselled for PTSD in some circumstances because of their flashbacks,as I would have counted what had happened,as a trauma to those who were present.
Yes, because it MAY be THE thing which absorbs you most. I agree that it's not easily forgotten. However, some of the number of those present will have been presented with other tragedies, either through the course of their work, or within their families. Thank-you for reminding me about PTSD. Unnecessary as I've just recommended someone for it. I'm sure, as you always have to know better than anyone else, you'll be quick off the mark to remind me that not EVERYONE suffers it to the point at which they need to seek help. We all manage things differently. as I'm sure you know.
-
Stokenchurch Box 76 Item 174 Interview notes of DS 291 Neil Davidson, pages 48-49.
and, pages 61-63,
So, the alleged paint on the silencer was never there.
Neil Davidson actually attributes this to a rifle that was 'found downstairs'. If so it could only be the BRNO bolt action.
IMO Neil Davidson's recollection cannot be relied on. But its things like this that should have justified a retrial and put Neil Davidson under cross examination.
-
Neil Davidson actually attributes this to a rifle that was 'found downstairs'. If so it could only be the BRNO bolt action.
IMO Neil Davidson's recollection cannot be relied on. But its things like this that should have justified a retrial and put Neil Davidson under cross examination.
He's not particularly clear and I think you're probably just adding your assumptions to it, especially when you then conclude the his answers can't be relied upon.
You may also be forgetting that this was all part of the COLP investigation, as nothing came of it, it seems likely that they agree with your conclusion that it couldn't be relied upon.
-
I'd have thought that the tragedy at WHF would have been embedded for life,especially with those concerned in the investigation. It's something that's not easily forgotten. This is why people are counselled for PTSD in some circumstances because of their flashbacks,as I would have counted what had happened,as a trauma to those who were present.
In this case if you look at the controversy and press coverage right from the start you would have thought that if you were an officer involved that you would at least have made sure that everything in your notebooks was correct and a full accurate report of what had happened because it would seem pretty obvious even at the time that this case was going to be unusual so I don't personally think the memory thing comes into it for proving facts. That is was the written records were for and this was the 1980s not the 1880s so they all knew the importance of accuracy
Also there was no excuse for the way the crime scene and exhibits were treated , again forensic science was not advanced as it is today but it was not in its infancy and the fact that the labs were not independent as such should have been more of a responsibility to get it right not less.
It's quite shocking really .
-
He's not particularly clear and I think you're probably just adding your assumptions to it, especially when you then conclude the his answers can't be relied upon.
You may also be forgetting that this was all part of the COLP investigation, as nothing came of it, it seems likely that they agree with your conclusion that it couldn't be relied upon.
Hartley
Is there any full statement from The officer who allegedly saw the rifle in the window anywhere on the archives ?
-
It just occurred to me that she reported seeing the rifle in the window and there was a time.
If we can work out which window then if as has been alleged she was mistaken and it was not a rifle it must have been an object though ? Someone. Suggested it was just a broom? 🙄 Even though she was an experienced firearms officer .
So if we can find the photos of that room and there is nothing in the window then whatever the object was must have moved between her sighting and the crime scene photos?
-
If I'm not mistaken,it was the " sewing room " window and not a bedroom window.
-
If I'm not mistaken,it was the " sewing room " window and not a bedroom window.
The problem is that I think mike found some confusion in her plan and which room it was but surely there are crime scene photos of every room?
-
There is/was confusion as to the room it was sighted in,but comparing the two rooms---bedroom ( where it's been said as being there ) and sewing room where it was. This was seen around 07.10/07.15 before any officers had entered the farmhouse. The next thing it appeared on Sheila's body.
To my mind,there is a difference in the structure of the windows,panes and sills,albeit slight,but the difference is there.
-
Photographs of all the rooms have not been available,nor has Jeapes's witness statement of the sighting of the rifle.
-
Photographs of all the rooms have not been available,nor has Jeapes's witness statement of the sighting of the rifle.
I have found her statement on here . It is just not in the archives I don't think .
-
I have found her statement on here . It is just not in the archives I don't think .
I hadn't realised her statement was on here as I'd been searching the archives instead. I'd also been looking for the room where the tampax box was,but it's obviously not here even though it was still part of the crime scene.
-
I hadn't realised her statement was on here as I'd been searching the archives instead. I'd also been looking for the room where the tampax box was,but it's obviously not here even though it was still part of the crime scene.
Started a new thread so this can go back to the original subject.
-
Started a new thread so this can go back to the original subject.
Thanks Jan, when I can see what I'm doing I will merge the old posts on your new thread.
-
I hadn't realised her statement was on here as I'd been searching the archives instead. I'd also been looking for the room where the tampax box was,but it's obviously not here even though it was still part of the crime scene.
Wasn't it found in the lounge, where the draughts and snakes & ladders board were still out, waiting for Nicholas and Daniel to fill the house with carefree laughter, a room which had all too often buckled under the strain of June's peremptory proselytising as their mother and uncle were growing up. She had attempted recompense with her grandchildren with moderate success, which only alienated her son all the more as he dwelled on the perceived privations he had endured, all too late to stop that fateful journey (what thoughts in transit?) as that perfidious character became ever more resolved on his demoniacal mission.
-
Wasn't it found in the lounge, where the draughts and snakes & ladders board were still out, waiting for Nicholas and Daniel to fill the house with carefree laughter, a room which had all too often buckled under the strain of June's peremptory proselytising as their mother and uncle were growing up. She had attempted recompense with her grandchildren with moderate success, which only alienated her son all the more as he dwelled on the perceived privations he had endured, all too late to stop that fateful journey (what thoughts in transit?) as that perfidious character became ever more resolved on his demoniacal mission.
Steve, I thought it was on the other single bed?
-
Steve, I thought it was on the other single bed?
Yes I may be confusing the holder with the box or a half-cut tampon.
-
Yes I may be confusing the holder with the box or a half-cut tampon.
:)I'd wondered if I may have.
-
He just wasn't involved in it, can't really blame him for not remembering something he didn't know in the first place.
In 2011, millions of pages of documents regarding the case were finally released to the CT.
Regrding the COLP interviews and in particular Davidson -
Within paragraph 17 of the précis of the statement compiled as a result of the interviews, it claims Davidson asserted, that on the 9th August 1985, he was tasked with examining a number of objects including a sound moderator.
This can only be SBJ/1, the exhibit reference for the police officer Stanley Brian Jones.
The evidence now reveals that not only was this sound moderator recovered by Jones from the scene on the day of the tragedies - but a second one was found by the relatives on the 10th August and was handed into the police, coincidentally to Stanley Brian Jones - who collected it on August 12th from Peter Eaton.
The sound moderator allegedly and falsely claimed by police to be the only one examined - was the one found on 10th August. The existence of the first moderator was hidden - but the forensic evidence from each was merged to create the false impression only one sound moderator existed.
The COLP documentation proves beyond any doubt that a sound moderator SBJ/1 was taken by DS Jones on 7th August and examined by DS Davidson on Friday 9th August before Jeremy’s relatives had been given access to WHF.
The fact that the police did indeed find a sound moderator on the 7th August was inadvertently confirmed by ACC Simpson, who told the Press that a sound moderator had been found at WHF on 7 August 1985.
-
In 2011, millions of pages of documents regarding the case were finally released to the CT.
Regrding the COLP interviews and in particular Davidson -
Within paragraph 17 of the précis of the statement compiled as a result of the interviews, it claims Davidson asserted, that on the 9th August 1985, he was tasked with examining a number of objects including a sound moderator.
This can only be SBJ/1, the exhibit reference for the police officer Stanley Brian Jones.
The evidence now reveals that not only was this sound moderator recovered by Jones from the scene on the day of the tragedies - but a second one was found by the relatives on the 10th August and was handed into the police, coincidentally to Stanley Brian Jones - who collected it on August 12th from Peter Eaton.
The sound moderator allegedly and falsely claimed by police to be the only one examined - was the one found on 10th August. The existence of the first moderator was hidden - but the forensic evidence from each was merged to create the false impression only one sound moderator existed.
The COLP documentation proves beyond any doubt that a sound moderator SBJ/1 was taken by DS Jones on 7th August and examined by DS Davidson on Friday 9th August before Jeremy’s relatives had been given access to WHF.
The fact that the police did indeed find a sound moderator on the 7th August was inadvertently confirmed by ACC Simpson, who told the Press that a sound moderator had been found at WHF on 7 August 1985.
And I don't think there is any proof that either one was on the end of the rifle that night.
-
And I don't think there is any proof that either one was on the end of the rifle that night.
Jan
IMO the silencer was never used had Jeremy been the perp he would have cleaned the silencer before placing it at the back of the gun cupboard and had Sheila been the perp she would have left the silencer where she last used it. It does not make sense whatever way you look at it.
-
Susan,if the truth be known that silencer could have been left anywhere within the place and not " just found " in the back of the cupboard as if it had been purposely hidden. How damn convenient !
-
Susan,if the truth be known that silencer could have been left anywhere within the place and not " just found " in the back of the cupboard as if it had been purposely hidden. How damn convenient !
Lookout hello
I remember Vic telling me the gun cupboard was a really deep cupboard so it seems whoever found the silencer must have nearly had to go on their knees to get it as it was an under the stair cupboard so no head room also surely was not appropriate for relatives searching a property that did not belong to them all very fishy to me.
-
Lookout hello
I remember Vic telling me the gun cupboard was a really deep cupboard so it seems whoever found the silencer must have nearly had to go on their knees to get it as it was an under the stair cupboard so no head room also surely was not appropriate for relatives searching a property that did not belong to them all very fishy to me.
Yes,seems like they knew where to look,eh ? As if anyone was going to hide it,or try to ::) You'd chuck it into the sea,surely ?
-
Yes,seems like they knew where to look,eh ? As if anyone was going to hide it,or try to ::) You'd chuck it into the sea,surely ?
I'm not saying that the silencer evidence is not suspicious, but if he did throw it over the sea wall is there much of a tide?
-
I'm not saying that the silencer evidence is not suspicious, but if he did throw it over the sea wall is there much of a tide?
And someone would have said that a silencer was missing, I imagine.
-
I'm not saying that the silencer evidence is not suspicious, but if he did throw it over the sea wall is there much of a tide?
Probably not,but it might have sank in the mud. There'd have been other ways I'm sure.
-
I'm not saying that the silencer evidence is not suspicious, but if he did throw it over the sea wall is there much of a tide?
There's some wonderfully unctuous mud!!!
-
Yes,seems like they knew where to look,eh ? As if anyone was going to hide it,or try to ::) You'd chuck it into the sea,surely ?
Lookout yes he would have thrown it into the sea it would not have been missed as nobody was looking for one it was 4 murders and one suicide and it is my belief the farm had a few of things
-
Lookout yes he would have thrown it into the sea it would not have been missed as nobody was looking for one it was 4 murders and one suicide and it is my belief the farm had a few of things
I think ather members would have noticed it as there was testimony about the sights and sound moderator being on the gun a short time before the murders. But would Jeremy have remembered that in amongst committing the murders and getting rid of every other shred of clothing with blood on it? Who knows ?
-
I think ather members would have noticed it as there was testimony about the sights and sound moderator being on the gun a short time before the murders. But would Jeremy have remembered that in amongst committing the murders and getting rid of every other shred of clothing with blood on it? Who knows ?
He had a shooting contest with Anthony Pargeter at the end of July and surmised that he might raise the issue of the silencer with relatives and Police.
-
The fact that the police did indeed find a sound moderator on the 7th August was inadvertently confirmed by ACC Simpson, who told the Press that a sound moderator had been found at WHF on 7 August 1985.
ACC Peter Simpson spills the beans:
We know that the police seized a sound moderator on 7th August due to three separate reports and confirmation from Assistant Chief Constable Peter Simpson:
COLCHESTER EVENING GAZETTE
MONDAY, 16TH SEPTEMBER 1985
“And although the silencer was found shortly after Police broke into the house a few hours after the killings on August 7, it was not regarded as important until inquiries were re-opened last week.”
ESSEX CHRONICLE
TUESDAY, 17TH SEPTEMBER 1985
“Mr Simpson hit out at national newspaper reports and added:
“A silencer was found at the farmhouse on the day
of the killings, but this does not have to mean
anything that is suspicious.
As for being blood –stained, I just don’t know. We
are waiting to hear from ballistics experts.”
SPECIAL REPORT BY STEVE CLOW
FRIDAY, 20TH SEPTEMBER 1985
“The Police statement said
“At an early stage of the investigation a silencer
was taken away from White House Farm for
forensic examinations.”
Later denied completely by Essex Police, who insist the only silencer was found on 10 August.
-
ACC Peter Simpson spills the beans:
We know that the police seized a sound moderator on 7th August due to three separate reports and confirmation from Assistant Chief Constable Peter Simpson:
COLCHESTER EVENING GAZETTE
MONDAY, 16TH SEPTEMBER 1985
“And although the silencer was found shortly after Police broke into the house a few hours after the killings on August 7, it was not regarded as important until inquiries were re-opened last week.”
ESSEX CHRONICLE
TUESDAY, 17TH SEPTEMBER 1985
“Mr Simpson hit out at national newspaper reports and added:
“A silencer was found at the farmhouse on the day
of the killings, but this does not have to mean
anything that is suspicious.
As for being blood –stained, I just don’t know. We
are waiting to hear from ballistics experts.”
SPECIAL REPORT BY STEVE CLOW
FRIDAY, 20TH SEPTEMBER 1985
“The Police statement said
“At an early stage of the investigation a silencer
was taken away from White House Farm for
forensic examinations.”
Later denied completely by Essex Police, who insist the only silencer was found on 10 August.
All the above proves is that the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. Nothing new there, then, but a couple of questions arise. A) Was the journo's shorthand up to the mark? B) Were the police releasing information BEFORE they had the full facts C) Were they getting ALL their information from the same source or was it simply someone's opinion?
-
ACC Peter Simpson spills the beans:
We know that the police seized a sound moderator on 7th August due to three separate reports and confirmation from Assistant Chief Constable Peter Simpson:
COLCHESTER EVENING GAZETTE
MONDAY, 16TH SEPTEMBER 1985
“And although the silencer was found shortly after Police broke into the house a few hours after the killings on August 7, it was not regarded as important until inquiries were re-opened last week.”
ESSEX CHRONICLE
TUESDAY, 17TH SEPTEMBER 1985
“Mr Simpson hit out at national newspaper reports and added:
“A silencer was found at the farmhouse on the day
of the killings, but this does not have to mean
anything that is suspicious.
As for being blood –stained, I just don’t know. We
are waiting to hear from ballistics experts.”
SPECIAL REPORT BY STEVE CLOW
FRIDAY, 20TH SEPTEMBER 1985
“The Police statement said
“At an early stage of the investigation a silencer
was taken away from White House Farm for
forensic examinations.”
Later denied completely by Essex Police, who insist the only silencer was found on 10 August.
Where is this from?
-
Where is this from?
Newspaper archives
-
Newspaper archives
The Chronicle words that you typed don't appear to make sense. It would make more sense for Simpson to say a silencer was NOT found, when immediately following it up with 'this does not have to mean anything that is suspicious'.
Perhaps either you or the reporter mistyped?
It would be good to see the actual articles though, I've never been very keen on people typing out what something says, it's better just to actually show the something.
-
Newspaper archives
Bill,if you said you'd been there making notes,it would still have been disputed.No matter what anyone comes up with there'll always be an inquest.
-
Newspaper archives
Are these archives online?
-
Bill,if you said you'd been there making notes,it would still have been disputed.No matter what anyone comes up with there'll always be an inquest.
Yeah we should just take anyone and everyone's word for whatever they say - much like you do. Oh wait, that's on;y ever if it supports innocence.
-
Newspaper articles can be accessed if you join certain websites as I am sure you are aware .
-
Newspaper articles can be accessed if you join certain websites as I am sure you are aware .
Yes I am. However, I'm looking for the same source as Bill used and the only way to know that, is to ask him - hence my asking him.
-
If this helps it names the newspaper
My apologies.The actual clip I am looking for is the police press conference following either Jeremy's arrest or conviction. If anyone can locate it,please could they post it up.thanks x
EDIT. Clip required is of ACC Peter Simpson speaking at a press conference in September 1985
That an Essex Police Officer, probably DS 21 Stanley Brian Jones, seized a sound moderator SBJ/1 from the gun cupboard at White House Farm (WHF) on 7th August 1985.
2) Indeed this is corroborated by Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) PETER SIMPSON stating in a press conference and reported in ‘The Echo’ dated 17th September 1985,
‘A silencer was found at the White House Farm on the day of the killings, but this does not have to mean anything suspicious.’ (See Material Exhibits File News clippings)
Hi Tyler
The Allegation document contains references to the silencer found on the day of the killings.
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/media/?sa=media;in=57;dl
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.
-
Crikey,twisted evidence.
-
If this helps it names the newspaper
My apologies.The actual clip I am looking for is the police press conference following either Jeremy's arrest or conviction. If anyone can locate it,please could they post it up.thanks x
EDIT. Clip required is of ACC Peter Simpson speaking at a press conference in September 1985
That an Essex Police Officer, probably DS 21 Stanley Brian Jones, seized a sound moderator SBJ/1 from the gun cupboard at White House Farm (WHF) on 7th August 1985.
2) Indeed this is corroborated by Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) PETER SIMPSON stating in a press conference and reported in ‘The Echo’ dated 17th September 1985,
‘A silencer was found at the White House Farm on the day of the killings, but this does not have to mean anything suspicious.’ (See Material Exhibits File News clippings)
Hi Tyler
The Allegation document contains references to the silencer found on the day of the killings.
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/media/?sa=media;in=57;dl
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.
The 'allegation document' isn't available.
-
The 'allegation document' isn't available.
I know . I just said it mentioned the papers involved
-
I'll let people read the interview if they want to. The first time Davidson sees the silencer is the real killer - in 1991. ;D
DS Davidson (SOCO) and DS Eastwood (SOCO) examined the silencer for fingerprints on 14 September 1985, at police HQ, despite the fact that cops supposedly sent the same silencer to Huntingdon Lab' on 30th August 1985. How could the same silencer still be in police possession and be at the lab' at one and the same time? Worse still, Ron Cook (SOCO) had fingerprinted the same silencer by Superglue treatment on 23rd August 1985, so why did Davidson and Eastwood perform fingerprinting on a silencer cops no longer had possession of, and which to all intents and purposes was coated in Superglue fumes? Clearly, these were two separate silencers, the one fingerprinted by Cook (SOCO) on 23 August 1985 was already at the lab' by and from 30 August 1985, the other one fingerprinted by Davidson (SOCO) and Eastwood (SOCO), on 14 September 1985, was a silence handed by Ann Eaton to DC Oakey (SOCO) on 11 September 1985, which did not get sent to the lab' by cops until 20 September 1985, by which time blood was already supposed to have been found and analysed from inside the former silencer! The red paint found on the second silencer coincided with the additionally marks made on the kitchen mantelshelf as per crime scene photographs taken on 14 September 1985. The blood in one of the two silencers, and the red paint found on the other, were subsequently merged as though they related toons and the same silencer under the guise of exhibit reference DRB/1! The DRB exhibits did not come into play until after Ann Eaton handed to DC Oakey (SOCO) the second silencer on 11 September 1985...