Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on December 03, 2017, 08:01:PM
-
I have come across a disturbing composite witness statement made by DS Jones, which confirms that he recovered a silencer at the scene on the 7th August 1985, and that he handed this to DCI Jones at Witham police station, it says, 'as instructed'..
The police took the silencer back to the scene on the 9th August 1985 and placed it in the gun cupboard where David Boutflour recovered in on the following day (10th August 1985).
This is a significant discovery, since it can now be proven that nobody concealed the silencer in the gun cupbaird after Sheila died, it was nothing but a red herrin' designed to help convict Jeremy of killing his sister, and staging her death scene, because with her unique blood being present in the silencer, it must have been fitted to the barrel of the gun at the time she was shot and had died. Therefore, she could not have hidden the silencer in the gun cupbioard downstairs after she was already dead, it had to be someone else!
The prosecution used the find of the silencer in that gun cupboard by David Boutflouyr on the 10th August 1985, to persuade the jury that Jeremy was the killer, and that Sheila could not have taken her own life...
I discovered the new material witness statement which had been copied onto the reverse of another statement made by DS Jones in my possession..
-
I have come across a disturbing composite witness statement made by DS Jones, which confirms that he recovered a silencer at the scene on the 7th August 1985, and that he handed this to DCI Jones at Witham police station, it says, 'as instructed'..
The police took the silencer back to the scene on the 9th August 1985 and placed it in the gun cupboard where David Boutflour recovered in on the following day (10th August 1985).
This is a significant discovery, since it can now be proven that nobody concealed the silencer in the gun cupbaird after Sheila died, it was nothing but a red herrin' designed to help convict Jeremy of killing his sister, and staging her death scene, because with her unique blood being present in the silencer, it must have been fitted to the barrel of the gun at the time she was shot and had died. Therefore, she could not have hidden the silencer in the gun cupbioard downstairs after she was already dead, it had to be someone else!
The prosecution used the find of the silencer in that gun cupboard by David Boutflouyr on the 10th August 1985, to persuade the jury that Jeremy was the killer, and that Sheila could not have taken her own life...
I discovered the new material witness statement which had been copied onto the reverse of another statement made by DS Jones in my possession..
The new material is copied onto the reverse of Stan Jones witness statement, dated, 27th November, 1985, here is a copy of that witness statement -
-
On the reverse of the above is a copy of the new information, it is poorly copied but nevertheless it contains important evidence which was capable of supporting the defence case at the 1986 trial, and the 2002 appeal, that the silencer evidence was fraudulent in nature. DS Jones recovered 'it' from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation, it was retained by DCI Jones on his desk at Witham police station, until it was returned to the family on evening of 9th August 1985, placed back inside the farmhouse covertly according to the contents of Jones' witness statement on that date, which was why David Boutflour was able to recover it there in the gun cupboard on the 10th August 1985! It wasn't put there by the person who was responsible for shooting dead Sheila, it was placed there by Stan Jones acting under the instruction of his boss, DCI Jones...
-
On the reverse of the above is a copy of the new information, it is poorly copied but nevertheless it contains important evidence which was capable of supporting the defence case at the 1986 trial, and the 2002 appeal, that the silencer evidence was fraudulent in nature. DS Jones recovered 'it' from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation, it was retained by DCI Jones on his desk at Witham police station, until it was returned to the family on evening of 9th August 1985, placed back inside the farmhouse covertly according to the contents of Jones' witness statement on that date, which was why David Boutflour was able to recover it there in the gun cupboard on the 10th August 1985! It wasn't put there by the person who was responsible for shooting dead Sheila, it was placed there by Stan Jones acting under the instruction of his boss, DCI Jones...
Here is the new information :-
-
So, DS Jones did recover a silencer from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation into these five deaths, and he did so acting upon the instruction of his boss, DCI Jones. It has long been suspected that he in fact had done so, but at long last we are coming to find that evidence exists to support that possibility! It is no longer just a possibility, it must now be treated as fact!
David Boutflour found or recovered thye silencer that Jones had placed back at the scene, he did not find a silencer which had been concealed in the gun cupboard by Sheila Caffells killer!
-
So, DS Jones did recover a silencer from the scene on the first mornin g of the police investigation into these five deaths, and he did so acting upon the instruction of his boss, DCI Jones. It has long been suspected that he in fact had done so, but at long last we are coming to find that evidence exists to support that possibility! It is no longer just a possibility, it must now be treated as fact!
David Boutflour found or recovered thye silencer that Jones had placed back at the scene, he did not find a silencer which had been concealed in the gun cupboard by Sheila Caffells killer!
The whole episode involving the reason why DS Jones returned to the farmhouse just before dinner time on the first morning of the police investigation needs to be looked into, again...
Why did DS Jones go back to whf from Jeremy's cottage at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger?
An 'independant police log' kept by another police officer 'confirms his return' to the scene around 11.30am on the first morning of the police investigation. In another police log, it confirms his exit from the scene some time later! When questioned by the COLP investigators, DS Jones did not recollect (conveniently) that he had returned to the farmhouse at all, or that if he did, he could not remember what he had gone back there for, or what he did whilst he was there...
We now know why he 'deliberately forgot' why he went there, and what he did there...
The crooked cop went there 'to collect the silencer', after being 'instructed to do so' via telephone by his boss 'DCI Jones'...
The silencer 'he seized' on that occasion, was exhibit SBJ/1..
He took possession of four exhibits altogether on that occasion, SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4...
-
I have been sat all day reviewing some of the material in my possession, much of which I have not had time or been motivated to read or to look through, its been a very tiring experience but the discovery of DS Jones statement, dated, 8th September 1985, has made it feel all worth while! I am now going to recheck all the material I thought I hhad covered just in case there are copies of material on the reverse sides of some documents...
-
I have always said that DS Jones took possession of the silencer (SBJ/1) at the scene on the first morning of the police investigation, but only been able to point to entries in a property Register, where it mentions that he recovered exhibits from the scene bearing the identifying marks, SBJ/4, SBJ/3 and SBJ/2...
I have always been saying that because those exhibits existed there must have also existed an exhibit bearing the reference SBJ/1, and now it can be proved that such an item had been and was seized by Jones on that occasion. The fact that this new material has surfaced today has somewhhat overwhelmed me, I feel elated but drained at the same time, 'I found the key evidence' which but for Jeremy's demise and circumstances, he had in his possession all along!
Maybe, Jeremy already knows about what I think I have uncovered, maybe for this reason he is confident that he will succeed in his next CCRC application / appeal?
I just feel soelated that I want to tell everybody, the whole wide world that Jeremy Bamber was definately framed for these five murders on the back of the dodgy silencer evidence!
-
I have always said that DS Jones took possession of the silencer (SBJ/1) at the scene on the first morning of the police investigation, but only been able to point to entries in a property Register, where it mentions that he recovered exhibits from the scene bearing the identifying marks, SBJ/4, SBJ/3 and SBJ/2...
I have always been saying that because those exhibits existed there must have also existed an exhibit bearing the reference SBJ/1, and now it can be proved that such an item had been and was seized by Jones on that occasion. The fact that this new material has surfaced today has somewhhat overwhelmed me, I feel elated but drained at the same time, 'I found the key evidence' which but for Jeremy's demise and circumstances, he had in his possession all along!
Maybe, Jeremy already knows about what I think I have uncovered, maybe for this reason he is confident that he will succeed in his next CCRC application / appeal?
I just feel soelated that I want to tell everybody, the whole wide world that Jeremy Bamber was definately framed for these five murders on the back of the dodgy silencer evidence!
Cops had the silencer, but they gave it back to the family on evening of 9th August 1985, David Boutflour found it (again) on the 10th August 1985, but it is not surprising that he did considering that DS Jones placed it back at the farmhouse the evening before the occasion that David Boutflour recovered it!
-
Neither, Sheila, nor anyone who was responsible for shooting her dead, placed that silencer in that gun cupboard - it was placed there by Stan Jones covertly on the evening of 9th August 1985, when the keys to the farmhouse were handed back to the family, whilst DCI Jones walke the relatives through the farmhouse describing where victims had died...
-
Since I returned to my home address, and I have taken control of all this material which has been out of arms reach since December 2015, my home looks like a bomb site. I have documents piled everywhere! I try to tidy up but I just don't have enough energy to get anything done! My head is full of compulsions to find the truth in the material in my possession! Matters are not helped because I am taking out a criminal prosecution against the South Yorkshire police officers who tampered with the contents of witness statements to get me convicted of offences I did not commit, as per my trial at Sheffiled Crown Court in September 1988. I was due in court at Barnsley to make my application in front of the District Judge on the 6th Decemeber, 2017 but I am not very well and am still under the doctor and the psychiatrist. Fortunately, as a result of submitting a sick note from my doctor, I have got my application adjourned until the 14th February 2018. I will never stop trying to prove my innocence, I have already served sentences for crimes I did not commit! I know I'm not in the same hole that Jeremy finds himself in, but nevertheless I am suffereing still, and I have sufferred to a much lesser degree that Jeremy has and is suffering from. It is an awful experience being fitted up by the authorities for crimes you have not committed! The state and all its agencies bend over backwards to believe the police, the prosecution and all its witnesses, even when it becomes obvious that these criminals are nothing but lying evil scumbags!
I will never give up for myself, and I will never stop supporting the other victims like Jeremy...
-
I can't wait to see my carers tomorrow, my wife and my sister, it's a lonely place living alone when your a damaged product!
-
I can't wait to see my carers tomorrow, my wife and my sister, it's a lonely place living alone when your a damaged product!
My best friend is my dog, 'Mist', she gives me reasons to keep going...
-
I invite you all to take a glimpse of the conditions I am surving in at the moment, I'm not really complaining, because I know there must be many others far worse off than I am (including Jeremy, and people like him). But I can assure Jeremy, and others in the same state controlled trap, that even when your not still being incarcerated you still suffer, the pain and the anguish the authorities and their witnesses create never go away, they never leave you, you relive every moment of the injustice you have had to endure, day after day, night after night, often it becomes almost unbearable as if you wished you were dead...
Its often a dark lonely existence, and sometimes you question whether or not there really is a god!
-
I invite you all to take a glimpse of the conditions I am surving in at the moment, I'm not really complaining, because I know there must be many others far worse off than I am (including Jeremy, and people like him). But I can assure Jeremy, and others in the same state controlled trap, that even when your not still being incarcerated you still suffer, the pain and the anguish the authorities and their witnesses create never go away, they never leave you, you relive every moment of the injustice you have had to endure, day after day, night after night, often it becomes almost unbearable as if you wished you were dead...
Its often a dark lonely existence, and sometimes you question whether or not there really is a god!
I still have my dignity, I am not completely a broken man yet!
I still have my home, despite it feeling empty of people, at least I have some memories to cling onto, and of course my dog who relies on me to keep her happy and alive!
I can see why some people go on to commit suicide, its very stressful and disturbing...
-
It is very upsetting to think that the prosecution presented the argument at Jeremy's trial, that Sheila could not have shot herself dead and then removed the silencer from the guns barrel and took it downstairs to conceal it in a gun cupboard! Of course, she couldn't have, and of course she didn't, but the fact that she couldn't have, and the fact that she didn't, doesn't make Jeremy the killer of his sister!
He didn't kill her, and he couldn't have shot her, or staged her death scene in the kitchen first and foremost, then on top of the bed, or eventually on the main bedroom floor!
-
It is very upsetting to think that the prosecution presented the argument at Jeremy's trial, that Sheila could not have shot herself dead and then removed the silencer from the guns barrel and took it downstairs to conceal it in a gun cupboard! Of course, she couldn't have, and of course she didn't, but the fact that she couldn't have, and the fact that she didn't, doesn't make Jeremy the killer of his sister!
He didn't kill her, and he couldn't have shot her, or staged her death scene in the kitchen first and foremost, then on top of the bed, or eventually on the main bedroom floor!
The cops know what really happened to Sheila after entry to the premises was gained!
-
The cops know what really happened to Sheila after entry to the premises was gained!
The truth of the matter, is that Sheila did not die downstairs in the kitchen, at the time cops placed her body downstairs between 7.35am and 8.10am! Sheila was not dead on top of the bed, or as the case maybe, with her body on the far side of the bed at 8.44am! But Sheila was dead, and she did get shot dead at 9.13am after her body had been moved from its position on top of the bed, onto the bedroom floor on the left side of the bed, as viewed by an observer standing at the foot of the bed!
-
Sheila had only been shot once, and she only had one bullet entry wound to her neck right up until 9.13am at which time a rifle which was being manipulated on her body discharged what turned out to be the all important fatal shot beneath the chin!
-
This is a significant discovery, . . .
As the statement by Ds Jones, dated 8th September 1985, is a bit awkward to read, I've retyped it below.
On Wednesday, 7th August, 1985, I attended the scene of a multiple
shooting incident at white house farm, Tolleshunt D'arcy, Essex, and I
took possession of a sound moderator, which I later handed to Detective
Chief Inspector 'Taff' Jones, at Witham Police station, as instructed.
On Friday, 9th August, 1985, together with DCI Jones I attended white
house farm and I covertly returned the aforementioned sound
moderator to the farmhouse, again, acting under the authority of
Detective Chief Inspector 'Taff' JONES.
On Monday, 12th August, 1985, I received possession of a sound
moderator from Peter Eaton, at his home address. I later placed this
item in a locked drawer in the scenes of crime department at Witham
police station overnight. However, on the following morning, Tuesday
I handed the aforementioned sound moderator to Detective
Inspector 'Ron' Cook. I can identify the sound moderator by a label
which I have signed.
The statement doesn't mention where in the farmhouse the sound moderator was located when Ds Jones took possession of it on 7th August 1985, or where in the farmhouse he put the sound moderator when he covertly returned it on 9th August 1985.
-
I second that Justice. Mike's worked tirelessly over the years on this case,besides having issues of his own.
Though sometimes when there are problems on the family front, the forum can be a diversion for a short while and can take the mind off other on-going situations.
Situations such as Mike's never go away,even after " clearance " as the nightmare stays with you for life. I can only feel disgust for the way Mike has/is being treated and the older you are the longer it takes to get over these things which do take their toll both physically and mentally making you feel ill every waking day because it's there in the forefront of your mind.
I know ( well my family do ) what it's like to be fitted up so you have all my sympathy Mike. Chin up and hold your head up high,rise above them,you'll get there in the end. Show them that you'll never give up the fight.
This is another reason why I support Jeremy. His situation is beyond believable,but can/does happen to anyone.
-
The new material is copied onto the reverse of Stan Jones witness statement, dated, 27th November, 1985, here is a copy of that witness statement -
Hi Mike, that looks like two sheets of paper, one on top of the other?
-
Hi Mike, that looks like two sheets of paper, one on top of the other?
One does have to ask why the need to report/confess -on Sept 3/5/8th 1985- that he undertaken a "covert" operation -in the form of returning a silencer previously taken from WHF two day earlier- as recently as on or around Aug 9th.
-
Hi Mike, that looks like two sheets of paper, one on top of the other?
Hi Caroline, I agree, but I can assure you that this is exactly how I discovered it yesterday!
I am taking the liberty of photographing the two merged statements in such a way as to show that one composite version of DS Jones statement, dated, 27th November, 1985, is copied on the reverse of the other composite version of his statement, dated, the 8th September, 1985..
Please bear with me..
-
Hi Caroline, I agree, but I can assure you that this is exactly how I discovered it yesterday!
I am taking the liberty of photographing the two merged statements in such a way as to show that one composite version of DS Jones statement, dated, 27th November, 1985, is copied on the reverse of the other composite version of his statement, dated, the 8th September, 1985..
Please bear with me..
Hope this clarifies the situation - oh and by the way, I no longer reside at my former address at Hazelshaw Gardens, we moved away in 2014 when I went into bankruptcy (my old address is shown on the front of an envelope sent by Jeremy to me, dated, 16th June, 2003 at 8.45pm)...
-
Hu Mike, thanks for that but I have to question why anyone would copy one statement on the back of another - especially as there is almost three months between them. However, if this is genuine, why not take it to the newspapers because that woud be quite a development - would it not?
-
As the statement by Ds Jones, dated 8th September 1985, is a bit awkward to read, I've retyped it below.
On Wednesday, 7th August, 1985, I attended the scene of a multiple
shooting incident at white house farm, Tolleshunt D'arcy, Essex, and I
took possession of a sound moderator, which I later handed to Detective
Chief Inspector 'Taff' Jones, at Witham Police station, as instructed.
On Friday, 9th August, 1985, together with DCI Jones I attended white
house farm and I covertly returned the aforementioned sound
moderator to the farmhouse, again, acting under the authority of
Detective Chief Inspector 'Taff' JONES.
On Monday, 12th August, 1985, I received possession of a sound
moderator from Peter Eaton, at his home address. I later placed this
item in a locked drawer in the scenes of crime department at Witham
police station overnight. However, on the following morning, Tuesday
I handed the aforementioned sound moderator to Detective
Inspector 'Ron' Cook. I can identify the sound moderator by a label
which I have signed.
The statement doesn't mention where in the farmhouse the sound moderator was located when Ds Jones took possession of it on 7th August 1985, or where in the farmhouse he put the sound moderator when he covertly returned it on 9th August 1985.
Hi Reader, all I can say in response to your query, is that Jones did return to the scene from Jeremy's cottage as a result of a telephone call he received from 'Taff' Jones to collect the Sound moderator and bring it to him at his Witham office that same date! As yet I have not discovered any fresh material supporting this but there is evidence elsewhere in the file that I have already seen that DCI Jones kept a silencer on his desk and was using it as a paper weight, and that a police officer took possesssion of it and checked it to see if it fitted onto the end of the anshuzt rifles barrel. I believe I am right in saying that many years ago that I drew reference to this fact!
This event if it occurred, gives a prime example of how blood could have ggot into the inside of the silencer - it was forced in as a result of dynamic tension created on the external thread on the end of the guns barrel and the internal thread on the inside of the bottom end of the silencer, which when swcrewed together in an airtight fashion, any dried blood on the external thread on the end of the guns barrel would be forced back into the silencer...
This could explain the presence of Sheila's blood in the form of a small dried flake being found at a later date trapped betweeen baffle plates within...
I now remember where that information came from, it was PC Whiddon who took possesssion of the silencer that was on DCI Jones desk...
With regard to your next point, I not responsible for what DS Jones records in his witness statements ( and I have to say, in view of the tampering of witness statements and documents by Essex police in this case, perhaps or maybe DS Jones himself did not know what someone else decided to include or exclude when they prepared that composite version of a witness statement in his name! Nevertheless, we now know that Essex police did take possession of at least one silencer from the scene on the first morning of the investigation, a silencer referred to elsewhere as exhibit 'SBJ/1', and that this must be true because elsewhere in a property register, DS Jones also took possession of three further exhibits from the scene that same date (7th August 1985) bearing the exhibit reference marks, of SBJ/4, SBJ/3 and SBJ/2...
Logic surely must dictate that in light of these other items of evidential value (SBJ/4, SBJ/2 and SBJ/2) that DS Jones must also have taken possession and control of a further item (SBJ/1), a fact now confirmed by the discovery of the latest composite version of a statement made in his name, dated, 8th September, 1985...
I remember speaking on a one to one basis with Jeremy on many occasions when I was incarcerated with him at HMP Full Sutton (1989 / 1990) and he told me that DS Jones had left his cottage to go back to the scene, and that on that occasion he had seized a number of exhibits. In particular, he thought, was Anthony Pargeters Bruno make bolt action rifle, which we thought had been exhibit SBJ/1...
Jeremy has always been consistent in saying that Anthony Pargeters rifle and silencer had been at whf at the time of the shootings! He emphasised this by saying that his father Neville Bamber would never have let Pargeter remove his gun from thee farmhouse because he was a Justice of the Peace, and it would have constituted him allowing the law to be broken! I have to agree with what Jeremy was saying, and I think that the Pargeter rifle was at the scene at the material time, along with his silencer! I am niot bothered that the COLP investigators got a witness statement from Anthony Pargeter stating that on the penultimate week-end prior to the shootings, that he removed his gun and took it home with him to Bournend in Buckinghamshire...
Cops will do and say anything, or get people to say things which are not necesssarily true if it makes for a easier and less stresssful investigation...
Anyways, we now know that DS Jones went back to the farmhouse from Jeremy's cottage (a fact also confirmed by police logs which record his arrival there, and later on his exit) and that he took possession of the silencer. The cops had the silencer before David Boutflour found the same silencer, or did David Boutflour find the Pargeter silencer? Remember, there were two silencers at the scene acccording to Jeremy Bambers account at the time of the shootings!
I have no idea why it doesn't mention the exact location at the farmhouse wwhere DS Jones seized the silencer he took from, or who might have handed it to him on that occasion. Nevertheless, the facts speak for themselves, Jones did take possession of a silencer on the first morning of the police handling of the case, and that is what is important...
-
Hu Mike, thanks for that but I have to question why anyone would copy one statement on the back of another - especially as there is almost three months between them. However, if this is genuine, why not take it to the newspapers because that woud be quite a development - would it not?
Caroline, I have to confess I do not know why someone should copy the contents of a composite witness statement on the back of another composite witness statement made in the name of the same police officer. All that I know, is that I found it there and I have posted a copy of its contents!
I remember some time ago that one of the police logs was copied onto the reverse of another, which Jeremy pointed out proved that cops had been doctoring the evidence! I can't answer for what the police didd, all I can do is report what I have come across...
I shall not be contacting the newspapers, because I do not want to be appearing to be benefitting financially from something which has ential value that is capable of undermining the prosecutions case that was relied upon to help convict Jeremy for these five murders. The fact of the matter, is that we now know or should I say it now looks like or appears that Essex police did take possession of at least one of the silencers, prior to the 10th August 1985 when David Boutflour says he found it, or did Boutflour find the second silencer which Jeremy has always maintained was still being kept at the farmhouse by the time of the murders?
I don't profess to know the answer to that / this...
All I now know is that we are nearer to the truth regarding the seizure of a silencer (or two) by the police and the relatives...
No doubt, the official Campaign team will be overjoyed at this latest discovery, where it is admitted that DS Jones did indeed sieze one of the two silencers from the scene on the first morning of the tragedy!
-
We are now at a cross road in the investigation, we have to question whether or not there was only the one silencer at the scene at the time of the shootings, or as the caswe might be that there were in fact two similar but different ones?
-
We are now at a cross road in the investigation, we have to question whether or not there was only the one silencer at the scene at the time of the shootings, or as the caswe might be that there were in fact two similar but different ones?
Two silencers:-
(a) the Bamber silencer
(b) the Pargeter silencer
It begs the question in light of the latest discovery whethjer or not the silencer which DS Jones took possession of at the scene on the first morning of the police ionvestigation, was (a) the bamber silencer, or (b) the Pargeter silencer..
This then begs the question, after Jones returned that silencer to the farmhouse on 9th August 1985, in keeping with the contents of his 8thy September 1985 composite witnesss stateement, whether or not the silencer that David Boutflour took possession of on the 10th August 1985, was the very self same silencer that DS Jones had placed back at the scene on the day before?
We simply do not know at this moment in time, that the silencer which Jones seized at the scene on the 7th August was the same silencer that David Boutflour seized at the scene on the 10th August 1985...
-
One does have to ask why the need to report/confess -on Sept 3/5/8th 1985- that he undertaken a "covert" operation -in the form of returning a silencer previously taken from WHF two day earlier- as recently as on or around Aug 9th.
Hi Jane J, I don't know the answer to that, but what we have to remember or consider, was that at around the time that this composite witness statement was made in DS Jones name, that DS Jones role in the following investigation (SC/786/85) took a twist and he was able on the face of the evidence used to prosecute Jeremy Bamber as the killer, to free himself from the shackles of DCI Jones wwho was replaced as lead detective of the investigation by his replacement DCS 'Mick' Ainsley...
Maybe this was Ainsleys way of trying to distance DS Jones from the influence of DCI Jones?
Essex police will have to deal with that / this, it is not for me to answer for them!
-
I remember Jeremy once telling me that there was reference in the case papers in my possession, that Essex police had taken possesssion of the silencer at the beginning of their investigation, prior to David Boutflour finding a silencer in the gun cupboard - it is mentioned in a press report, somewhere, or other...
-
On occasions, Jeremy and I discusssed the conflicting design features (internally) of (a) the Bamber owned silencer, and (b) the Pargeter owned silencer. The one owned by the Bambers only had 15 internal baffle plates, or was it 14? The Pargeter Silencer had 17 baffle plates...
-
On occasions, Jeremy and I discusssed the conflicting design features (internally) of (a) the Bamber owned silencer, and (b) the Pargeter owned silencer. The one owned by the Bambers only had 15 internal baffle plates, or was it 14? The Pargeter Silencer had 17 baffle plates...
Sorry, I must rest, I am feeling extremely tired, and depressed...
-
Mike in your posts of March 5th 2011,you enclosed some typed notes made by RWB stating that a silencer had been found in a cupboard in the garage. The said notes had been written/typed between Aug.25th and Sept.
-
It's headed " David Boutflour found a silencer in a cupboard in the garage ".
-
Didn't RWB also admit to being present when his son also found a silencer inside WHF ?
So that's two silencers ?
-
Didn't RWB also admit to being present when his son also found a silencer inside WHF ?
So that's two silencers ?
thats interesting,lookout
-
Mike in your posts of March 5th 2011,you enclosed some typed notes made by RWB stating that a silencer had been found in a cupboard in the garage. The said notes had been written/typed between Aug.25th and Sept.
Lookout, I've got thousands and thousands of notes, so many that although I may have posted images up on our forum back in March, 2011, but if the truth be known I wouldn't be able to go and lay me hands on the same documents today without it involving a research of all the material currently in my possession!
-
All I can say is that if the statement is genuine, then it casts doubt on who placed the sound moderator in the cupboard. Jones doesn't say where he found the moderator in the first place. Something should be done with this document - if it's genuine.
-
All I can say is that if the statement is genuine, then it casts doubt on who placed the sound moderator in the cupboard. Jones doesn't say where he found the moderator in the first place. Something should be done with this document - if it's genuine.
Couple of things;
Why would there be a double sided statement when none of the others are?
Why would anew statement be piggy backed on a previous statement when none of the other are?
Why would they use a different type face for that one statement?
Why are there no details other than a silencer was found by Jones?
-
It has long since been suspected or known that Essex police, the relatives and the lab' experts at Huntingdon, used two different silencers which they sought to present as the one and only silencer!
Clearly, there was never only just the one silencer...
Since, how did Ann Eaton and the family, still have possession not the silencer by 11th September 1975, if Ron Cook had already submitted 'it' to Huntingdon Lab' on the 30th August 1985?
Ann Eaton, Essex police, and the experts at Huntingdon Lab' all played a role in the handing over of the second silencer by Ann Eaton to DC Oakey on 11th September 1985, the fact that this second silencer was fingerprinted by DS Eastwood and DS Davidson on the 14th September 1985, and that eventually on the 20th September 1985, that Essex police should be submitting it to the Lab' with a request that 'it' be checked for blood and fibers?
I mean, hang on there was supposedly already a silencer at the Lab' which arrived there on the 30th August 1985, a silencer inside which was discovered a loose dried flake of blood by the 12th September 1985, which when analysed produced the four key blood group results belonging to Sheila Caffell, and Robert Boutflour! So, why are Essex police submitting a second silencer to the same lab' on the 20th September 1985, requesting that 'it' be checked for blood?
What also becomes somewhat obvious is that the first silencer was never known or referred to by any exhibit reference, other than 'SJ/1'(22), or 'DB/1'(23), and that the silencer which Ann Eaton handed over to dC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, is the 'DRB/1' silencer which came to be exhibited during Jeremy Bambers trial during October 1986. We know this is true because on the 11th September 1985, Ann Eaton handed over to DC Oakey several items of evidential value, which bore the original exhibit references of DRB/4, DRB/3, and DRB/2! We know that she also handed over the second silencer on this date because police records confirm this - the silencer handed over to DC Oakey on that date had the exhibit reference of DRB/1, in other words, court exhibit No.9...
It stands to reason, therefore, that the second silencer (DRB/1) was not the same silencer inside which Fletcher and Hayward found the blood group evidence attributed uniquely to Sheila Caffell. The key blood evidence must have been found inside the other silencer (DB/1), the silencer which Essex police took to the Lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August 1985...
So, why did the prosecution rely upon the key blood group evidence and the paint from the kitchen aga evidence as being applicable to only one of the two silencers? Sheila's blood could not have been found inside the silencer marked 'DRB/1', because that second silencer arrived at the lab' long after the blood that was present in the first silencer (DB/1) was matched as being unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell!
Jeremy Bamber was stitched up by the state irganisions and his relatives using dodgy silencer, blood and paint evidence which it was impossible to have been found on the same item! There were two silencers, Sheila's blood in the first of these two (DB/1) and paint from the kitchen aga surround ingrained into the second silencer (DRB/1)...
Two silencers, not one silencer, blood in one, paint on the other. Yet to be fathomed out was if these five shootings had only involved one gun, why the key evidence was found on two different silencers? Since, why would the shooter attach a different silencer to the same guns barrel during the attack on Neville Bamber downstairs in the kitchen, and upon Sheila Caffell upstairs in the main bedroom!
Cops and the dastardly CPS knew the significance of the existence of the two silencers, each one the bearer of blood, or paint!
There is now a chunk of light in sight at the end of Jeremy Bambers plight!
He was stitched up, by Essex police, by his relatives, by the experts at the lab' and by the CPS....
Judgement day for the conspirators is looming large, justice must surely prevail in this case, an innocent man has been incarcerated in prison for over three decades, convicted by dishonest evidence!
-
Couple of things;
Why would there be a double sided statement when none of the others are?
Why would anew statement be piggy backed on a previous statement when none of the other are?
Why would they use a different type face for that one statement?
Why are there no details other than a silencer was found by Jones?
I'm not sure that any of that matters. Perhaps statements were photocopied back to back for some reason. What matters is the content. If this statement is genuine, it potentially destroys a huge amount of the prosecution's case. I don't really get why people aren't more intrigued by this document.
Why would Stan Jones pick up a silencer and then take it back again two days later without any examination of it? Why would he return it covertly?
-
I'm not sure that any of that matters. Perhaps statements were photocopied back to back for some reason. What matters is the content. If this statement is genuine, it potentially destroys a huge amount of the prosecution's case. I don't really get why people aren't more intrigued by this document.
Why would Stan Jones pick up a silencer and then take it back again two days later without any examination of it? Why would he return it covertly?
I think it matters a lot because if it doesn't LOOK genuine, then it's likely not to be.
-
Couple of things;
Why would there be a double sided statement when none of the others are?
Why would anew statement be piggy backed on a previous statement when none of the other are?
Why would they use a different type face for that one statement?
Why are there no details other than a silencer was found by Jones?
i agree good points,caroline
-
I think it matters a lot because if it doesn't LOOK genuine, then it's likely not to be.
Why would someone fake a statement like that?
-
If it’s real, go to the press go to his lawyers get things moving, Kaldin asks why people aren’t more intrigued by this, Exactly that answers it.
This is what I don't understand. If this statement is genuine then it's potentially dynamite. I don't see how anyone could just sit on it and do nothing.
-
Why would someone fake a statement like that?
It takes all sorts to make a world.
-
If it’s real, go to the press go to his lawyers get things moving, Kaldin asks why people aren’t more intrigued by this, Exactly that answers it.
Experience?
-
This is what I don't understand. If this statement is genuine then it's potentially dynamite. I don't see how anyone could just sit on it and do nothing.
I suggested doing something this morning - personally I wouldn't because I don't believe it's genuine but if others do, perhaps it's about time they put their money where their mouth is?
-
I hate to be so outspoken here, but are people suggesting that Mike has doctored that document or even created it?
-
This is what I don't understand. If this statement is genuine then it's potentially dynamite. I don't see how anyone could just sit on it and do nothing.
Kaldin, I asked exactly that question when, within weeks of joining, Mike revealed that he had evidence which would mean imminent freedom for Jeremy -a revealing picture of Sheila on a bed with her nightdress hitched up. I suggested that it would be better placed in the hands of someone who could use it to benefit Jeremy. I believe the reason I was given for this not happening was that the time wasn't right. It MAY be that the time isn't right for this 'Disturbing Evidence' to be revealed.
-
I hate to be so outspoken here, but are people suggesting that Mike has doctored that document or even created it?
It doesn't have to be Mike, Mike said he'd just acquired them - not sure from where. I don't believe it's genuine, if you do and you think it'd 'dynamite' you could be the one to start the ball rolling, if not, then you rally can't be that sure it's genuine either?
-
It doesn't have to be Mike, Mike said he'd just acquired them - not sure from where. I don't believe it's genuine, if you do and you think it'd 'dynamite' you could be the one to start the ball rolling, if not, then you rally can't be that sure it's genuine either?
I wouldn't know what to to do with it though. If Jeremy has a source who tells him what's on this forum, he could contact the right people.
-
Kaldin, I asked exactly that question when, within weeks of joining, Mike revealed that he had evidence which would mean imminent freedom for Jeremy -a revealing picture of Sheila on a bed with her nightdress hitched up. I suggested that it would be better placed in the hands of someone who could use it to benefit Jeremy. I believe the reason I was given for this not happening was that the time wasn't right. It MAY be that the time isn't right for this 'Disturbing Evidence' to be revealed.
exactly jane.can i also add the photo that shows a banner on the roof with (mick was here)written on it ;)
-
Kaldin, I asked exactly that question when, within weeks of joining, Mike revealed that he had evidence which would mean imminent freedom for Jeremy -a revealing picture of Sheila on a bed with her nightdress hitched up. I suggested that it would be better placed in the hands of someone who could use it to benefit Jeremy. I believe the reason I was given for this not happening was that the time wasn't right. It MAY be that the time isn't right for this 'Disturbing Evidence' to be revealed.
I recall the issue of the bed, but such a photo never materialised did it? This time, a photo of the document has been posted.
-
I wouldn't know what to to do with it though. If Jeremy has a source who tells him what's on this forum, he could contact the right people.
This could be a start [email protected] - he's an innocent supporter and a reporter for The Guardian.
-
Why is everything on the document crossed out, and why are side notes scribbled out?
-
It doesn't have to be Mike, Mike said he'd just acquired them - not sure from where. I don't believe it's genuine, if you do and you think it'd 'dynamite' you could be the one to start the ball rolling, if not, then you rally can't be that sure it's genuine either?
Kaldin, it could go one of two ways. You COULD find yourself covered in glory, on the other hand you could find yourself covered in..................... something less sweet.
-
Maybe it’s a case of crying Wolf too many times, who Knows?
exactly ,justice the classic tale comes to mind :)) :))
-
Why is everything on the document crossed out, and why are side notes scribbled out?
Either it's been previously seen -and dismissed?- OR perhaps it was thought it would authenticate it?
-
Kaldin, it could go one of two ways. You COULD find yourself covered in glory, on the other hand you could find yourself covered in..................... something less sweet.
:)) :)) :)) :))
-
Well look, if it's fake, why would someone photocopy it onto the back of another statement or onto a copy of another statement? Both sides of that piece of paper are photocopies obviously.
-
I don't understand where Mike is getting these copies of documents from anyway. ???
-
Well look, if it's fake, why would someone photocopy it onto the back of another statement or onto a copy of another statement? Both sides of that piece of paper are photocopies obviously.
WHY, if it's real, would someone photocopy it onto the back of another statement/copy of another statement?
-
WHY, if it's real, would someone photocopy it onto the back of another statement/copy of another statement?
Perhaps they were collating evidence and used back to back copying? The question is - where is the original?
-
I don't understand where Mike is getting these copies of documents from anyway. ???
it might be from his imagination and a good printer ;)
-
it might be from his imagination and a good printer ;)
Are you accusing him of creating these documents?
-
The content is rather vague. If someone wanted to dispute the evidence and fake a document, they'd be more specific.
It doesn't say where Jones allegedly found the silencer, and it doesn't say whether he put it in the cupboard or not. What would be the point of faking such a vague document?
-
Perhaps they were collating evidence and used back to back copying? The question is - where is the original?
I won't pretend to know anything about photocopying, but might it be possible to type the original -and it does appear to have been typed on a different machine from the report on the opposite side- on plain paper and then transfer it headed paper? I'm sure someone who knows how could create lookalike headed paper.
-
Are you accusing him of creating these documents?
who mike,absolutely not he wouldnt do such a thing
-
Are you accusing him of creating these documents?
I think we're supposed to think that the 'report' was in the form of a confession. WHY, given the dates, would this happen? WHY use the word "covertly"? The whole 'report' could just as easily have been written without it inclusion, and if it WAS a confession, it's doubtful that it would have been left anywhere it could be treated so casually and where it became common knowledge. It would have been sent privately.
-
All I know, is that some time ago, a police log was copied onto the reverse of another police log, which supposedly was created in a different part of Chelmsford police station - Jeremy was very excited by this development!
It has been established, therefore, that for one reason or another, somebody has been responsible for copying evidence on the reverse side of other documentation. I do not profess to know why whoever did what they did, all I am interested in, is that they did...
-
could it be that that a police officer who knew jb was innocent had done it .knowing it might be seen at a later date and cause doubt on jb's conviction
-
who mike,absolutely not he wouldnt do such a thing
It looked like you were accusing him to me.
-
I won't pretend to know anything about photocopying, but might it be possible to type the original -and it does appear to have been typed on a different machine from the report on the opposite side- on plain paper and then transfer it headed paper? I'm sure someone who knows how could create lookalike headed paper.
Yes, it would be possible. You could put headed paper into a photocopier and then copy the typed document onto it. I don't think it's relevant that the type face is different in both documents.
-
It looked like you were accusing him to me.
now now
-
There's some kind of reference on the left at the bottom, but I can't make out what it is. I also don't know why there's a line on the left - possibly a margin?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50307;image)
-
Yes, it would be possible. You could put headed paper into a photocopier and then copy the typed document onto it. I don't think it's relevant that the type face is different in both documents.
It's quite easy to make a statement using the statments on the forum (see below), all I would have to do to hide the fact that I use photoshop, would be to print it and scan it and save. Did this in 5 minutes.
-
excellent example,caroline
-
Yes, although there are photos of the document on the table.
-
Yes, although there are photos of the document on the table.
I can print the document I posted and take a photo. No saying it is a fake but for all the reasons I gave before, it would seem to be.
-
I can print the document I posted and take a photo. No saying it is a fake but for all the reasons I gave before, it would seem to be.
I think several people are saying it's fake. If they didn't think it was fake, they'd be a lot more interested in the actual content.
-
I think several people are saying it's fake. If they didn't think it was fake, they'd be a lot more interested in the actual content.
Do you believe it's real, Kaldin?
-
Do you believe it's real, Kaldin?
I don't know. The word "covertly" bothers me, and I don't know why Stan Jones or DCI Jones would not have declared at the time that a moderator had been retrieved, but then I think if it was fake it would be more detailed. Also, who would fake such a document? The purpose would be obvious - to cast doubt on the silencer evidence.
-
I don't know. The word "covertly" bothers me, and I don't know why Stan Jones or DCI Jones would not have declared at the time that a moderator had been retrieved, but then I think if it was fake it would be more detailed. Also, who would fake such a document? The purpose would be obvious - to cast doubt on the silencer evidence.
Kaldin, LESS is always infinitely more. A whisper is more subtle than a shout. Who would fake such a document? Definitely someone who wants to show the police in a bad light..................if the silencer can be bought into question at the same time, it kills two birds with one stone.
-
I’m sure Mike will have a few backers soon once the word goes out ;D
:)) :)) :)) ;)
-
There's some kind of reference on the left at the bottom, but I can't make out what it is. I also don't know why there's a line on the left - possibly a margin?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50307;image)
The bottom left is a number----4176.
Then a date which I can't fully make out.
Ref. J ?
-
There are other statement forms with PSL 4176 and Form A.58 in the lower left corner. This form has a third line. Presumably, each sheet in the original pad was identically pre-printed.
Edit: I think (based on another statement posted) that the third line is "Revised 1/80".
-
Here is the new information :-
The statement isn't genuine Mike for one reason of fact, in 1985 the statements were typed and typewriters used 'courier' font. The font on the statement you posted isn't courier - it looks more like Ariel Black or Aharoni (which isn't available on the forum to post a sample).
Stanley Brian JONES (Courier)
Stanley Brian JONES (Arial Black)
Sample of Aharoni below.
-
The statement isn't genuine Mike for one reason of fact, in 1985 the statements were typed and typewriters used 'courier' font. The font on the statement you posted isn't courier - it looks more like Ariel Black or Aharoni (which isn't available on the forum to post a sample).
Stanley Brian JONES (Courier)
Stanley Brian JONES (Arial Black)
Sample of Aharoni below.
I disagree there are many examples in the case file in my possession which have been produced using the same, or similar fonts!
-
Well done Caroline, check also a statement from Anne, which was used from the same typewriter at Witham around the same time? The letter spacing is different?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2396.0;attach=11118
Here’s another from the type writer at Witham at the same time?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1209.0;attach=6232
Then Compare the letter spacing
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50307
The Stan Jones composite statement dated the 8th September 1985, is genuine, it may not have been produced by Jones himself, in keeping with the instructions of Mr Adams, that witness statements could be and were tampered with. Stan Jones may have been privy to the creation of the said composite witness statement, or he may not have been, that is irrelevant, all that matters is that whoever produced this composite version of DS Jones witness statement was aware that Jones had seized and taken possession of the sound moderator / silencer from the scene on that first morning of the police investigation. Other evidence supports his presence there at the material time, his work roster confirms that he was on duty on the date his composite witness statement was created, he took possession of other exhibits from the scene that morning, exhibits SBJ/4, SBJ/3 and SBJ/2, it must follow, therefore, that he had also taken possession of an exhibit bearing the mark of SBJ/1..
For those of you who pretend to be blind or deaf and dumb, the sound moderator / silencer is referred to by either description at various sources of the Essex police file, its description is frequently interchangeable depending upon who and when 'it' is being referred to..
DS Jones, acted like a common criminal, he was at the heart of all the evidence which was dishonest in nature, and totally fabricated...
As for who typed out this composite version of DS 'Stan' Jones statement, dated, 8th September 1985, why are you people so sure that only he could have typed it out? How can you people be absolutely sure that it was even typed out by the person responsible for creating it, at Witham police station? Are you people really serious about what you are suggesting?
The statement is genuine, Jones took possession of four exhibits from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation! Press reports confirm that police recovered a sound moderator / silencer from the scene at the beginning of the investigation. Where is the exhibit label referred to as SBJ/1 bearing Stan Jones signature? He certainly took possession of exhibits SBJ/4, SBJ/3 and SBJ/2, from the scene on that first morning, so think long and hard before you start making up lies, claiming that this composite witness statement is not genuine...
-
In the obviously fake letter, Stan is supposed to refer to a Sound Moderator, yet in his court testimony it’s refered to as a Silencer, also the fact Anne and other family members refer to it as silencer? Why the newer version Sound Moderator all of a sudden?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50307
Stan Jones Court Testimony
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=417.0;attach=1264
Peter Eaton statement
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1209.0;attach=6232
Anne’s testimony
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=211.0;attach=492
It is not for me to have to explain why in the composite witness statement made in this version of Stan Jones witness statement, dated, 8th September 1985, that he refers to the sound moderator as opposed to the silencer, its still the same item, and you are simply being pedantic in your approach! Of course Stan Jones returned to the scene that morning from Jeremy's cottage, the COLP investigators confronted him about it in his interview! Of course Stan Jones seized exhibits from the scene at that time, its documented in Essex police property registers, he took possession of in total four different exhibits that morning, SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1...
When COLP challenged Jones about his return to the farmhouse at about 11.30am on the first morning of the police investigation, he told them rather conveniently that he could not remember having returned to the crime scene, but rest assured that he did and he took possession of the four exhibits spoken about!
He definitely seized the sound moderator / silencer, on that occasion, that's for sure, and it had the exhibit mark of SBJ/1...
-
In the obviously fake letter, Stan is supposed to refer to a Sound Moderator, yet in his court testimony it’s refered to as a Silencer, also the fact Anne and other family members refer to it as silencer? Why the newer version Sound Moderator all of a sudden?
Its not so obvious as you are suggesting, its a genuine composite version of a witness statement made in his name!
-
I will now seek to produce police documentation and copies of records proving that DS Jones did in fact return to the scene on that first morning and that he seized four exhibits at that time! I will show that when interviewed by the COLP investigators in 1991, that Jones said he could not remember going back to the scene from Jeremy's cottage, or what he had gone back for? I will seek to establish the existence of the four items of evidential value that he did recover from the scene on that first morning, items which bore the identifying marks of SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1. I will make it my business to try and prove that on the 9th August 1985, DS Jones did take the silencer / sound moderator back to whf and leave it there, and that on that very same date, that both DS Jones, and DCI Jones had spoken to Jeremy about the involvement or possible use of the said sound moderator / silencer being on the gun from the evening before...
-
Lets start at the beginning...
Who was DS 'Stan' Jones?
-
Lets start at the beginning...
Who was DS 'Stan' Jones?
Well, aside from stating the obvious, he was first and foremost a Detective Sergeant with Essex police, stationed at Witham police station! In this particular matter, and from the first day of the police investigation into these deaths, until after the 6th September, 1985, when the nature of the investigation altered course, Stan Jones was under the influence and authority of his boss, none other that DCI 'Taff' Jones. Now, those that knew 'Taff' Jones, would know that he was a rather stubborn person but dedicated in his approach in all cases he investigated! 'Stan' Jones, couldn't get a word in edge-ways when he was working alongside 'Taff'. It would be fair to say that Stan knew when to keep his mouth shut when in the company of the DCI...
All of this changed, however, once the nature of the investigation changed course from 6th September, 1985, onward, with the appointment of DCS 'Mick' Ainsley to head the fresh investigation (Taff Jones, replacement). At this time, and onwards and upwards, Stan Jones, became a changed animal...
-
Well, aside from stating the obvious, he was first and foremost a Detective Sergeant with Essex police, stationed at Witham police station! In this particular matter, and from the first day of the police investigation into these deaths, until after the 6th September, 1985, when the nature of the investigation altered course, Stan Jones was under the influence and authority of his boss, none other that DCI 'Taff' Jones. Now, those that knew 'Taff' Jones, would know that he was a rather stubborn person but dedicated in his approach in all cases he investigated! 'Stan' Jones, couldn't get a word in edge-ways when he was working alongside 'Taff'. It would be fair to say that Stan knew when to keep his mouth shut when in the company of the DCI...
All of this changed, however, once the nature of the investigation changed course from 6th September, 1985, onward, with the appointment of DCS 'Mick' Ainsley to head the fresh investigation (Taff Jones, replacement). At this time, and onwards and upwards, Stan Jones, became a changed animal...
It is important for me to be able to try and paint a true picture of Stans relationship with Taff Jones, throughout the entire period 7th August 1985, until the 6th September 1985...
Arguably the most devastating information I can present to try and highlight this relationship should include the problems which Stan and DC Clark had caused as a result of telling Ann Eaton and the relatives on the first morning of the police investigation, that the bodies of June Bamber, and Sheila Caffell had been found both laid on top of the bed, with the rifle in between both bodies, and that Sheila had a bible on her chest!
In point of fact, the situation which followed, was neither avoidable, nor unavoidable, due to a breakdown in communication between senior officers at the scene, and as it were the departure from the scene by DC 'Mick' Clark, and 'Stan' Jones - one party did not say to the other, for example, 'don't speak to anyone about what you have seen, or what has taken place'!
In these circumstances, Clark and Jones, who had left the scene to go with Jeremy to his cottage to take a witness statement, were unaware that senior officers back at the scene, would be tampering with the bodies of victims, and in general staging the death scene of Sheila Caffell. Likewise, senior officers at the scene who had their own agenda, did not expect Clark and Jones to break their necks in telling Ann Eaton and the other relatives the whereabouts of the bodies of the aforementioned June and Sheila?
-
It may not surprise any of you to learn, that on that first occasion when Stan Jones, and Mick Clark had visited the main bedroom scene, how Jones had thought upon seeing Sheila's body on the bed, how peaceful she looked, as though she was merely sleeping! At least, thaat was Stan Jones memory of thsst sighting on that occasion...
-
It may not surprise any of you to learn, that on that first occasion when Stan Jones, and Mick Clark had visited the main bedroom scene, how Jones had thought upon seeing Sheila's body on the bed, how peaceful she looked, as though she was merely sleeping! At least, thaat was Stan Jones memory of thsst sighting on that occasion...
'Sheila looked so peaceful, as though she was merely, asleep'...
-
Little did Stan Jones, or Mick Clark realise that, in fact, at that stage Sheila was unconscious, but still barely alive!
-
Little did Stan Jones, or Mick Clark realise that, in fact, at that stage Sheila was unconscious, but still barely alive!
As told to Ann Eaton, and the other relatives all gathered at Jeremy's cottage, Sheila had what appeared to be a single bullet wound to her neck when they had seen Sheila's body laid on top of the bed! The second wound had not by that stage, yet been inflicted...
-
For those of you who pretend to be blind or deaf and dumb, the sound moderator / silencer is referred to by either description at various sources of the Essex police file, its description is frequently interchangeable depending upon who and when 'it' is being referred to..
I Agree, But, at a guess I would say the wording Sound Moderator started once it had been to Lab and refered to as such and not used in the earlier statements, then it becomes interchangeable like you said. In court Stan is asked if he took possession of Something, he replies “I took possession of a silencer”. Not Sound Moderator?
Nevertheless, in several composite witness statements, made in connection with the examination of the silencer / sound moderator, t the lab' in Huntingdon, on the 13th August a the 30th August, 1985, the term that is used in these composit witness statement accounts, is that what they were dealing with, on these occasions, was 'A SOUND MODERATOR', thus lending credibility to the same term used in the composite witness statement, made in Stan Jones name, dated, the 8th September 1985! This consistency in all versions of composite witness statements made for a number of differently named witnesses, seems to have been the norm in the mind of whoever created all those composite witness statements..
Fletcher - 30th August 1985 - SOUND MODERATOR
Howard - 13th August 1985 - SOUND MODERATOR
Jones -8th September 1985 - SOUND MODERATOR..
-
There is little doubt in my mind, that this latest discovery, and by this I mean the 8th September 1985, composite witness statement made in Stan Jones name, is a genuine document, created in the same dishonest way that similar documents have been created and used to help convict innocent victims of crimes they have not and did not commit. In other instances these self same tactics have been used to present the prosecutions case in a better light, or to portray the actions of a prosecution witnesses behaviour more favourably, to the detriment of others (as took place in the Hillsboro' tragedy cover up, from April 15th, 1989, onward)...
These unsavoury tactics occurred in Bambers prosecution, and in my own case!
-
In the obviously fake letter, Stan is supposed to refer to a Sound Moderator, yet in his court testimony it’s refered to as a Silencer, also the fact Anne and other family members refer to it as silencer? Why the newer version Sound Moderator all of a sudden?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50307
Stan Jones Court Testimony
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=417.0;attach=1264
Peter Eaton statement
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1209.0;attach=6232
Anne’s testimony
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=211.0;attach=492
well spotted,justice ;D ;)
-
I disagree there are many examples in the case file in my possession which have been produced using the same, or similar fonts!
Those fonts aren't similar at all.
-
In the obviously fake letter, Stan is supposed to refer to a Sound Moderator, yet in his court testimony it’s refered to as a Silencer, also the fact Anne and other family members refer to it as silencer? Why the newer version Sound Moderator all of a sudden?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50307
Stan Jones Court Testimony
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=417.0;attach=1264
Peter Eaton statement
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1209.0;attach=6232
Anne’s testimony
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=211.0;attach=492
I agree - I think we can now move on from this.
-
I agree - I think we can now move on from this.
its only fair to give mike the last word on this ,caroline :)
-
Thats what I said, it got refered to Sound Moderator once it had been to Huntington in my guess, Fletchers statement is dated 13/November And Howard is 3/October I would hazard a guess that even though they are talking about earlier dates, the actual letters are later dates. I find it strange he would write a statement Saying he was handed a Sound Moderator so early in his statement, then refer to this without any prompt in Court as a Silencer?
As do I, Justice, and as I said as part of my initial response to the report. SINCE then, in order to give it greater consideration, I've rewritten it in my own hand. I'm extremely puzzled by this sentence. Having stated that he attended the scene on Aug 7th, he goes on to say "On August 9th along with DCI "Taff" Jones I attended (the scene) I covertly returned it (the sound moderator) to the farmhouse on the authority of DCI "Taff" Jones" Firstly. I'd ask WHY the need to continually put the DCI's forename in inverts? Everyone knew him as Taff? Secondly, he states -totally unnecessarily- that the action of returning the SM was "covert", given that he goes on to say that the action was authorized by a senior officer. The insertion of "covertly" causes me to smell a very large rat.
-
Mike, can you post a close up of the font used in the statement. The letters are too blurry to make out what kind of font it is. I'm sure you would like to know if it;s genuine or fake?
-
Thats what I said, it got refered to Sound Moderator once it had been to Huntington in my guess, Fletchers statement is dated 13/November And Howard is 3/October I would hazard a guess that even though they are talking about earlier dates, the actual letters are later dates. I find it strange he would write a statement Saying he was handed a Sound Moderator so early in his statement, then refer to this without any prompt in Court as a Silencer?
The whole purpose of someone creating a composite witness statement for somebody else, is to suggest that the named witness made such a statement of their own free will, when clearly this is not the case. The fact that whoever created DS Jones 8th September 1985 composite witness statement and used the description of the gun suppressor as being 'A SOUND MODERATOR', rather than a silencer as you are suggesting Stan Jones would have described it, only serves to highlight why these composite witness statements should not be created and used for evidential purposes, since the named witness has no control or very little if any input into the body or contents of the composite statement being created for them by another...
I am more interested in the timing of when this composite witness statement was created, as well as its contents...
Why did someone create this version of that composite witness statement?
Well, its no secret that Stan Jones must have felt like a big weight had been lifted off his shoulders when his boss, DCI 'Taff' Jones was removed from his post as head of the investigation, and replaced by DCS 'Mick' Ainsley. It seems to me that it allowed Stan Jones leeway of sorts to delve into the troublesome aspects of the case. For example, it must have been very frustrating having seen the bodies of the two female victims laid on top of the bed, on that first morning, only for him to find out later on, that June Bambers body had been photographed on the floor by the bedroom door, and with Sheila's body ending up on the floor on the opposite side of the bed, clutching the rifle? It must have been somewhat puzzling to 'Stan' Jones to see that Sheila had got two bullet wounds to her neck by the time her body was eventually photographed, whereas there had only been one bullet wound there when he viewed her body insitu on top of the bed! Then there was all the additional blood which according to the crime scene photographs taken once her body had been moved from the bed to the floor, ran horizontal in fashion across her neck and from the corners of her mouth, and nostril? There was no such blood staining of that nature when he had looked at Sheila laying on top of the bed earlier! And, that large triangular shaped bloodstain on the right hand side of Sheila's nightdress, which wasn't there previously!
It must have been very frustrating for Stan Jones to be on the receiving end of 'Taff' Jones tongue, over disclosing information to Ann Eaton and the other relatives regarding the location and position of June and Sheila's bodies laid on top of the bed, side by side, as witnessed by him prior to attending Jeremy's cottage at 9 Head Street, on that first morning of the police investigation, only to discover later that the two bodies had been displaced from the bed to different parts of the bedroom floor, either side of the bed...
There must have been doubts in Stan Jones mind, about what had happened to Sheila after he left the scene in the company of DC 'Mick' Clark and Jeremy...
'Taff' Jones did not confide in him, and Stan Jones knew better than to ask questions of him...
-
The whole purpose of someone creating a composite witness statement for somebody else, is to suggest that the named witness made such a statement of their own free will, when clearly this is not the case. The fact that whoever created DS Jones 8th September 1985 composite witness statement and used the description of the gun suppressor as being 'A SOUND MODERATOR', rather than a silencer as you are suggesting Stan Jones would have described it, only serves to highlight why these composite witness statements should not be created and used for evidential purposes, since the named witness has no control or very little if any input into the body or contents of the composite statement being created for them by another...
I am more interested in the timing of when this composite witness statement was created, as well as its contents...
Why did someone create this version of that composite witness statement?
Well, its no secret that Stan Jones must have felt like a big weight had been lifted off his shoulders when his boss, DCI 'Taff' Jones was removed from his post as head of the investigation, and replaced by DCS 'Mick' Ainsley. It seems to me that it allowed Stan Jones leeway of sorts to delve into the troublesome aspects of the case. For example, it must have been very frustrating having seen the bodies of the two female victims laid on top of the bed, on that first morning, only for him to find out later on, that June Bambers body had been photographed on the floor by the bedroom door, and with Sheila's body ending up on the floor on the opposite side of the bed, clutching the rifle? It must have been somewhat puzzling to 'Stan' Jones to see that Sheila had got two bullet wounds to her neck by the time her body was eventually photographed, whereas there had only been one bullet wound there when he viewed her body insitu on top of the bed! Then there was all the additional blood which according to the crime scene photographs taken once her body had been moved from the bed to the floor, ran horizontal in fashion across her neck and from the corners of her mouth, and nostril? There was no such blood staining of that nature when he had looked at Sheila laying on top of the bed earlier! And, that large triangular shaped bloodstain on the right hand side of Sheila's nightdress, which wasn't there previously!
It must have been very frustrating for Stan Jones to be on the receiving end of 'Taff' Jones tongue, over disclosing information to Ann Eaton and the other relatives regarding the location and position of June and Sheila's bodies laid on top of the bed, side by side, as witnessed by him prior to attending Jeremy's cottage at 9 Head Street, on that first morning of the police investigation, only to discover later that the two bodies had been displaced from the bed to different parts of the bedroom floor, either side of the bed...
There must have been doubts in Stan Jones mind, about what had happened to Sheila after he left the scene in the company of DC 'Mick' Clark and Jeremy...
'Taff' Jones did not confide in him, and Stan Jones knew better than to ask questions of him...
If you post apicture of the font we might be able to work that out!
-
Mike, can you post a close up of the font used in the statement. The letters are too blurry to make out what kind of font it is. I'm sure you would like to know if it;s genuine or fake?
Of course, but I can assure you all that this document was amongst the material in my possession all the while, I still have a mountain of other stuff to go through and I shall be keeping a keen eye open for anything else that could be of interest...
-
Of course, but I can assure you all that this document was amongst the material in my possession all the while, I still have a mountain of other stuff to go through and I shall be keeping a keen eye open for anything else that could be of interest...
I'm not saying it wasn't but the more it can be linked to the 1980'sthe more likely it's genuine. If it is genuine then it would be wrong to sit on it.
-
The whole purpose of someone creating a composite witness statement for somebody else, is to suggest that the named witness made such a statement of their own free will, when clearly this is not the case. The fact that whoever created DS Jones 8th September 1985 composite witness statement and used the description of the gun suppressor as being 'A SOUND MODERATOR', rather than a silencer as you are suggesting Stan Jones would have described it, only serves to highlight why these composite witness statements should not be created and used for evidential purposes, since the named witness has no control or very little if any input into the body or contents of the composite statement being created for them by another...
I am more interested in the timing of when this composite witness statement was created, as well as its contents...
Why did someone create this version of that composite witness statement?
Well, its no secret that Stan Jones must have felt like a big weight had been lifted off his shoulders when his boss, DCI 'Taff' Jones was removed from his post as head of the investigation, and replaced by DCS 'Mick' Ainsley. It seems to me that it allowed Stan Jones leeway of sorts to delve into the troublesome aspects of the case. For example, it must have been very frustrating having seen the bodies of the two female victims laid on top of the bed, on that first morning, only for him to find out later on, that June Bambers body had been photographed on the floor by the bedroom door, and with Sheila's body ending up on the floor on the opposite side of the bed, clutching the rifle? It must have been somewhat puzzling to 'Stan' Jones to see that Sheila had got two bullet wounds to her neck by the time her body was eventually photographed, whereas there had only been one bullet wound there when he viewed her body insitu on top of the bed! Then there was all the additional blood which according to the crime scene photographs taken once her body had been moved from the bed to the floor, ran horizontal in fashion across her neck and from the corners of her mouth, and nostril? There was no such blood staining of that nature when he had looked at Sheila laying on top of the bed earlier! And, that large triangular shaped bloodstain on the right hand side of Sheila's nightdress, which wasn't there previously!
It must have been very frustrating for Stan Jones to be on the receiving end of 'Taff' Jones tongue, over disclosing information to Ann Eaton and the other relatives regarding the location and position of June and Sheila's bodies laid on top of the bed, side by side, as witnessed by him prior to attending Jeremy's cottage at 9 Head Street, on that first morning of the police investigation, only to discover later that the two bodies had been displaced from the bed to different parts of the bedroom floor, either side of the bed...
There must have been doubts in Stan Jones mind, about what had happened to Sheila after he left the scene in the company of DC 'Mick' Clark and Jeremy...
'Taff' Jones did not confide in him, and Stan Jones knew better than to ask questions of him...
I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the purpose of someone creating this version of Stan Jones composite witness statement in the instant example has got something to do with the relatives still having got possession of a silencer / sound moderator, which by the 11th September 1985, Ann Eaton was handing it (DRB/1) over to DC Oakey, along with the other DRB exhibits, which for one reason or another, had their exhibit references altered and changed variously, and became AE/2, AE/3 and AE/4. then CAE/2, CAE/3 and CAE/4, until eventually DC Oakey presented them using his own identifying mark HGO, etc, etc, etc...
If as we know it to be the case, the investigation altered course from the 6th September 1985, as a result of Robert Boutflour bending Simpsons ear so that a fresh investigation altogether was to take place, which it did (SC/786/85) the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor had to be introduced again, or at least one had to introduced. With this in mind, it would appear that a composite witness statement was created in Stan Jones name, explaining that the said item had in fact been returned into the possession of the family. The contents of Stan Jones composite witness statement, dated, 8th September 1985, served that purpose, and it distanced Stan Jones from the influence of 'Taff' Jones, the DCI...
-
I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the purpose of someone creating this version of Stan Jones composite witness statement in the instant example has got something to do with the relatives still having got possession of a silencer / sound moderator, which by the 11th September 1985, Ann Eaton was handing it (DRB/1) over to DC Oakey, along with the other DRB exhibits, which for one reason or another, had their exhibit references altered and changed variously, and became AE/2, AE/3 and AE/4. then CAE/2, CAE/3 and CAE/4, until eventually DC Oakey presented them using his own identifying mark HGO, etc, etc, etc...
If as we know it to be the case, the investigation altered course from the 6th September 1985, as a result of Robert Boutflour bending Simpsons ear so that a fresh investigation altogether was to take place, which it did (SC/786/85) the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor had to be introduced again, or at least one had to introduced. With this in mind, it would appear that a composite witness statement was created in Stan Jones name, explaining that the said item had in fact been returned into the possession of the family. The contents of Stan Jones composite witness statement, dated, 8th September 1985, served that purpose, and it distanced Stan Jones from the influence of 'Taff' Jones, the DCI...
"The purpose of someone creating this version of Stan Jones' composite witness statement..............." those words suggest not only that you believe it to be fake, but you also appear to say -by dint of the fact that you refer to it as being "composite"- that none of it was ever original to start with.
-
I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the purpose of someone creating this version of Stan Jones composite witness statement in the instant example has got something to do with the relatives still having got possession of a silencer / sound moderator, which by the 11th September 1985, Ann Eaton was handing it (DRB/1) over to DC Oakey, along with the other DRB exhibits, which for one reason or another, had their exhibit references altered and changed variously, and became AE/2, AE/3 and AE/4. then CAE/2, CAE/3 and CAE/4, until eventually DC Oakey presented them using his own identifying mark HGO, etc, etc, etc...
If as we know it to be the case, the investigation altered course from the 6th September 1985, as a result of Robert Boutflour bending Simpsons ear so that a fresh investigation altogether was to take place, which it did (SC/786/85) the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor had to be introduced again, or at least one had to introduced. With this in mind, it would appear that a composite witness statement was created in Stan Jones name, explaining that the said item had in fact been returned into the possession of the family. The contents of Stan Jones composite witness statement, dated, 8th September 1985, served that purpose, and it distanced Stan Jones from the influence of 'Taff' Jones, the DCI...
As far as I am concerned, everything is starting to fall into place regarding 'the introduction of the second silencer / sound moderator/ suppressor' (DRB/1), which the relatives still had possession of by the 11th September 1985. Essex police retained possession of DRB/1 until the 20th September 1985, when along with the other DRB exhibits 'under the disguise of different exhibit references', were sent to Huntingdon Lab' to be checked for blood and fibers. Albeit, much too late for the lab' experts to be able to say that the blood group evidence (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) could have been found inside it (DRB/1) because the blood was found inside the other silencer (DB/1) that had been at the lab' ever since the 30th August 1985' as part of the other investigation (SC/688/85)...
The prosecutions case at the time of Jeremy Bambers trial at Chelmsford Crown Court in October 1986, was based on deception of the worst kind - the 'blood group evidence' attributed to Sheila Caffell, on the footing that it was 'unique and exclusive' to her, was not found inside the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor bearing the identifying mark of DRB/1, it couldn't have been because this silencer / sound moderator / suppressor did not get sent along to the lab' until after the blood had been found in the other one (DB/1). The Lab' records and documentation confirm what I am saying to be the truth, there was never any blood at all inside DRB/1, only red paint upon it from the red painted kitchen aga!
That's what all this business is about, and I'm talking about the composite witness statement made in Stan Jones name, dated, the 8th September 1985, its about trying to marry up two different silencers / sound moderators / suppressors, as the same one! You soon realise that things don't match or marry up in the records concerning the date blood was found inside the one at the lab' (DB/1) on the 12th September 1985, which the ballistic expert, Fletcher dismantled on that date, and found the all important flake trapped between baffle plates, therein. In turn, Fletcher handed DB/1 to the blood expert, John Hayward who analysed the blood which produced the blood group evidence that was used to help convict Jeremy Bamber as the killer, but that blood was not found inside DRB/1 which did not arrive at the lab' until on or after the 20th September 1985...
-
"The purpose of someone creating this version of Stan Jones' composite witness statement..............." those words suggest not only that you believe it to be fake, but you also appear to say -by dint of the fact that you refer to it as being "composite"- that none of it was ever original to start with.
But that is the whole point that I am saying, these composite witness statements that keep getting made by unknown faceless cops, or force solicitors, or the CPS, are statements which are not being made voluntarily, or in many cases with the knowledge and consent of the named witness, these dodgy witness statements are being attributed against someones name, and in the vast majority of cases the named witness does not know anything at all about it, these dodgy witness statements are being misused to help to convict innocent people of crimes they shouldn't have even been prosecuted for, because without the contents of these fabricated composite statements there would be no evidence in the first instance, its completely barmy, the system is corrupted by these measures and means. Someone has got to make a stand against this form of dishonesty and corruption...
-
Laying my hands on this composite witness statement, dated, 8th September, 1985, made in Stan Jones name, has caused me to realise the bigger picture behind the decision to prosecute Jeremy Bamber as the killer by starting afresh with a new investigation (SC/786/85) from 6th September 1985! One silencer / sound moderator / suppressor (DB/1) went to the lab' as part of the first investigation (SC/688/85), the second one (DRB/1) went to the lab' as part of the new investigation (SC/786/85). There was blood in the first one (DB/1) and there was red paint from the kitchen aga surround on the second one (DRB/1). By the time the matter came to trial, cops, relatives and the lab' had doctored all the paperwork to give a false impression that there had only been one silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, inside which the blood group evidence and upon it the paint evidence was attributed. This culminated in DRB/1 being the vehicle inside and upon which introduced the key scientific evidence, Court exhibit No.9
-
But that is the whole point that I am saying, these composite witness statements that keep getting made by unknown faceless cops, or force solicitors, or the CPS, are statements which are not being made voluntarily, or in many cases with the knowledge and consent of the named witness, these dodgy witness statements are being attributed against someones name, and in the vast majority of cases the named witness does not know anything at all about it, these dodgy witness statements are being misused to help to convict innocent people of crimes they shouldn't have even been prosecuted for, because without the contents of these fabricated composite statements there would be no evidence in the first instance, its completely barmy, the system is corrupted by these measures and means. Someone has got to make a stand against this form of dishonesty and corruption...
Oh RIGHT!! So there never was a (insert whichever name you want) taken from WHF on Aug 7th and "covertly" returned there on Aug 9th.
-
Oh RIGHT!! So there never was a (insert whichever name you want) taken from WHF on Aug 7th and "covertly" returned there on Aug 9th.
Of course there was, 'Stan' Jones seized it, took it back to Witham police station later on that same date (7th August 1985) and gave it to 'Taff' Jones who placed it on his desk, apparently he used it as a paperweight, until PC Whiddon came along picked it up, and took it to see if it would fit onto the end of the rifles barrel. All of this happened between 7th and 9th August 1985, because by the time Jones, Jones and Ann Eaton met up at the farmhouse, 'Stan' took the opportunity to place it back into the custody of the family (nothing could be any clearer). Essex police certainly had possession of one of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors from 7th August 1985 until late on the evening of the 9th August 1985, the police documentation confirms this as being true!
-
Well spotted Jane, in other words it’s Bollony Ha Ha Nearly used Caroline’s Favourite then ;D
:)) :)) :))
-
Of course there was, 'Stan' Jones seized it, took it back to Witham police station later on that same date (7th August 1985) and gave it to 'Taff' Jones who placed it on his desk, apparently he used it as a paperweight, until PC Whiddon came along picked it up, and took it to see if it would fit onto the end of the rifles barrel. All of this happened between 7th and 9th August 1985, because by the time Jones, Jones and Ann Eaton met up at the farmhouse, 'Stan' took the opportunity to place it back into the custody of the family (nothing could be any clearer). Essex police certainly had possession of one of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors from 7th August 1985 until late on the evening of the 9th August 1985, the police documentation confirms this as being true!
The man himself, PC Whiddon, in possession of the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor he took from 'Taff' Jones office desktop at Witham police station...
-
Somebody is going to have to be held accountable for stitching Jeremy Bamber up with this dodgy evidence - there must have been several different people in on the plot to deceive the court into convicting an innocent man by the introduction of DRB/1 (sent to Lab' on the 20th September 1985)...
-
Somebody is going to have to be held accountable for stitching Jeremy Bamber up with this dodgy evidence - there must have been several different people in on the plot to deceive the court into convicting an innocent man by the introduction of DRB/1 (sent to Lab' on the 20th September 1985)...
Please note below that any reference to a silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, as DB/1, that alternative exhibit references apply, including, SBJ/1 and SJ/1..
I think I'll make a list of all the potential contributors:-
(01) - David Robert Boutflour (yes) found both silencers / sound moderators / suppressors
(02) - Ann Eaton (yes) was present when one (DB/1) was found, and handed over second one (DRB/1)
(03) - Peter Eaton (yes) handed over first one (DB/1) to 'Stan' Jones
(04) - Robert Woodwis Boutflour (yes) has same blood group as the blood found in first one (DB/1)
(05) - DS 'Stan' Jones (yes) took possession of one (DB/1) at scene on first morning, later returned it
(06) - DI 'Ron' Cook (yes) sent the first one (DB/1) to lab' on 30th August 1985
(07) - DS Davidson (yes) fingerprinted second one (DRB/1) on 14th September 1985
(08) - DC Hammersley (yes) must have known that 'Stan' Jones recovered first one (DB/1) on first day
(09) - PC 'David' Bird (yes) must have known that 'Stan' Jones recovered first one (DB/1) on first day
(10) - DS Eastwood (yes) fingerprinted second one (DRB/1) on 14th September 1985
(11) - DC Oakey (yes) received second one (DRB/1) from Ann Eaton on 11th September 1985
(12) - PI Montgomery (?)
(13) - PS Woodcock (?)
(14) - DCI 'Taff' Jones (yes) kept first one (DB/1) on his office desk, between 7th and 9th August 1985
(15) - CI 'Terry' Gibbons (yes)
(16) - DCI 'George' Harris (yes)
(17) - PI 'Bob' Miller (yes)
(18) - ACC 'Peter' Simpson
(19) - PC Carter (yes) conveyed first one (DB/1) and second one (DRB/1) to Lab' on two separate dates
(20) - PC Whiddon (yes) took possession of first one (DB/1) from 'Taff' Jones desk at Witham
(21) - Malcolm Fletcher (yes) found flake of blood in first one (DB/1)
(22) - Brian Elliot (yes) Examined second one (DRB/1) and found paint from kitchen aga ingrained
(23) - John Hayward (yes) obtained results from blood taken from first one (DB/1)
(24) - Glynis Howard (yes) examined first one (DB/1) on 13th August 1985
-
Well, at least now we have a clearer picture of how, by whom, and when the kitchen aga surround got scratched?
The relatives had possession and control of DRB/1 all of the time from the first morning of the shootings, all the way up to the 11th September 1985, and they had access to whf from 9th August 1985, onward. Me thinks that relatives deliberately contaminated DRB/1 with the red paint from the kitchen aga, whilst Jeremy was under arrest and in custody and was being interviewed after the first week in September. If they did, they would have needed to scratch the aga surround prior to Ann Eaton handing DRB/1 to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985..
-
Well, at least now we have a clearer picture of how, by whom, and when the kitchen aga surround got scratched?
The relatives had possession and control of DRB/1 all of the time from the first morning of the shootings, all the way up to the 11th September 1985, and they had access to whf from 9th August 1985, onward. Me thinks that relatives deliberately contaminated DRB/1 with the red paint from the kitchen aga, whilst Jeremy was under arrest and in custody and was being interviewed after the first week in September. If they did, they would have needed to scratch the aga surround prior to Ann Eaton handing DRB/1 to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985..
does that means they must also be responsible for the blood in the silencer
-
. . . it looks more like Ariel Black or Aharoni.
It's not Arial Black or Aharoni. A much clearer image would be needed to identify it.
-
that means they must also be responsible for the blood in the silencer
Sami, I don't truthfully know that for certain, at best it would be a very strong suspicion, since, maybe blood did get inside one of the silencers / sound moderators / suppressors (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) during the shootings, similarly, or alternatively a dried flake of blood taken from the heavily blood contaminated panties belonging to Sheila Caffell, who we know was menstruating at the time of her death, was deliberately inserted into SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, before Peter Eaton handed 'it' over to 'Stan' Jones on evening of 12th August 1985? There is also a possibility that it was Robert Boutflours own blood which the relatives could have contaminated SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 with. Finally, there is yet another possible explanation relating to the blood group evidence supposedly found inside SBJ/1, SJ/1 and DB/1 at the lab' on the 12th September 1985 when the ballistic expert, Fletcher, claims to have dismantled SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and discovered 'it' trapped between baffle plates, and that is this - Maybe, just maybe, Fletcher did not dismantle SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 on that date, maybe he received possession of the flake from Essex police, that David Boutflour had scraped off the outside of SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 or DRB/1 and because of the confusion involving two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors, a deliberate lie was invented suggesting that Fletcher had found it inside SBJ/1, SJ?1, DB/1 when he hadn't, and maybe in the cold light of day this was why it was later attributed to DRB/1 (because nobody could be sure which of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors David Boutflour had scraped the flake of dried blood from)?
-
Sami, I don't truthfully know that for certain, at best it would be a very strong suspicion, since, maybe blood did get inside one of the silencers / sound moderators / suppressors (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) during the shootings, similarly, or alternatively a dried flake of blood taken from the heavily blood contaminated panties belonging to Sheila Caffell, who we know was menstruating at the time of her death, was deliberately inserted into SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, before Peter Eaton handed 'it' over to 'Stan' Jones on evening of 12th August 1985? There is also a possibility that it was Robert Boutflours own blood which the relatives could have contaminated SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 with. Finally, there is yet another possible explanation relating to the blood group evidence supposedly found inside SBJ/1, SJ/1 and DB/1 at the lab' on the 12th September 1985 when the ballistic expert, Fletcher, claims to have dismantled SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and discovered 'it' trapped between baffle plates, and that is this - Maybe, just maybe, Fletcher did not dismantle SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 on that date, maybe he received possession of the flake from Essex police, that David Boutflour had scraped off the outside of SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 or DRB/1 and because of the confusion involving two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors, a deliberate lie was invented suggesting that Fletcher had found it inside SBJ/1, SJ?1, DB/1 when he hadn't, and maybe in the cold light of day this was why it was later attributed to DRB/1 (because nobody could be sure which of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors David Boutflour had scraped the flake of dried blood from)?
Assuming that the existence of two identically looking silencers / sound moderators / suppressors (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and or DRB/1) which caused all the mischief I am now talking about, it begs the question does it not, that if there were two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors, as described, why would there have only been one gun used in the shootings?
Was there two guns used in the shootings?
Who owned the first and the second silencers / sound moderators / suppressors?
-
Sami, I don't truthfully know that for certain, at best it would be a very strong suspicion, since, maybe blood did get inside one of the silencers / sound moderators / suppressors (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) during the shootings, similarly, or alternatively a dried flake of blood taken from the heavily blood contaminated panties belonging to Sheila Caffell, who we know was menstruating at the time of her death, was deliberately inserted into SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, before Peter Eaton handed 'it' over to 'Stan' Jones on evening of 12th August 1985? There is also a possibility that it was Robert Boutflours own blood which the relatives could have contaminated SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 with. Finally, there is yet another possible explanation relating to the blood group evidence supposedly found inside SBJ/1, SJ/1 and DB/1 at the lab' on the 12th September 1985 when the ballistic expert, Fletcher, claims to have dismantled SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and discovered 'it' trapped between baffle plates, and that is this - Maybe, just maybe, Fletcher did not dismantle SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 on that date, maybe he received possession of the flake from Essex police, that David Boutflour had scraped off the outside of SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 or DRB/1 and because of the confusion involving two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors, a deliberate lie was invented suggesting that Fletcher had found it inside SBJ/1, SJ?1, DB/1 when he hadn't, and maybe in the cold light of day this was why it was later attributed to DRB/1 (because nobody could be sure which of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors David Boutflour had scraped the flake of dried blood from)?
its still in interesting thought mike,ive never really understood all that went on with the blood stained panties in the bucket
-
Assuming that the existence of two identically looking silencers / sound moderators / suppressors (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and or DRB/1) which caused all the mischief I am now talking about, it begs the question does it not, that if there were two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors, as described, why would there have only been one gun used in the shootings?
Was there two guns used in the shootings?
Who owned the first and the second silencers / sound moderators / suppressors?
We know that Neville Bamber only purchased one silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, which he purchased in November 1984. This was bought along with the .22 anshuzzt rifle from Radcliffes the gun dealers, in the High Street, at Colchester. The only other silencer / sound moderator / suppressor known to have been kept at the farmhouse was an identically looking Parker Hale belonging to Anthony Pargeter which was normally fixed onto the end of his .22 Bruno bolt action rifle which he kept at whf in a downstairs toilet..
-
We know that Neville Bamber only purchased one silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, which he purchased in November 1984. This was bought along with the .22 anshuzzt rifle from Radcliffes the gun dealers, in the High Street, at Colchester. The only other silencer / sound moderator / suppressor known to have been kept at the farmhouse was an identically looking Parker Hale belonging to Anthony Pargeter which was normally fixed onto the end of his .22 Bruno bolt action rifle which he kept at whf in a downstairs toilet..
But, alas...
We still don't yet know which of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors, belonged with the Bamber owned anshuzt rifle (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, or DRB/1), and which one (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, or DRB/1) or vice versa, belonged to the Pargeter owned Bruno bolt action weapon? What we do know, however, is that although both of these Parker Hales looked identical on the outside, there may have been differences internally with the number of baffle plates in each of them. The Pargeter Parker Hale was purchased in 1980 and according to design features would have had 17 internalised baffle plates..
Here, look at this:-
According to design specifications, the Bamber Parker Hale may only have had 14 internalised baffle plates, and not 17 like the Pargeter owned one...
-
But, alas...
We still don't yet know which of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors, belonged with the Bamber owned anshuzt rifle (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, or DRB/1), and which one (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1, or DRB/1) or vice versa, belonged to the Pargeter owned Bruno bolt action weapon? What we do know, however, is that although both of these Parker Hales looked identical on the outside, there may have been differences internally with the number of baffle plates in each of them. The Pargeter Parker Hale was purchased in 1980 and according to design features would have had 17 internalised baffle plates..
Here, look at this:-
According to design specifications, the Bamber Parker Hale may only have had 14 internalised baffle plates, and not 17 like the Pargeter owned one...
Maybe I am being overly suspicious, but it upsets me to think that Essex police and its expert witnesses at the Lab' and elsewhere refuse to say how many internalised baffle plates both of these silencers / sound moderators / suppressors have got? We know one of them had exactly 17 baffles, but if the other one has only got 14 baffles, then the problem could be resolved because the 17 baffled Parker Hale might belong to the Pargeter gun, and the 14 baffled Parker Hale would belong to the Bamber owned gun - however, its still possible that when Neville Bamber purchased his Parker Hale on the last day of November 1984, that it was from old stock, and therefore, it too might have had 17 internalised baffles, and not the new model which only had 14. But I was assured by Jeremy on many occasions that Neville ordered the latest model when he placed his order with Radcliffes on the 24th November 1984, and that they had to wait for a week before they finally got their hands on the gun, the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, and 500 rounds of .22 ammunition..
I have a sneaky feeling that one of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors at the heart of this complex case, only had 14 internalised baffle plates, and if so that must be the Bamber owned Parker Hale...
-
Maybe I am being overly suspicious, but it upsets me to think that Essex police and its expert witnesses at the Lab' and elsewhere refuse to say how many internalised baffle plates both of these silencers / sound moderators / suppressors have got? We know one of them had exactly 17 baffles, but if the other one has only got 14 baffles, then the problem could be resolved because the 17 baffled Parker Hale might belong to the Pargeter gun, and the 14 baffled Parker Hale would belong to the Bamber owned gun - however, its still possible that when Neville Bamber purchased his Parker Hale on the last day of November 1984, that it was from old stock, and therefore, it too might have had 17 internalised baffles, and not the new model which only had 14. But I was assured by Jeremy on many occasions that Neville ordered the latest model when he placed his order with Radcliffes on the 24th November 1984, and that they had to wait for a week before they finally got their hands on the gun, the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, and 500 rounds of .22 ammunition..
I have a sneaky feeling that one of the two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors at the heart of this complex case, only had 14 internalised baffle plates, and if so that must be the Bamber owned Parker Hale...
The existence of these two differently designed Parker Hales at the heart of the police investigation, have the potential to open up a can of worms! Since, on the footing that blood was found inside a 17 baffle Parker Hale, and red paint ingrained into the other and it only had 14 baffle plates, the finger of suspicion must surely focus away from Jeremy Bamber as the killer, and bring another person into the fray - it would be dependant upon who owns the other Parker Hale?
-
It's not Arial Black or Aharoni. A much clearer image would be needed to identify it.
I have asked for a clearer image but if it's not clear enough to identify, you can't rule out those previously mentioned.
It seems as though the subject has changed?
-
I have asked for a clearer image but if it's not clear enough to identify, you can't rule out those previously mentioned.
It seems as though the subject has changed?
Yes, we seem to have come rather a long way from the " disturbing composite witness statement" which allegedly proves that "no one concealed the gun in the gun cupboard after Sheila died........" but was allegedly "a red herrin' designed to help convict Jeremy...................."
-
Mike, can you post a close up of the font used in the statement. The letters are too blurry to make out what kind of font it is. I'm sure you would like to know if it;s genuine or fake?
-
The existence of these two differently designed Parker Hales at the heart of the police investigation, have the potential to open up a can of worms! Since, on the footing that blood was found inside a 17 baffle Parker Hale, and red paint ingrained into the other and it only had 14 baffle plates, the finger of suspicion must surely focus away from Jeremy Bamber as the killer, and bring another person into the fray - it would be dependant upon who owns the other Parker Hale?
This composite witness statement, dated, 8th September 1985, made in 'Stan' Jones name, has got something with the way cops tried to get rid of a second silencer / sound moderator / suppressor they had in their possession! Either that, or they were using 'Stan' Jones to pave the way for a switch of one silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, for another soon afterwards, in the knowledge that the one they were trying to get rid of through the introduction of this composite witness statement made in 'Stan' Jones name, was currently as of the date it was created (8th September 1985) lodged with the Lab' at Huntingdon, where it (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) had been since the 30th August 1985!
-
The statement isn't genuine Mike for one reason of fact, in 1985 the statements were typed and typewriters used 'courier' font. The font on the statement you posted isn't courier - it looks more like Ariel Black or Aharoni (which isn't available on the forum to post a sample).
Stanley Brian JONES (Courier)
Stanley Brian JONES (Arial Black)
Sample of Aharoni below.
So is this statement by Vanezis fake also?
-
This composite witness statement, dated, 8th September 1985, made in 'Stan' Jones name, has got something with the way cops tried to get rid of a second silencer / sound moderator / suppressor they had in their possession! Either that, or they were using 'Stan' Jones to pave the way for a switch of one silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, for another soon afterwards, in the knowledge that the one they were trying to get rid of through the introduction of this composite witness statement made in 'Stan' Jones name, was currently as of the date it was created (8th September 1985) lodged with the Lab' at Huntingdon, where it (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) had been since the 30th August 1985!
Perhaps the cops introduced this composite witness statement because they knew that the relatives had got a second silencer / sound moderator/ suppressor (DRB/1) they were going to be handing over to police, which in fact came to fruition on the 11th September 1985, when Ann Eaton gave DC Oakey that second one (DRB/1)?
-
Perhaps the cops introduced this composite witness statement because they knew that the relatives had got a second silencer / sound moderator/ suppressor (DRB/1) they were going to be handing over to police, which in fact came to fruition on the 11th September 1985, when Ann Eaton gave DC Oakey that second one (DRB/1)?
We only found out about the find of the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) because material from the original investigation (SC/688/85) was released to Jeremy by mistake. Perhaps whoever created the composite witness statement never anticipated that anyone would ever get to know about what had been going on involving the first silencer, how cops took possession of it, gave it back, and were handed it back and not really knowing what to do with it once they got it back because the cops were content to keep dealing with the case on the footing that what they had been dealing with was four murders and a suicide?
Some bright spark must have thought that by introducing the contents of the Jones Composite witness statement in question, that it would serve the purpose and allow for the introduction of a second silencer / sound moderator / suppressor (DRB/1) that cops anticipated they might be receiving from the relatives sooner, rather than later...
The only problem with the way cops and relatives went about trying to carry off the deception was that the lab' ended up with two Parker Hales which the relatives had handed to police a month or so apart - somebody dropped a huge clanger, since between the cops and the lab' as of the 11th September 1985, there existed two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1), and only one proposed murder weapon, the .22 semi-automatic Anshuzt rifle owned by Neville Bamber which was not capable of having two Parker Hales attached to the end of its barrel at one and the same time...
-
So is this statement by Vanezis fake also?
is this one, also?
Please note, that this statement is not an obvious composite one because PC Birds signature appears on it!
-
We only found out about the find of the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) because material from the original investigation (SC/688/85) was released to Jeremy by mistake. Perhaps whoever created the composite witness statement never anticipated that anyone would ever get to know about what had been going on involving the first silencer, how cops took possession of it, gave it back, and were handed it back and not really knowing what to do with it once they got it back because the cops were content to keep dealing with the case on the footing that what they had been dealing with was four murders and a suicide?
Some bright spark must have thought that by introducing the contents of the Jones Composite witness statement in question, that it would serve the purpose and allow for the introduction of a second silencer / sound moderator / suppressor (DRB/1) that cops anticipated they might be receiving from the relatives sooner, rather than later...
The only problem with the way cops and relatives went about trying to carry off the deception was that the lab' ended up with two Parker Hales which the relatives had handed to police a month or so apart - somebody dropped a huge clanger, since between the cops and the lab' as of the 11th September 1985, there existed two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1), and only one proposed murder weapon, the .22 semi-automatic Anshuzt rifle owned by Neville Bamber which was not capable of having two Parker Hales attached to the end of its barrel at one and the same time...
I have long since been of the opinion that there had been two loaded weapons used in the shootings and now that there is confirmation that cops had two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1) at their disposal to help them with their investigations into these deaths, it looks suspiciously like two different weapons had been used to fire almost all (but one) the bullets that wounded, maimed and killed victims. What if it turns out, that one of these two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors belonged to the Eatons or the Boutflours? Now, that would be a turn up for the books!!
This cannot easily be dismissed because of the determination of the relatives to get their hands on Neville and June Bambers estates, and besides, Peter Eaton is a registered firearms dealer who knows a lot about guns, accessories and ammunitions...
-
is this one, also?
Please note, that this statement is not an obvious composite one because PC Birds signature appears on it!
And this two? Signature also! ;D
-
I have long since been of the opinion that there had been two loaded weapons used in the shootings and now that there is confirmation that cops had two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1) at their disposal to help them with their investigations into these deaths, it looks suspiciously like two different weapons had been used to fire almost all (but one) the bullets that wounded, maimed and killed victims. What if it turns out, that one of these two silencers / sound moderators / suppressors belonged to the Eatons or the Boutflours? Now, that would be a turn up for the books!!
This cannot easily be dismissed because of the determination of the relatives to get their hands on Neville and June Bambers estates, and besides, Peter Eaton is a registered firearms dealer who knows a lot about guns, accessories and ammunitions...
In fact, has anyone ever given it the time of day to wonder how somebody like Jeremy Bamber being prepared to shoot dead three generations of his own immediate family and expecting to get away with trying to pin the blame on his deranged sister, when all of his relatives were shooting enthusiasts, expert marksmen, and even a registered firearms dealer? Wouldn't it have dawned on Jeremy's mind that his relatives were no ordinary mugs when it came to firearms, how to handle and load ammunition into them, how to fire them, and use accessories with the guns, clean and maintain them?
-
In fact, has anyone ever given it the time of day to wonder how somebody like Jeremy Bamber being prepared to shoot dead three generations of his own immediate family and expecting to get away with trying to pin the blame on his deranged sister, when all of his relatives were shooting enthusiasts, expert marksmen, and even a registered firearms dealer? Wouldn't it have dawned on Jeremy's mind that his relatives were no ordinary mugs when it came to firearms, how to handle and load ammunition into them, how to fire them, and use accessories with the guns, clean and maintain them?
Wouldn't his relatives apparent expertise in firearm and shooting matters not have unhinged him?
-
Wouldn't his relatives apparent expertise in firearm and shooting matters not have unhinged him?
How could anyone expect to get away with shooting dead five members of his own family and then try to pin what he was responsible for, on his deranged sister, with his relatives on the war path looking for somebody to blame so that they could keep all the estate booty all to themselves?
-
In fact, has anyone ever given it the time of day to wonder how somebody like Jeremy Bamber being prepared to shoot dead three generations of his own immediate family and expecting to get away with trying to pin the blame on his deranged sister, when all of his relatives were shooting enthusiasts, expert marksmen, and even a registered firearms dealer? Wouldn't it have dawned on Jeremy's mind that his relatives were no ordinary mugs when it came to firearms, how to handle and load ammunition into them, how to fire them, and use accessories with the guns, clean and maintain them?
Well, first and foremost, has any crime EVER been committed where the perp believes they'll get caught? I don't think Jeremy gave a thought to what the relatives might do. All he thought was required of him was to satisfy the police, and this he did.................until the unexpected happened -it's called the law of unintended consequences- and the relatives realized that Sheila wasn't the competent shot Jeremy claimed her to have been.
-
Wouldn't his relatives apparent expertise in firearm and shooting matters not have unhinged him?
Why? He probably thought he was more clever than they.
-
How could anyone expect to get away with shooting dead five members of his own family and then try to pin what he was responsible for, on his deranged sister, with his relatives on the war path looking for somebody to blame so that they could keep all the estate booty all to themselves?
The relatives weren't on the war path until AFTER he'd shot the family. It was a bit late then to reverse it.
-
Wouldn't somebody like Jeremy have known that with his gun ho relatives at hand there would be no easy ride to a small fortune without a fight away from the farmhouse?
How did Jeremy expect to be able to prove the order with which he had killed everybody if he be the murderer? Since, if it were possible for the police to establish an order with which the five victims had died, his parents estates might not have necessarily been available solely to him, or at all? One would imagine that if one was contemplating killing all of your family intent on getting your hands on the booty, you might have to kill everyone in such a way that it becomes obvious to every cat and his dog, or every cop and his pig, that the victims had died in a particular order! Well, there was no evidence that any thought had gone into any of this had Jeremy been the killer, or he be the killer! Seems like these shootings were random and spontaneous in execution, the work of a frenzied and deranged person, someone who had lost their mind to the devil, and cared little for the consequences, had no incentive to become rich as a result of committing such heinous crimes, someone who was not frightened to die...
-
Wouldn't somebody like Jeremy have known that with his gun ho relatives at hand there would be no easy ride to a small fortune without a fight away from the farmhouse?
How did Jeremy expect to be able to prove the order with which he had killed everybody if he be the murderer? Since, if it were possible for the police to establish an order with which the five victims had died, his parents estates might not have necessarily been available solely to him, or at all? One would imagine that if one was contemplating killing all of your family intent on getting your hands on the booty, you might have to kill everyone in such a way that it becomes obvious to every cat and his dog, or every cop and his pig, that the victims had died in a particular order! Well, there was no evidence that any thought had gone into any of this had Jeremy been the killer, or he be the killer! Seems like these shootings were random and spontaneous in execution, the work of a frenzied and deranged person, someone who had lost their mind to the devil, and cared little for the consequences, had no incentive to become rich as a result of committing such heinous crimes, someone who was not frightened to die...
Jeremy Bamber was not this deranged killer...
-
Jeremy Bamber was not this deranged killer...
I agree Mike.
-
Jeremy Bamber was not this deranged killer...
No one has said he WAS deranged. On the contrary, He was calculating and cold in the way he went about it.
-
It would not surprise me to find out eventually, that the relatives found out that 'Stan' Jones had seized the very same silencer / sound moderator / suppressor (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) from the scene on the first day of the police investigation, and that he had returned it back to the farmhouse at the time both he and 'Taff' Jones attended whf to hand the keys to the premises over and give Ann Eaton a walking tour of duty through the various parts of the farmhouse where things had happened! Maybe, just maybe, this was part of what Robert Boutflour went to see Peter Simpson about at police Headquarters on the 6th September 1985...
Cops had the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) at the start but they put it back at the farmhouse in time for David Boutflour to find it again on the following day (10th August 1985) and give it back to the police, with the police having acted as though they hadn't known about it?
Well, they did know about 'it' (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1), and on the afternoon of the 9th August 1985, both DS Jones and DCI Jones questioned Jeremy about the possible use and whereabouts the silencer had been when he had used the gun intending to shoot at rabbits near the barns on the eve' of the tragedy...
-
I do not believe DS Stan Jones would have referred to DCI Jones by his nickname "Taff" in a witness statement.
-
No one has said he WAS deranged. On the contrary, He was calculating and cold in the way he went about it.
I would say that whoever shot and killed the parents did so in a deranged manner, spontaneous violence, that these two deaths were not carried out in a cold caalculating manner at all. The person with the loaded gun was literally going berserk when that person shot seven bullets into June Bambers body, and as many as eight bullets into Neville Bambers body. Both parents were covered in blood, their deaths were not quick and clinical, they died an agonisingly horrible death as a result of being attacked in a frenzied manner, in my opinion...
In the case of the two young children, whoever shot and killed them appears to have gone out of their way to make sure they felt nothing, and knew nothing...
The killer whoever that person was adopted a different approach when shooting and killing the children, than was adopted when the parents were shot and killed! I do not believe that a psychopath could differentiate such an approach when killing multiple victims, in one session! I should imagine its all out rage and destructive violence being directed at everything and everyone, man, woman, or child...
Something is nagging at me, its as though whoever shot and killed the two little children, did so with a degree of fondness and love in their heart, the shooter did not want the little ones to suffer, as compared to the hatred exercised when the shooter turned the gun on the parents...
That person was Sheila Caffell, not Jeremy Bamber, I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind about that...
Sheila did not kill herself, as the prosecutions case alleged, she was killed, indeed, shot and killed on two separate occasions by a third party!
-
No one has said he WAS deranged. On the contrary, He was calculating and cold in the way he went about it.
Cold and calculating isn't something that JB has shown in 32 years. On the contrary,he's assisted in the writing of Braille to enable the blind to read and has also taught English and the English language to those unfortunates who were illiterate.
Not the sort of human kindness you'd find in one who was a cold,calculating murderer.
-
I would say that whoever shot and killed the parents did so in a deranged manner, spontaneous violence, that these two deaths were not carried out in a cold caalculating manner at all. The person with the loaded gun was literally going berserk when that person shot seven bullets into June Bambers body, and as many as eight bullets into Neville Bambers body. Both parents were covered in blood, their deaths were not quick and clinical, they died an agonisingly horrible death as a result of being attacked in a frenzied manner, in my opinion...
In the case of the two young children, whoever shot and killed them appears to have gone out of their way to make sure they felt nothing, and knew nothing...
The killer whoever that person was adopted a different approach when shooting and killing the children, than was adopted when the parents were shot and killed! I do not believe that a psychopath could differentiate such an approach when killing multiple victims, in one session! I should imagine its all out rage and destructive violence being directed at everything and everyone, man, woman, or child...
Something is nagging at me, its as though whoever shot and killed the two little children, did so with a degree of fondness and love in their heart, the shooter did not want the little ones to suffer, as compared to the hatred exercised when the shooter turned the gun on the parents...
That person was Sheila Caffell, not Jeremy Bamber, I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind about that...
Sheila did not kill herself, as the prosecutions case alleged, she was killed, indeed, shot and killed on two separate occasions by a third party!
I'll concur that he was angry. I can empathize with that anger. We know what they looked like in death -I'm certain Dr Craig was experienced enough to realize that June didn't lose all that blood from a single bullet. They say revenge is a dish best taken cold. Jeremy seemed to have enjoyed his chilled. He didn't take care to ensure the children felt/knew nothing. They were asleep. He was hardly going to waken them. We're told that neither stirred. Sheila, had she loved them enough to kill them, would have chosen to die with them. A thought which wouldn't have crossed Jeremy's mind.
-
I also believe that he's been like a mentor ( male version of Marjorie Proops ) to those who've poured out their trials and tribulations and has actually shown interest in the daily lives of those who write on a regular basis. He's acted as an adviser rather than a judge.
I've actually heard a lot about Jeremy this last few months and he appears an ordinary guy to me and a particularly kind one.
-
Cold and calculating isn't something that JB has shown in 32 years. On the contrary,he's assisted in the writing of Braille to enable the blind to read and has also taught English and the English language to those unfortunates who were illiterate.
Not the sort of human kindness you'd find in one who was a cold,calculating murderer.
Lookout, yet again you're not differentiating between what he feels and what he does. It's the easiest thing in the world to disguise one's feelings. Jeremy has had plenty of practice over the years. All you've done is show that he doesn't do anything terribly physical or arduous and he prefers not to get his hands dirty.
-
Lookout, yet again you're not differentiating between what he feels and what he does. It's the easiest thing in the world to disguise one's feelings. Jeremy has had plenty of practice over the years. All you've done is show that he doesn't do anything terribly physical or arduous and he prefers not to get his hands dirty.
I believe there's a saying which says that wherever we are we're no more than ten feet away from a rat. It could well apply to our closeness to a psychopath.
-
Here is a copy of DS 'Stan' Jones worksheet, confirming that he was on duty on the 8th September 1985, at Witham police station and the Incident Office between 08.00hrs and 22.00hrs, having worked a 14 hour shift and claiming £3.50 in subs, etc...
-
I do not believe DS Stan Jones would have referred to DCI Jones by his nickname "Taff" in a witness statement.
IF he had, he certainly wouldn't have referred to him thus- 'Taff'.... or "Taff".
-
Cold and calculating isn't something that JB has shown in 32 years. On the contrary,he's assisted in the writing of Braille to enable the blind to read and has also taught English and the English language to those unfortunates who were illiterate.
Not the sort of human kindness you'd find in one who was a cold,calculating murderer.
was the braille he was assisting in, about his own case maybe looking to find supporters
-
I would say that whoever shot and killed the parents did so in a deranged manner, spontaneous violence, that these two deaths were not carried out in a cold caalculating manner at all. The person with the loaded gun was literally going berserk when that person shot seven bullets into June Bambers body, and as many as eight bullets into Neville Bambers body. Both parents were covered in blood, their deaths were not quick and clinical, they died an agonisingly horrible death as a result of being attacked in a frenzied manner, in my opinion...
In the case of the two young children, whoever shot and killed them appears to have gone out of their way to make sure they felt nothing, and knew nothing...
The killer whoever that person was adopted a different approach when shooting and killing the children, than was adopted when the parents were shot and killed! I do not believe that a psychopath could differentiate such an approach when killing multiple victims, in one session! I should imagine its all out rage and destructive violence being directed at everything and everyone, man, woman, or child...
Something is nagging at me, its as though whoever shot and killed the two little children, did so with a degree of fondness and love in their heart, the shooter did not want the little ones to suffer, as compared to the hatred exercised when the shooter turned the gun on the parents...
That person was Sheila Caffell, not Jeremy Bamber, I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind about that...
Sheila did not kill herself, as the prosecutions case alleged, she was killed, indeed, shot and killed on two separate occasions by a third party!
You then have to believe Sheila was acting rationally and therefore not in the grip of a schizophrenic episode, when the "all people are bad and should be killed " remark of several weeks previously re-entered her head.
In my opinion it was Jeremy who crept into the twins' room first to test the gun, disabling the twins with one shot to the head each, then dispatching his parents in the master bedroom with what he thought would be enough with the remainder of the load, returning to the twins' room subsequently to secure in an arc pattern their demise.
None of this typical of Sheila with her lack of synchronization between head and hands, unable to place the final shot to June right between the eyes, nor would she have lain down on the bed with her mother, who in your scenario was the most hated individual in that household. Her whole serene demeanour and blood spatter on the nightie suggests her death was quick, occurring from the sitting position, Jeremy pulling her legs following the second shot to convince himself that she was finally dead.
-
You then have to believe Sheila was acting rationally and therefore not in the grip of a schizophrenic episode, when the "all people are bad and should be killed " remark of several weeks previously re-entered her head.
In my opinion it was Jeremy who crept into the twins' room first to test the gun, disabling the twins with one shot to the head each, then dispatching his parents in the master bedroom with what he thought would be enough with the remainder of the load, returning to the twins' room subsequently to secure in an arc pattern their demise.
None of this typical of Sheila with her lack of synchronization between head and hands, unable to place the final shot to June right between the eyes, nor would she have lain down on the bed with her mother, who in your scenario was the most hated individual in that household. Her whole serene demeanour and blood spatter on the nightie suggests her death was quick, occurring from the sitting position, Jeremy pulling her legs following the second shot to convince himself that she was finally dead.
i agree with that,good post steve
-
Lookout, yet again you're not differentiating between what he feels and what he does. It's the easiest thing in the world to disguise one's feelings. Jeremy has had plenty of practice over the years. All you've done is show that he doesn't do anything terribly physical or arduous and he prefers not to get his hands dirty.
It's not that easy unless you're a psychopath which has been proven that he isn't. Nobody in their right mind could keep up a pretence for that long.
Those who prefer not to get their hands dirty are even less likely to be apart of blood and gore too.
-
I do not believe DS Stan Jones would have referred to DCI Jones by his nickname "Taff" in a witness statement.
Ah! Well spotted, neither do I, they didn't get on and it's certainly unprofessional. The statements is like a piece of Swiss cheese.
-
Ah! Well spotted, neither do I, they didn't get on and it's certainly unprofessional. The statements is like a piece of Swiss cheese.
yes full of holes,doesnt taste right,tainted
-
It's not that easy unless you're a psychopath which has been proven that he isn't. Nobody in their right mind could keep up a pretence for that long.
Those who prefer not to get their hands dirty are even less likely to be apart of blood and gore too.
If one is devoid of feeling, pretence is easy. One can be whatever one wishes. It has not, ever been proved that he's not a psychopath.
The murders were a means to an end -the end justifying the means- and I imagine that he'd have taken great care over his protective clothing in order that he wasn't touched by blood and gore.
-
Quite true Sami, I don’t think anyone has fallen for it only DD, he will have sent a copy to Andrew Hunter and his QC already, claiming it’s his find ;D ;D ;D
Just like JRR Tolkin's ring ....... ;D
-
Just like JRR Tolkin's ring ....... ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Quite true Sami, I don’t think anyone has fallen for it only DD, he will have sent a copy to Andrew Hunter and his QC already, claiming it’s his find ;D ;D ;D
I can already confirm this document is The real McCoy. Some guy at a wedding told me so. 8) :P
-
I can already confirm this document is The real McCoy. Some guy at a wedding told me so. 8) :P
Oh we've been waiting for it to be validated by you ::)
-
Quite true Sami, I don’t think anyone has fallen for it only DD, he will have sent a copy to Andrew Hunter and his QC already, claiming it’s his find ;D ;D ;D
On a serious note, one person who could confirm if this is real or not is Andrew Hunter. He has a lot more case documents than this forum does. If he has not already got a copy then it probably is not genuine.
-
Oh we've been waiting for it to be validated by you ::)
Considering what you peddled about the photos of Sheila's feet. You are last person anyone with an IQ above room temperature would bother listening to. #zerocredibility
-
Quite true Sami, I don’t think anyone has fallen for it only DD, he will have sent a copy to Andrew Hunter and his QC already, claiming it’s his find ;D ;D ;D
ahh andrew hunter, he was in the news for his parlimentary expenses i think.i doubt if he will let dd claim it,they will probably end up having their hands round each others throats ;)
-
ahh andrew hunter, he was in the news for his parlimentary expenses i think.i doubt if he will let dd claim it,they will probably end up having their hands round each others throats ;)
I saw AH yesterday in "Crimes Which Shook............" Dahling, WHAT a lovie. He might be an MP but I feel certain he could have been an ector!!!!
-
I saw AH yesterday in "Crimes Which Shook............" Dahling, WHAT a lovie. He might be an MP but I feel certain he could have been an ector!!!!
:)) :)) :))
-
Considering what you peddled about the photos of Sheila's feet. You are last person anyone with an IQ above room temperature would bother listening to. #zerocredibility
You've done so much peddling David, you might well win the tour de Yorkshire if you entered - although not knowing your arse from your elbow, you'd get lost!
The jury is still out on Sheila's feet - lovie! ::)
-
You've done so much peddling David, you might well win the tour de Yorkshire if you entered - although not knowing your arse from your elbow, you'd get lost!
The jury is still out on Sheila's feet - lovie! ::)
:)) :)) :)) :))
-
You've done so much peddling David, you might well win the tour de Yorkshire if you entered - although not knowing your arse from your elbow, you'd get lost!
The jury is still out on Sheila's feet - lovie! ::)
'Spose that means he'd be peddling backwards.
-
You then have to believe Sheila was acting rationally and therefore not in the grip of a schizophrenic episode, when the "all people are bad and should be killed " remark of several weeks previously re-entered her head.
In my opinion it was Jeremy who crept into the twins' room first to test the gun, disabling the twins with one shot to the head each, then dispatching his parents in the master bedroom with what he thought would be enough with the remainder of the load, returning to the twins' room subsequently to secure in an arc pattern their demise.
None of this typical of Sheila with her lack of synchronization between head and hands, unable to place the final shot to June right between the eyes, nor would she have lain down on the bed with her mother, who in your scenario was the most hated individual in that household. Her whole serene demeanour and blood spatter on the nightie suggests her death was quick, occurring from the sitting position, Jeremy pulling her legs following the second shot to convince himself that she was finally dead.
Well, considering that Ann Eaton was told by Jones and Clark when she first arrived at Jeremy's cottage on the first morning of the shootings, that the bodies of June had Sheila were in fact and had been when they had viewed them there less than an hour previously, laid on top of the bed side by side, with the rifle on the bed in-between both bodies, and that Sheila had a bible on her chest, and that although Ann Eaton remembers being told this because she confirms she was told this as such in her COLP witness statement, but she conveniently forgets the identity of the police officers that told her this that, it can hardly be my scenario that June and Sheila's bodies had been there on the bed now can it? Or am I missing something out which I am not capable of understanding?
Either, the bodies of June Bamber, and Sheila Caffell, were laid on top of the bed when DS 'Stan' Jones, and DC 'Mick' Clark visited the main bedroom carnage, or they weren't. If they hadn't been, why would Jones and Clark tell her that they were, and had been? In the same breath, they told Ann Eaton and the other relatives that Neville Bambers body had been found downstairs in the kitchen, and it was! They told Ann Eaton that the twins bodies were found shot in their respective beds in another bedroom, and it was true! So, why would these two cops tell Ann Eaton and the other relatives within an hour of leaving the main bedoom at the farmhouse, that the bodies of june and Sheila were laid on top of the bed, side by side, with a rifle on the bed in-between both bodies, and a bible on Sheila's chest, if the bodies had not been there, but had been elsewhere on the same bedroom floor either side of the bed? June by the door, and Sheila on the opposite side of the bed in possession of the rifle, and the bible no longer on her chest, but nestled next to the upper right part of her arm, if it had been this way when they visited the main bedroom?
So, please try to refrain from saying that this is something that I might have made up, or even that it's my scenario because I wasn't there in the main bedroom when Jones and Clark were there, I didn't see what they saw, and I had no involvement in what they told Ann Eaton and the others regarding where the bodies of the five victims had been found! Don't shoot me, I am only the messenger!
There is clearly been something very sinister going on regarding the displacement of the two female bodies in this case! It's not me deciding to say off the top of my head that Sheila's body was originally found in the kitchen downstairs, that her body was subsequently found upstairs laid on the bed, and that someone moved her body onto the bedroom floor, or that June's body was laid on top of the bed next to Sheila with the gun resting on the bed in-between both of them, before someone moved her body so that it ended up on the bedroom floor near the doorway - it's evidence readily available to anyone seeking the truth contained in the police files, which I had no control over that which the police themselves were responsible for recording!
These conflicts of evidence cannot be explained away as errors, or mistakes, or typing errors, nobody can make the mistake of seeing a couple of bodies, here, there, and everywhere, and expect anyone to dismiss the devil in the details!
-
I am not responsible for what witnesses put in their witness statements, or what people put into the composite witness statements they are creating for someone else!
-
I am not responsible for what witnesses put in their witness statements, or what people put into the composite witness statements they are creating for someone else!
I am not responsible for what police record in their logs, or their reports, and records
-
I am not responsible for what police record in their logs, or their reports, and records
What I accept that I am responsible for, is trawling through these documents to try to get to the truth!
-
What I do know, because there is evidence confirming this in the police files of the instant case, was that DS Jones returned to the farmhouse after having been with DC Clark at Jeremy's cottage (less than 4 miles away) at about 11.30am, or thereabouts, and that he took possession of four exhibits from the scene which ordinarily he should not have been entitled to remove, since the gathering and collection of items and exhibits from a crime scene is the province of SOC! Now, we know that by the time Jones returned to whf (around 11.30am) that the second team of SOC including Cook, Davidson, Hammersley and Bird, had control of the farmhouse! What I want to know is why was Jones allowed to seize and remove a total of four exhibits from that crime scene without the knowledge or consent of those four SOCO's?
Why was Jones permitted to remove four exhibits from that crime scene, on the first morning of the tragedy?
He removed items bearing the following exhibit marks:-
SBJ/4
SBJ/3
SBJ/2
and
SBJ/1..
-
What I do know, because there is evidence confirming this in the police files of the instant case, was that DS Jones returned to the farmhouse after having been with DC Clark at Jeremy's cottage (less than 4 miles away) at about 11.30am, or thereabouts, and that he took possession of four exhibits from the scene which ordinarily he should not have been entitled to remove since the gathering and collection of items and exhibits from a crime scene is the province of SOC! Now, we know that by the time Jones returned to whf (around 11.30am) that the second team of SOC including Cook, Davidson, Hammersley and Bird, had control of the farmhouse! What I want to know is why was Jones allowed to seize and remove a total of four exhibits from that crime scene without the knowledge or consent of those four SOCO's?
Why was Jones permitted to remove four exhibits from that crime scene on the first morning of the tragedy?
He removed items bearing the following exhibit marks:-
SBJ/4
SBJ/3
SBJ/2
and
SBJ/1..
Police documents show that he recovered these items from two specific locatons inside the downstairs part of the farmhouse, for example, the downstairs tiolet (SBJ/1), and the kitchen (SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4)...
He recovered the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1), therefore, from the downstairs' toilet, the same toilet where Anthony Pargeter normally kept his .22 Bruno bolt action rifle and Parker Hale..
-
What I accept that I am responsible for, is trawling through these documents to try to get to the truth!
And I think we have established the truth as far as the 'aforementioned' statement goes - it's not genuine.
-
There is a police record which describes the anhuz rifle as a bolt action rifle, when it's not, it's a semi-automatic rifle! Also mentioned on the same document is a silencer! The form in question is dated,..
I believe that DS Jones seized Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rile and the attached Parker Hale from the downstairs toilet at the farmhouse (SBJ/1) on the first morning of the police investigation, aforementioned! I further believe that on the evening of 9th August, 1985, that DS Jones returned the Pargeter bolt action rifle and the Parker Hale (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) to the family, and that David Boutflour found it on the following day, that it (SBJ/, SJ/1, DB/1) was taken away for safe keeping at Ann Eaton's home, until the 12th August, when Robert Boutflour visited Witham police station and brought the matter of the possible use of the silencer in the shootings, which caused DS jones to be deployed to recollect it. The reason why Jones collected he silencer from Peter Eaton that evening was because on the 9th August when Jones and Jones met the Eatons at whf to hand back the keys of the premises to them, Jones had handed Peter Eaton Pargeters bolt action rifle to put back inside the farmhouse. At this time, the Parker Hale silencer was not still fixed to the barrel of that gun! This can be borne out by reference to Ann Eaton's handwritten notes, which describe 'Peter' her husband 'putting the gun back in the farmhouse' that night! Stan Jones returned the Parker Hale silencer to the gun cupboard during the same visit!
-
And I think we have established the truth as far as the 'aforementioned' statement goes - it's not genuine.
I don't know which pigged back statement your on about, because there are several of these amongst the police file!
If your referring to the Stan Jones composite statement dated 8th September 1985, it looks genuine to me, and the contents seem to accord with what did take place!
Essex police certainly had a .22 bolt action rifle and a silencer in their possession between the 7th and the 9th August 1985, as shown and confirmed by police records! That bolt action rifle, and it's silencer, disappeared off the radar, after 9th August, and the silencer (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) did not resurface again and land back in police possession until late evening of 12th August 1985...
-
I don't know which pigged back statement your on about, because there are several of these amongst the police file!
If your referring to the Stan Jones composite statement dated 8th September 1985, it looks genuine to me, and the contents seem to accord with what did take place!
Essex police certainly had a .22 bolt action rifle and a silencer in their possession between the 7th and the 9th August 1985, as shown and confirmed by police records! That bolt action rifle, and it's silencer, disappeared off the radar, after 9th August, and the silencer (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) did not resurface again and land back in police possession until late evening of 12th August 1985...
This one ........ it's not genuine and the use of the word 'aforementioned' is interesting.
-
The said document has got the same code in the bottom left hand corner as that which Vanezis wrote on.
4176,then a ref.
-
Was there a surplus of this notepaper,or what ?
-
Interseting Caroline, AFOREMENTIONED, normally the word ABOVE MENTIONED is used instead, yet Stan in his Composite statement uses it twice? Like I say not used very often, you can even put the word in the search bar on the Jeremy Bamber forum and it will show you its hardly used, Well almost hardly used ;)
Bit like "COVERTLY", then.
-
This one ........ it's not genuine and the use of the word 'aforementioned' is interesting.
The use of all the words in this composite witness statement are very interesting to me, for example, 'On Wednesday 7th August 1985' that 'I attended the scene of a multiple shooting incident at white house farm', and that, 'I took possession of a sound moderator'..
Further, that 'On Friday 9th August 1985', that, 'I covertly returned the sound moderator to the farmhouse'..
And also still further, 'On Monday 12th August 1985', and 'I received possession of a sound moderator from Peter Eaton'...
These are all truthful facts supported by other police records and documentation...
-
Maybe I should start pulling words out of every composite witness statement in the police files, and start trying to raise merry hell!
Anybody can be pedantic if they are intelligent enough to be able to read anything!
-
The Composite witness statement made in Stan Jones name, dated 8th September 1985 is genuine, its part of the police file in my possession, as is the police message log recorded on the reverse of another police log which ought not to be recorded there because the logs were created in different buildings at Chelmsford police station - a document containing both logs provided directly to Jeremy Bamber himself by Essex police, so there is no reason whatsoever to think that somebody copied this composite version of Jones witness statement on the reverse of another composite version of a different statement!
-
The said document has got the same code in the bottom left hand corner as that which Vanezis wrote on.
4176,then a ref.
So someone took out the original contents of maybe that statement and replace the wording - I did the same as an example a few pages back. It's easy to do.
-
Maybe I should start pulling words out of every composite witness statement in the police files, and start trying to raise merry hell!
Anybody can be pedantic if they are intelligent enough to be able to read anything!
Aforementioned is particulary interesting. The statement isn't genuine Mike and I think most would agree?
-
The Composite witness statement made in Stan Jones name, dated 8th September 1985 is genuine, its part of the police file in my possession, as is the police message log recorded on the reverse of another police log which ought not to be recorded there because the logs were created in different buildings at Chelmsford police station - a document containing both logs provided directly to Jeremy Bamber himself by Essex police, so there is no reason whatsoever to think that somebody copied this composite version of Jones witness statement on the reverse of another composite version of a different statement!
If you 'believe' it's genuine, that's fine - however, it's not.
-
The use of all the words in this composite witness statement are very interesting to me, for example, 'On Wednesday 7th August 1985' that 'I attended the scene of a multiple shooting incident at white house farm', and that, 'I took possession of a sound moderator'..
Further, that 'On Friday 9th August 1985', that, 'I covertly returned the sound moderator to the farmhouse'..
And also still further, 'On Monday 12th August 1985', and 'I received possession of a sound moderator from Peter Eaton'...
These are all truthful facts supported by other police records and documentation...
Individually, that maybe so. However, when taken out of original context, their original meaning can become lost and may re-emerge as something entirely other.
-
Here is another composite witness statement, made in the name of david Boutflour, dated, 12th September 1985:-
Here we go...
Funny thing that, David Boutflour referring to a sound moderator only 4 days after mention of a sound moderator in the composite witness statement of Stan Jones!
He mentions a sound moderator twice, in fact...
Oh, and this is very interesting - he later contacted the police about the find of the sound moderator...
Well, funnily enough, he only spoke to the police once on the telephone about the find of the sound moderator, and that was on the 12th September 1985, same date somebody had created his composite witness statement!
How strange, that his sister, Ann Eaton had handed the second silencer over to DC Oakey on the previous day (11th September 1985), now, first of all, why would David Boutflour be contacting Essex police on the day following the hand over of the second sound moderator by his sister, if his brother in law (Peter Eaton) had already handed it over a month earlier and wait for it, that sound moderator that Ann Eatons husband had handed over to Stan Jones on 12th August 1985, was to all intents and purposes at Huntingdon Lab' where according to Essex police and Lab' records it had been ever since the 30th August 1985?
-
This composite witness statement made in David Boutflours name is a fake, why would he be contacting police on the 12th September 1985 to tell them he had found a sound moderator to the gun, when cops already knew he supposedly found the first sound moderator a month earlier - worse still, why did some cop or other create a composite witness statement in David Boutflours name stating that he notified police of the find of the same?
-
This composite witness statement made in David Boutflours name is a fake, why would he be contacting police on the 12th September 1985 to tell them he had found a sound moderator to the gun, when cops already knew he supposedly found the first sound moderator a month earlier - worse still, why did some cop or other create a composite witness statement in David Boutflours name stating that he notified police of the find of the same?
Hey, I feel like I'm about to go on a role, I think I'll start pulling every composite witness statement to pieces and declaring that every single one of them is a fake!!
Lets go the full hog on this if that's what you lot want...
I got all the fake composite statements containing all the garbage fake evidence used to help convict Jeremy Bamber! At this rate there will be no evidence to convict anyone of any killings! These fake composite witness statements that when it chooses to rely on them, the system works for the corrupt people and organisations in society and doesn't work for the innocents amongst us...
-
Hey, I feel like I'm about to go on a role, I think I'll start pulling every composite witness statement to pieces and declaring that every single one of them is a fake!!
Lets go the full hog on this if that's what you lot want...
I got all the fake composite statements containing all the garbage fake evidence used to help convict Jeremy Bamber! At this rate there will be no evidence to convict anyone of any killings! These fake composite witness statements that when it chooses to rely on them, the system works for the corrupt people and organisations in society and doesn't work for the innocents amongst us...
Hey, I got hundreds and hundreds of these fake composite versions of prosecution witness statements in my possession. It's going to take me ages to post every single one of them up on the forum and start pulling each and every one to pieces, but please be patient until I have completed that process! I do not take kindly to people accusing me of tampering with the copy of a witness statement, why would I need to do that when Iv'e got hundreds and hundreds of fake composite witness statements here with me, full of words, and phrases that the named witnesses did not say or even know had been put into a composite statement made by some corrupt cop of force solicitor of some dodgy bastard from the CPS?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50307
Ha Ha, Stan saying I Covertly, meaning, (secretly, disguised, concealed, under cover ) returned the Aforemost Sound Moderator to the Farmhouse and then making a statement to the fact ;D ;D ;D
How did Ann Eaton propose to still be in possession of the sound moderator until the 11th September 1985? Your starting to look guilty yourself of making things up, like a relative craving for the wealth of the deceased family, even to the point that they allowed their names to be added to a fake collection of composite witness statements including words and phrases that none of them have ever uttered...
-
Your starting to look guilty now yourself ;)
How so?
Guilty of what?
-
If we take out all the fake composite witness statements produced by Essex police in the names of its witnesses, there would be no evidence whatsoever to prosecute Jeremy Bamber, let alone convict him of any offence!
-
Note, that in the fake Boutflour witness statement created for him by some corrupted cop, of force solicitor or a bent CPS official, dated, 12th September 1985,that it refers to 'A SOUND MODERATOR', something which it was being claimed was never referred to at the time Stan Jones had his 8th September 1985 composite witness statement created for him...
-
Please visit the statement and transcript section of the forum, and see if you can spot any fake composite witness statements made by all the prosecution witnesses who testified against Jeremy Bamber to get him convicted? These composite witness statements are forgeries! Fakes!! Full of things that the prosecution needed to be said to stand any chance of convicting Bamber of anything!!
The phrases used in these faked statements are those used regularly by the police, and the CPS, not recorded using the every day language of individual people!
Its nothing but a huge scam,keeping the fat cats in a job, getting well paid at the expense of the underclass people..
-
Please visit the statement and transcript section of the forum, and see if you can spot any fake composite witness statements made by all the prosecution witnesses who testified against Jeremy Bamber to get him convicted? These composite witness statements are forgeries! Fakes!! Full of things that the prosecution needed to be said to stand any chance of convicting Bamber of anything!!
The phrases used in these faked statements are those used regularly by the police, and the CPS, not recorded using the every day language of individual people!
Its nothing but a huge scam,keeping the fat cats in a job, getting well paid at the expense of the underclass people..
I have got loads and loads of new material that has never been seen before, that will open up a can of worms! The Relatives (Robert Boutflour) knew he was in a position to blackmail Essex police into prosecuting Jeremy Bamber for the murders!
It will all get published, all in good time!
-
Now who would use words like that? Mmmm let me think?
Bill Robertson ;)
-
Please visit the statement and transcript section of the forum, and see if you can spot any fake composite witness statements made by all the prosecution witnesses who testified against Jeremy Bamber to get him convicted? These composite witness statements are forgeries! Fakes!! Full of things that the prosecution needed to be said to stand any chance of convicting Bamber of anything!!
The phrases used in these faked statements are those used regularly by the police, and the CPS, not recorded using the every day language of individual people!
Its nothing but a huge scam,keeping the fat cats in a job, getting well paid at the expense of the underclass people..
As the expression "composite witness statement" is bandied so frequently about, one must assume the compiling of such to be generally/universally practiced. Leading on from that, surely, if you're insisting this to be the case, it must follow that every prisoner convicted, who claims innocence, must BE innocent. Can you please tell me, are there special operatives employed to do such devious and underhand work. I'd be interested to learn how one might go about doing it ie, if you give me a handwritten piece to type, I'd naturally -unless it was totally unintelligible- reproduce it faithfully, only correcting any spelling errors. I'd also be fascinated to learn just how the deception gets passed the witness -although I appreciate that if they can't read, it would have to be read to them, making duplicity possible- who is required to read and sign it. I appreciate that care would have to be taken, when paraphrasing, to keep the original meaning of the words.
-
Caroline, I have to confess I do not know why someone should copy the contents of a composite witness statement on the back of another composite witness statement made in the name of the same police officer. All that I know, is that I found it there and I have posted a copy of its contents!
The material you have has been printed on a duplex printer. Thats why.
-
The material you have has been printed on a duplex printer. Thats why.
It's a fake David or have you fallen for it? ;D
(https://i.imgur.com/LMgs3xU.gif?noredirect)
-
It's a fake David or have you fallen for it? ;D
(https://i.imgur.com/LMgs3xU.gif?noredirect)
.
'Taff' covertly aforementioned....................allegedly
-
.
'Taff' covertly aforementioned....................allegedly
David Boutflour, Witness statement, dated, 12th September, 1985:-
I later informed the police of the finding of the telescopic site and sound moderator'...
Lets hit the nail on the head - David Boutflour did not contact Essex police to tell them that he had found the gun silencer until the 12th September, 1985! The very same date, that some nameless, faceless, bent copper created his 12th September 1985 composite witness statement!!!
-
David Boutflour, Witness statement, dated, 12th September, 1985:-
I later informed the police of the finding of the telescopic site and sound moderator'...
Lets hit the nail on the head - David Boutflour did not contact Essex police to tell them that he had found the gun silencer until the 12th September, 1985! The very same date, that some nameless, faceless, bent copper created his 12th September 1985 composite witness statement!!!
Oh, I get it now, it all becomes perfectly clear...
-
Oh, I get it now, it all becomes perfectly clear...
80% of the public will believe anything the corrupted cops, CPS and its witnesses say or do, because this group of people in our society are brain dead, they don't want to upset the official apple cart! It seems its ok for a bent cop, or a bent force solicitor, or a bent CPS official to forge the contents of a composite witness statement, because what ever bullshit they come up with, these brain dead individuals will accept whatever the system throws at them! There are 20% of the public who will make their own minds up! It seems that the 80% of brain dead public will accept the prosecutions use of these composite witness statements as statements of truth, even though the named witness did not make the statement in question, but that if a defendant got someone else to make his or her witness statement for them, the book would be thrown at the defendant, and the person creating that fake witness statement!
Double standards, that's what we are talking about...
One law for the scum of the earth, and another set of rules for the ordinary people in society!
Somebody has to put a stop to this form of injustice and state corruption - fuck the system, fuck the scumbags who think nothing of fabricating a statement in somebody else's name, and fuck the government and every one of them that think they are better than ordinary decent people! Fuck all those of you who think that injustice can never occur, you are all lower than a snakes belly, nothing but evil, vile low life scumbags!
-
Mike. I have taken what I believe to be Stan Jones signature from ones of those lab documents regarding the shell casings.
Despite an attempt to scibble it out. You can still see and match the outer ends and top corners of the signature that was put there on the document you recently uploaded.
Can you confirm that is DS Jones signature?
-
It's a fake David or have you fallen for it? ;D
You insisting things are fake simply because you don't like what they manifest is a recurring theme.
-
You insisting things are fake simply because you don't like what they manifest is a recurring theme.
No, it's fake but you can believe it if you like - not sure how many warning signals you need - but carry on, this is amusing! ;D
-
Mike. I have taken what I believe to be Stan Jones signature from ones of those lab documents regarding the shell casings.
Despite an attempt to scibble it out. You can still see and match the outer ends and top corners of the signature that was put there on the document you recently uploaded.
Can you confirm is that is DS Jones signature?
David1819, of course, now that you have identified Stan Jones signature on the 8th September 1985 witness statement, it is no longer a composite witness statement, but a genuine statement!
-
David1819, of course, now that you have identified Stan Jones signature on the 8th September 1985 witness statement, it is no longer a composite witness statement, but a genuine statement!
OK so now what? What is the significance of this statement and why was there an attempt to scribble out the signature?
-
OK so now what? What is the significance of this statement and why was there an attempt to scribble out the signature?
The significance is obvious! ::) If you think it's genuine, why not take it to your 'in the know' people?
-
I also believe that he's been like a mentor ( male version of Marjorie Proops ) to those who've poured out their trials and tribulations and has actually shown interest in the daily lives of those who write on a regular basis. He's acted as an adviser rather than a judge.
I've actually heard a lot about Jeremy this last few months and he appears an ordinary guy to me and a particularly kind one.
Are you sure you have written to him Lookout? :-\
-
As the expression "composite witness statement" is bandied so frequently about, one must assume the compiling of such to be generally/universally practiced. Leading on from that, surely, if you're insisting this to be the case, it must follow that every prisoner convicted, who claims innocence, must BE innocent. Can you please tell me, are there special operatives employed to do such devious and underhand work. I'd be interested to learn how one might go about doing it ie, if you give me a handwritten piece to type, I'd naturally -unless it was totally unintelligible- reproduce it faithfully, only correcting any spelling errors. I'd also be fascinated to learn just how the deception gets passed the witness -although I appreciate that if they can't read, it would have to be read to them, making duplicity possible- who is required to read and sign it. I appreciate that care would have to be taken, when paraphrasing, to keep the original meaning of the words.
Hello Mike, I've reposted this because I feel you might have missed it. You're usually really good at responding. Please do run away with the belief that I think everything in the judicial garden is rosy. I DON'T wear rose coloured glasses -well, yes, actually, I do, but they're the frames- and I'm FULLY that there's corruption in ALL walks of life, from convicts right through to those who hand down their sentences, but I DON'T believe that they all, miraculously, found themselves together in one place when it came to Jeremy, if only, unless they decided it might be fun do do, as an exercise in how to, there was no need to do it when they already had a culprit who couldn't argue her case. If they could frame a living person, it would have been far less trouble to frame a dead one, don't you think?
-
Hello Mike, I've reposted this because I feel you might have missed it. You're usually really good at responding. Please do run away with the belief that I think everything in the judicial garden is rosy. I DON'T wear rose coloured glasses -well, yes, actually, I do, but they're the frames- and I'm FULLY that there's corruption in ALL walks of life, from convicts right through to those who hand down their sentences, but I DON'T believe that they all, miraculously, found themselves together in one place when it came to Jeremy, if only, unless they decided it might be fun do do, as an exercise in how to, there was no need to do it when they already had a culprit who couldn't argue her case. If they could frame a living person, it would have been far less trouble to frame a dead one, don't you think?
Hi, Jane, please be reassured that I am not running away from anything, in fact I am hurtling towards the abyss of truth and in this particular matter, the fact that Jeremy Bamber could not and did not kill his sister Sheila. It would have been and is impossible for him to have done so! There is no doubt in my mind, and I believe the evidence already exists and has been made available to indicate that in fact Sheila was believed killed downstairs in the kitchen! Soon afterwards, she was believed dead on top of the bed in the main bedroom, and eventually she was dead on the bedroom floor! From start to finish, Sheila's death occurred downstairs in the kitchen, upstairs on top of the bed, and then at the death on the bedroom floor! The rifle used in part of the shooting of Sheila, had a journey of its own, a journey that anyone who wants to know the truth can find out for themselves - it was at a first floor window from around 7.15am, just as the armed raid team began to commence its approach to force their way into the farmhouse courtyard door. It was seen at that window by Julia Jeapes a trained firearms instructor at that time, and also by a PC Brown. That first floor window was almost certainly the box room Much later, that rifle ended up on the bed in between the bodies of June Bamber and Sheila Caffell! After this the same rifle was photographed at the main bedroom window, and then after this cops photographed the same rifle in Sheila Caffells possession on the bedroom floor! These are not things I have made up or plucked out of the air, they are facts supported by the so called evidence! Then there is the bible(s), there were two in fact, not one! But just dealing with one of them, according to the evidence a bible was on Sheila Caffells chest when her body and the body of June's was laid side by side on top of the bed . This bible then ended up alongside Sheila's body once her body was lifted from the bed and plonked on the bedroom floor!
If all these facts are true, then of course Jeremy Bamber could not possibly have fired at least one of the two shots which killed his sister! I believe that evidence exists in the police file to show that Jeremy did not fire either shot inflicted to Sheila's body! He could not have had anything to do with the displacement of her body from the kitchen downstairs to it ending up on top of the bed in the main bedroom and much later to her body being laid out on the bedroom floor! Jeremy could have played no role in the materialisation of the rifle on the bed, then by the main bedroom window (23), until it eventually winds up in Sheila's possession on the bedroom floor! He could not have played any role in the movement of the bible from Sheila's chest when her body was on the bed, to it being on the floor later on next to her body..
The cops in this case, are running scared, they can't afford to disclosed the evidence from all the staff back in the control room who overheard the attack in the kitchen between one officer and Sheila, and the fact that after a shot rang out that officers at the scene inside that kitchen described Sheila as being dead, claiming that she had taken her own life! A complete list of the staff manning the operation room and or the control room at this material time, has thus far not yet even been divulged because those present know that Sheila was still alive at the time the armed officers entered the farmhouse! There was staff back in Chelmsford who also knew that Sheila survived that first shot, that her body ended up on the bed upstairs again presumed dead (all this evidence is currently being withheld under the cloak of Pii). Senior police officers all knew that even when her body had been on that bed that she was not physically dead and that she did not die until after they moved Sheila's body onto the bedroom floor from the bed! Senior officers know that she might not have died had they not set about performing 'informatives' with use of the rifle which was brought to her body by the police themselves! The second fatal shot was inflicted during the performance of those 'informatives', she wasn't shot deliberately, she got shot at that time because no-one had bothered to check to see if the rifle was safe and unloaded...
The cops killed Sheila whichever way you look at it, the body moved,the gun moved, the bible moved, on occasions when Jeremy was with other cops either in Pages Lane near to the farm cottages, or at his cottage with Jones and Clark...
Lets not forget that there were two SOC teams operating inside the farmhouse on that first morning of the investigation. Oakey and Henderson from HQ SOC, and COOK, Davidson, Hammersley and Bird from Witham SOC. The first team of SOC operating alongside senior officers during the 'informative' procedure that invariably took place between 9.00am and 10.00am (when Sheila's body was moved from its position on top of the bed, to thee bedroom floor), as opposed to the second team of SOCO who took control of the scene particularly in the main bedroom, after 10.00 am when the bodies of June Bamber and Sheila had been set on the bedroom floor either side of the bed!
Essex police have not told the truth regarding what actually took place!
They were happy to go along with the four murders and a suicide scenario because it served a purpose of concealing the involvement of police in Sheila Caffells death. The cops fed false information to the relatives at the beginning of the investigation. But they didn't bargain for the attitude of the relatives, who found out that Sheila's and Junes bodies had been moved by the police and her death scene staged by them! The relatives knew that the police had been able to proceed on the basis that what they were dealing with was a case of four murders and a suicide, because they had staged Sheila's body as though she could have killed herself on the bedroom floor after she had shot and killed the others!
It was this knowledge in the minds and hearts of relatives which forced ACC Simpson to start a fresh investigation from 6th September 1985, into the tragedy, and reluctantly making Jeremy the chief Suspect...
-
He doesn’t even refer to his nickname “Taff” in his handwritten notes as well, it’s DCI Jones, or D/I Miller etc it shows a lack of respect.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4596.0;attach=33731;image
You have got the wrong end of the stick, I believe that the Stan Jones composite witness statement, dated, 8th September 1985, was never intended for disclosure as part of the fresh investigation (SC/786/85), I believe that it was created by someone who wanted to make it appear that Essex police had returned the sound moderator (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) to the family during the duration of the first operation (SC/688/85), so that Ann Eaton could hand 'it' back to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985! The problem for Essex police was that there still existed police records and Lab' documentation which showed that 'it' had been examined by Glynis Howard on the 13th August 1985, and that Essex police has resubmitted 'it' back to the Lab' on the 30th August 1975, and that by 8th September, that item was still at the lab', and further, that by the 12th September the ballistic expert had dismantled 'it' at the Lab' and discovered a flake of blood trapped between two of its baffle plates! But, the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor handed to DC Oakey by Ann Eaton on the 11th September, was being retained by Essex police, and 'it' remained in their possession until the 20th September 1985, and only then did Essex police submit 'that' item (DRB/1) to the lab' on that date, requesting that it be checked for blood and fibers!
This is a typical example thus proving that Essex police, the relatives, and those at the lab' fabricated the blood group evidence which they wrongly attributed to a second sound moderator (DRB/1) which was introduced so that Jeremy Bamber could be prosecuted as the killer! The blood group evidence (A, EAP BA, AK1, and HP 2-1) could not possibly have been obtained from inside the second silencer / sound moderator /suppressor, it would have been impossible for that to be true!
We therefore, have a group of police officers, relatives and lab' experts who have all conspired to pervert the course of justice, forged official documentation, and deceived the court which tried and convicted Bamber as the killer!
Somebody will have to pay dearly for this level of dishonesty and corruption...
No guessing who those individual people might be!!!
-
You have got the wrong end of the stick, I believe that the Stan Jones composite witness statement, dated, 8th September 1985, was never intended for disclosure as part of the fresh investigation (SC/786/85), I believe that it was created by someone who wanted to make it appear that Essex police had returned the sound moderator (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) to the family during the duration of the first operation (SC/688/85), so that Ann Eaton could hand 'it' back to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985! The problem for Essex police was that there still existed police records and Lab' documentation which showed that 'it' had been examined by Glynis Howard on the 13th August 1985, and that Essex police has resubmitted 'it' back to the Lab' on the 30th August 1975, and that by 8th September, that item was still at the lab', and further, that by the 12th September the ballistic expert had dismantled 'it' at the Lab' and discovered a flake of blood trapped between two of its baffle plates! But, the silencer / sound moderator / suppressor handed to DC Oakey by Ann Eaton on the 11th September, was being retained by Essex police, and 'it' remained in their possession until the 20th September 1985, and only then did Essex police submit 'that' item (DRB/1) to the lab' on that date, requesting that it be checked for blood and fibers!
This is a typical example thus proving that Essex police, the relatives, and those at the lab' fabricated the blood group evidence which they wrongly attributed to a second sound moderator (DRB/1) which was introduced so that Jeremy Bamber could be prosecuted as the killer! The blood group evidence (A, EAP BA, AK1, and HP 2-1) could not possibly have been obtained from inside the second silencer / sound moderator /suppressor, it would have been impossible for that to be true!
We therefore, have a group of police officers, relatives and lab' experts who have all conspired to pervert the course of justice, forged official documentation, and deceived the court which tried and convicted Bamber as the killer!
Somebody will have to pay dearly for this level of dishonesty and corruption...
No guessing who those individual people might be!!!
Oh totally agree that that was the impression that the 'aforementioned' statement was supposedto give - a 'covert' attempt - but an unsuccessful one.
-
He doesn’t even refer to his nickname “Taff” in his handwritten notes as well, it’s DCI Jones, or D/I Miller etc it shows a lack of respect.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4596.0;attach=33731;image
Thanks to someone's half-arsed attempt to scribble it out. The guys signature can be seen on the paper.
Yet the guilter gang still try to find excuses.
-
Thanks to someone's half-arsed attempt to scribble it out. The guys signature can be seen on the paper.
Yet the guilter gang still try to find excuses.
Ha, ha! David thinks it genuine - what a plonker! ::)
-
Mike, has & does put up good documents for discussion. The Bret Collins one was interesting.
It is very frustrating for both supporters & guilters when David, Roch, Bill & JackieD say they have new information but won't post it. The CT are all over Youtube & the internet with new information, so not sure why there is holding back.
-
Oh totally agree that that was the impression that the 'aforementioned' statement was supposedto give - a 'covert' attempt - but an unsuccessful one.
Because, they 'had returned it to the family'...
Cops supposedly find five dead bodies, with all of them having been shot multiple times but there is no blood on the end of the guns barrel! None on the outside, none on the inside, so we are expected to believe that different gangs of elite coppers and SOC didn't think to look for something which might have been on the end of its barrel?
Of course they would have, and of course they did!
That's why police documents confim that Stan Jones seized four exhibits from the scene that first morning one being the silencer SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1..
-
Because, they 'had returned it to the family'...
Cops supposedly find five dead bodies, with all of them having been shot multiple times but there is no blood on the end of the guns barrel! None on the outside, none on the inside, so we are expected to believe that different gangs of elite coppers and SOC didn't think to look for something which might have been on the end of its barrel?
Of course they would have, and of course they did!
That's why police documents confim that Stan Jones seized four exhibits from the scene that first morning one being the silencer SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1..
As it never dawned on anybody, why Stan Jones never made a witness statement concerning why he returne to whf after attending Jeremy's cottage, and why he makes no mention collectively of the four items which he takes possession of (SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2, and SBJ/1?
He seized these items, from the kitchen and the downstairs toilet!
-
Anthony Pargeter told COLP investigators that David Boutflour told him that the police had given it back on the family...
-
Another who Can’t see the Wood for Trees ;D. It would be nice to see what Essex police and the family think of the Aforementioned fake/forged document of a police officer.
Yes it would and it would be nice of them to admit the truth about Stan Jones seizing the sound moderator from the scene on the first morning, and it being put back at the farmhouse by a police officer the night before David Boutflour recovered it, again! It would also be nice hear from Essex police how Ann Eaton was still in possession of a sound Moderator until 11th September1985, which the police retained until the 20th September, when they sent it to the Lab' to be checked for blood and fibers! Whilst their at it, perhaps they could seize the lab' records which relate to the examination of that sound moderator either on, or after that date! Maybe also the police will give an explanation as to how key blood group evidence coud have been found inside a sound moderator that was dismantled at the lab' on 12th September, when the sound moderaor it is said for that blood to have been in, did not arrive at the lab'until eight days afterwards! It will be nice to hear from the relatives concerning the handover of the sound moderator by Peter Eaton to DS Jones on 12th August 1985, and the subsequent handover of a sound moderator, by Ann Eaton to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, if as the case was / is that there was only the one sound moderator! It will also be nice to hear from the police the identity of all the nameless, faceless police officers who created all those fake composite witness statements of named police officers, and prosecution witnesses, so yes, I'd like to get the facts from the horses mouths, so to speak! Maybe whilst we're in the mood concerning transparency maybe the police could disclose all the documents under their control which confirms the true circumstances of Sheila Caffells death which only occurred once armed police officers fced their way into the farmhouse! So, yeah, let's get the truth out there, go for it!!
-
The only " plonker " I can see in all this is S.Jones who tried his best to look the all-important cop using language that would have been completely alien to what he was used to. One slug of whisky from his flask and he spoke as though he'd swallowed a dictionary with it.
In other words, he had on his jobsworth hat. ::)
-
Stan Jones was a dodgy police officer by anybody's standards!
I wonder why when he testified during the trial, why he never brought it up about June and Sheila's bodies being laid on top of the bed? I wonder what sort of a bloke deliberately withholds evidence concerning who must have faked Sheila's death scene on the main bedroom floor, knowing that a defendant is being accused of having done so, and if convicted be at peril of spending the rest of their life in prison? I Wonder what a bloke like Stan Jones was, standing there in the witness box and keeping his mouth shut about the four exhibits that he seized from whf on the first morning of the police investigation?
-
Stan Jones was a dodgy police officer by anybody's standards!
I wonder why when he testified during the trial, why he never brought it up about June and Sheila's bodies being laid on top of the bed? I wonder what sort of a bloke deliberately withholds evidence concerning who must have faked Sheila's death scene on the main bedroom floor, knowing that a defendant is being accused of having done so, and if convicted be at peril of spending the rest of their life in prison? I Wonder what a bloke like Stan Jones was, standing there in the witness box and keeping his mouth shut about the four exhibits that he seized from whf on the first morning of the police investigation?
And, then we have Ann Eaton making notes, that state that on the 9th August 1985, that her husband Peter put the gun back in the farmhouse at whf!
Hope the relatives tell the world which gun that was that Peter Eaton put back at the scene at such a critical moment? Maybe the police will inform us and clear the matter up once and for all!
-
And, then we have Ann Eaton making notes, that state that on the 9th August 1985, that her husband Peter put the gun back in the farmhouse at whf!
Hope the relatives tell the world which gun that was that Peter Eaton put back at the scene at such a critical moment? Maybe the police will inform us and clear the matter up once and for all!
You see, I thought the idea of the relatives was to go to the scene on the 10th August 1985, to collect up and to remove all the guns, accessories and ammunition! But, if that be true, then why was Peter Eaton placing 'the gun' back there the night before?
-
You see, I thought the idea of the relatives was to go to the scene on the 10th August 1985, to collect up and to remove all the guns, accessories and ammunition! But, if that be true, then why was Peter Eaton placing 'the gun' back there the night before?
It seems likely to me, that this had something to do with what is recorded in Stan Jones witness statement, dated, 8th September 1985, when he returned SBJ/1 to the farmhouse at the tme both he and DCI Jones attended to give the keys of the farmhouse back to Ann Eaton. Peter Eaton must also have been there at whf because Ann Eaton wrote that her husband 'Peter had put the gun back inside whf'..
What gun?
-
It seems likely to me, that this had something to do with what is recorded in Stan Jones witness statement, dated, 8th September 1985, when he returned SBJ/1 to the farmhouse at the tme both he and DCI Jones attended to give the keys of the farmhouse back to Ann Eaton. Peter Eaton must also have been there at whf because Ann Eaton wrote that her husband 'Peter had put the gun back inside whf'..
What gun?
I believe that on the first morning of the police investigation that Stan Jones had seized Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle and Parker Hale sound Moderator (SBJ/1) from the downstairs toilet!Jeremy told me that this was where that gun and silencer were normally kept! Jeremy even included that bolt action rifle in the list he gave to police outside depicting all the firearms that were in the farmhouse!
Stan Jones took SBJ/1 to put it back at whf on the 9th August 1985 and this coincided with 'Peter (Eaton) putting the gun back' there on the same occasion!
It seems somewhat obvious to me now that where there is mention in Stan Jones 8th September statement that he covertly returned the sound Moderator back at white house farm on the 9th August 1985, that the term may have been used to signify that the gun was returned also (where SBJ/1 was in fact Anthony Pargeters gun and sound moderator)!
-
If that be the truth, for example, the fact that Jones did seize Anthony Pargeters gun and silencer (SBJ/1) from the downstairs toilet on the first morning of the police investigation, then it becomes obvious that right from the outset, that Essex police wanted to keep the Pargeter gun and its silencer quite, for one reason or another, and that in order to achieve that, they acted in a covert manner. This would be consistent with the term used in the genuinely fake composite witness statement created in DS Jones name, just as all the other genuinely fake composite witness statements were created in other people's names!
-
Let's hope that police look into all these genuinely fake composite witness statements and prosecute the people who created them! I look forward to this happening!!
-
Let's hope that police look into all these genuinely fake composite witness statements and prosecute the people who created them! I look forward to this happening!!
Just so you are all aware, the police are always monitoring what is being said on this forum, and any documents which are posted up for consideration!
I shall take great joy in posting up some more of such documents so that they can see that we or at least I am onto them, for being responsible or Sheila Caffells death, and for them staging her death scene to make it look like she had killed herself..
I believe everything I am saying to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!!
-
Just so you are all aware, the police are always monitoring what is being said on this forum, and any documents which are posted up for consideration!
I shall take great joy in posting up some more of such documents so that they can see that we or at least I am onto them, for being responsible or Sheila Caffells death, and for them staging her death scene to make it look like she had killed herself..
I believe everything I am saying to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!!
Because, what I am saying, is the truth, as witnessed by Almighty god!!!
-
God himself is my witness, that everything I am saying about how the police are responsible for Sheila Caffells death, and the staging of her death scene, it does not require anybody to create a genuinely fake witness statement in god's name, to prove that something took place, in some way or another! Unlike corrupt cops who create these genuinely fake composite witness statements in other people's names, because nobody would believe a word they said if they hadn't got mountains of these genuinely fake composite witness statements to prosecute people!!!
-
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Disturbing Evidence, which confirms that cops handed back silencer to the family
« by mike tesko on Yesterday at 09:20 PM »
...... J on Yesterday at 07:11 PM . 'Taff' covertly aforementioned....................allegedly David Boutflour, ......
2
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Buccal DNA versus Blood DNA - Miracle get out clause...
« by mike tesko on November 11, 2017, 11:28:AM »
...... undertaken to check the DNA profiles of the three aforementioned suspects, the case will be virtually over and ......
3
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The tinfoil in the safe
« by Steve_uk on October 23, 2017, 08:44:PM »
...... to leave unless you were named in one of the aforementioned wills. ......
4
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« by mike tesko on July 25, 2016, 05:42:PM »
...... made by me, to incorporate the facts of the aforementioned prosecution (observation van matters) as part of ......
5
Other high profile cases / Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« by mike tesko on October 03, 2017, 12:15:AM »
...... , that he may have transferred Maddie to the aforementioned derelict building, after he had concealed her at ......
6
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Sherlock has solved the case at last ...
« by mike tesko on October 05, 2017, 09:24:PM »
...... to her body from the box room window during the aforementioned 'informatives'that is why her blood was still wet. ......
7
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: did brett colins really speak to claire powel.
« by gringo on September 17, 2017, 03:06:PM »
...... , whilst describing the photographs to the aforementioned journalist. Bamber stated that he wasn't ......
8
Other high profile cases / Re: The Case Of Mike Tesko
« by mike tesko on August 04, 2017, 09:55:AM »
...... not get stolen until after the recovery of the aforementioned sack! The circumstances of which included the ......
9
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The rifle in the window.
« by mike tesko on July 19, 2017, 09:17:PM »
...... ! The Bible was still on Sheila's chest! The aforementioned rifle was resting on the bed in-between the two ......
10
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Sheila's neck wound and the blood on her arm
« by mike tesko on July 30, 2017, 07:22:PM »
...... her body there after 10pm, in possession of the aforementioned rifle which two and three quarter hours earlier ( ......
11
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Kitchen telephone
« by mike tesko on June 06, 2017, 01:16:PM »
...... which serves to confirm in the light of the aforementioned that the police staged Sheila Caffells death ......
12
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: I handled Eley .22 Ammunition at Birdwell armoury in 2003 /2004 - dry as a bone!
« by mike tesko on June 05, 2017, 10:28:PM »
...... .22 LR subsonic ammunition during or after the aforementioned testing had been completed! He makes no ......
13
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Different silencers sent to Lab'
« by mike tesko on December 11, 2010, 10:06:PM »
...... 1985, were different to each-other... The two aforementioned silencers, were completely different to the ......
14
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Police Officer at the center of the contaminated Silencer Evidence
« by mike tesko on December 25, 2010, 04:35:PM »
...... time DS Jones, had re-wrote his evidence in the aforementioned pocketbook in readiness for giving evidence at ......
15
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Reason to believe cops shot Sheila, and how her blood ended up inside Silencer!
« by mike tesko on May 20, 2017, 09:15:AM »
...... upstairs in the bedroom after they brought the aforementioned rifle from the box room into the main bedroom ......
16
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Bamber/the OS disputing COA & other published evidence. Sources required.
« by Steve_uk on November 05, 2017, 01:51:PM »
...... inches so that her head ended up closer to the aforementioned bedside cabinet! It was the cops who staged ............ window as shown in photograph 23? Who took the aforementioned rifle from the main bedroom window (23) and ............ inclined flow of blood' from the lower of the two aforementioned wounds managed to have dried, whilst blood that ............ had leaked there when her body had been in the aforementioned recovery position! This is the mystery why ......
17
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Forensic evidence thread links incriminating Bamber, library :
« by mike tesko on June 01, 2017, 06:06:PM »
...... bed, onto the bedroom floor either side of the aforementioned bed? I mean for goodness sake, it could have only ......
18
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Letter Trail - Wallet
« by mike tesko on April 02, 2017, 11:38:AM »
...... killer, since that shot was inflicted during the aforementioned informative exercise! Certainly, DCI 'Taff' ......
19
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: June Bamber had a black eye at time Jeremy saw her at the supper table!
« by mike tesko on February 24, 2017, 05:42:PM »
...... 1985, four months before he edited out all the aforementioned information! Criminals, that's what these bad ......
20
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: THEN, and NOW (How a Jury would have reached its verdict)...
« by mike tesko on September 07, 2017, 05:54:PM »
...... .30pm and 10.15pm. Since, on that date between the aforementioned times, a local resident by the Surname of Smith, ............ away from the farmhouse at 9.30pm. Although the aforementioned occupier 'did not physically see' Jeremy driving ......
21
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Gun at first floor window - set to shoot safety of convictions to bits!!
« by mike tesko on March 14, 2017, 08:45:AM »
...... to the other photographs taken by PC Bird, aforementioned!!! ......
22
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Outside person or people involved in the massacre:
« by mike tesko on March 01, 2017, 05:04:PM »
...... stage laid alongside her, both separated by the aforementioned teddy'! Cops moved Junes body onto the bedroom ......
23
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Malcolm Bonnett statement (date unknown)
« by Caroline on February 21, 2017, 11:06:AM »
...... Bonnett! With this in mind, it exposes the aforementioned witness statement as being inaccurate and ......
24
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: HALDOL, it kills patients, and has potential to be the root cause of violence...
« by Jane J on February 14, 2017, 02:42:PM »
...... Knights, involving Sheila running out of the aforementioned trademans gate, sobbing and crying her eyes out ......
25
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Role of the two SOC teams inside farmhouse, between 9am /10am, and 10am, onwards
« by mike tesko on November 13, 2017, 09:34:AM »
...... , 32 and 33 were 'then subsequently taken'... The aforementioned rifle was resting at the main bedroom window ......
26
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The must have been an 'inevitable delay' between the shots sustained by Sheila..
« by mike tesko on October 22, 2017, 09:52:AM »
...... farmhouse, senior officers arranged for the two aforementioned bodies to be lifted from atop the bed, and placed ......
27
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The all important metal end cap from end of rifles barrel had paint on it...
« by mike tesko on May 27, 2017, 03:32:PM »
...... The end of that guns barrel was the metalend cap, aforementioned! ......
28
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: How Did Bamber KNOW That The Rifle HE Left Out Was The Murder Weapon?
« by mike tesko on December 21, 2016, 09:47:AM »
...... the rifle she had collected from a first floor (aforementioned) window!!! ......
29
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Home Office Letter, dated, 13th Jamuary 1994...
« by mike tesko on December 01, 2017, 01:03:PM »
...... snugly between the silencer and top end of the aforementioned barrel of the gun - any DNA found in the ......
30
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Sequence photographs were taken involving 581, 223, and 50 albums (the sting)...
« by mike tesko on November 03, 2016, 11:40:AM »
I rest my case. Justice
Maybe you made a mistake, you should have said, 'You arrest your case'
-
Ok no problem so long as I have yours and the forum blessing, the guy I will be contacting is Matt Cornish, I will also have to refer where and who has this fake document. If anyone has any objections please feel free to pm me.
Excellent Justice, the innocent camp have had ample time to do something with this but for the most part, they have kept quiet and I think we both know why. Lets either getting it working (if it's genuine - some IF!) or flushe out if it is (as I believe) a complete and utter fraud.
-
Maybe you made a mistake, you should have said, 'You arrest your case'
Where is the mistake Mike? This is a list of the times you have used the word 'aforementioned' - it is your buzz word. I think it's best that we have the statement looked at by someone outside of the forum and lets stop the sillyness altogether. It doesn't help anyone. Some peole may just take this stuff at face vaule, others have learned to believe nothing unless there is proof.
-
The only " plonker " I can see in all this is S.Jones who tried his best to look the all-important cop using language that would have been completely alien to what he was used to. One slug of whisky from his flask and he spoke as though he'd swallowed a dictionary with it.
In other words, he had on his jobsworth hat. ::)
Eh? ::)
-
The thing that has hurt me Caroline, the fact that this low life can call us th
xxxx all those of you who think that injustice can never occur, you are all lower than a snakes belly, nothing but evil, vile low life scumbags!
Without one person or poster sticking up for us, he is doing what he has blamed the police for with documents, only NGB has had the guts to tosay so, shame on them and shame on them that openly call the family and experts.
Well, I have learned not to expect any support from anyone other than a few people. I came here to find the truth, not be led down a a path of crumbs that someone else 'wishes' was the truth. I guess it's a game for some people and they can call me all the fucking scumb bags in the word - it's like water off a ducks back because in the end, they know that I know the truth. Lets leave 'denile' where it belngs - in Egypt - full of you know what!
-
SJ altered Colin Caffell's statement , then asked him not to mention it , was Colin's the only statement
altered ?
-
Ask Mike, he’s an expert
Do police forces alter statements ?
-
Is the Pope Catholic.?? :o
-
SJ altered Colin Caffell's statement , then asked him not to mention it , was Colin's the only statement
altered ?
Was it really 'altered'?
-
Where is the mistake Mike? This is a list of the times you have used the word 'aforementioned' - it is your buzz word. I think it's best that we have the statement looked at by someone outside of the forum and lets stop the sillyness altogether. It doesn't help anyone. Some peole may just take this stuff at face vaule, others have learned to believe nothing unless there is proof.
Stop trying to be pedantic!!!
-
I can easily play your silly little nonsensical game - of pedantic bullshit...
lets look at some of the hundreds and hundreds of genuine fake composite witness statements, and official police documentation:-...
Oh, look, two sound Moderators, not just one!!
-
I can easily play your silly little nonsensical game - of pedantic bullshit...
lets look at some of the hundreds and hundreds of genuine fake composite witness statements, and official police documentation:-...
Oh, look, two sound Moderators, not just one!!
If there was only the one sound moderator, then how come it mentions two sound moderators, if there was in reality only one..
-
If there was only the one sound moderator, then how come it mentions two sound moderators, if there was in reality only one..
Please, let me remind you mother fukkers, that if there was only the one sound moderator, then how come a sound moderator had been submitted to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August 1985, and another submitted to the lab' on the 20th Sepetember 1985?
THINK!!!
-
Please, let me remind you mother fukkers, that if there was only the one sound moderator, then how come a sound moderator had been submitted to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August 1985, and another submitted to the lab' on the 20th Sepetember 1985?
THINK!!!
Lets get the facts right, as reported by Essex police and the lab' -
blood found inside a silencer (DB/1) that was dismantled at the lab' by the ballistic expert, Fletcher on the 12th September, 1985, but attributed to a different sound moderator (DRB/1) which was not submitted to the Lab' until the 20th September 1985...
Am I reporting 'THE FACTS' right, well, yes, of course I am...
-
Why was it necessary, to merge two different sound moderators (handed to Essex police by Peter Eaton to Stan Jones on 12th August 1985), and by his wife, Ann Eaton who handed a sound moderator to DC Oakey on the 11th Septemebr 1985, if there really was just the one sound moderator? Er... something simply does not add up, or match here...
Maybe some of you will think that I am a low life scumbag who is making things up? But, alas, I am neither a low life scumbag nor am I making things up...
Why would I need to make things up, when the opposition is so blatently making things up, and I have the very simple task of exposing the lies they are introducing??
-
Was it really 'altered'?
How would u word it , if altered , is not right word ?
CC said one thing , SJ changed it to something else , SJ asked CC to not mention his change .
-
Well, I have learned not to expect any support from anyone other than a few people. I came here to find the truth, not be led down a a path of crumbs that someone else 'wishes' was the truth.
But that's exactly what you are trying to do now. And I say trying because your path of crumbs that you portray as the truth has less commuters than Blake Hall tube station.
-
Any way, as I have consistently been mataining, the DJones composite witness statement, dated, 8th September 1985, is genuine to the best knowledge and belief! It's not my fault that there are those amongst us that the contents of the same, find to be upsetting and distressing!
Oh, and my own IP address remains the same at all times for whichever device I might be using...
-
Any way, as I have consistently been mataining, the DJones composite witness statement, dated, 8th September 1985, is genuine to the best knowledge and belief! It's not my fault that there are those amongst us that the contents of the same, find to be upsetting and distressing!
Oh, and my own IP address remains the same at all times for whichever device I might be using...
So Mike, to summarize after all that unnecessary unpleasantness earlier, what you're really saying, is that in YOUR OPINION "the DJones composite witness statement,dated 8th September 1985 is genuine". That is your prerogative. Personally, I don't find the contents "to be upsetting or distressing" because I DON'T believe the report to be genuine. That is MY prerogative. I see no reason to be other than adult about it.
-
Any way, as I have consistently been mataining, the DJones composite witness statement, dated, 8th September 1985, is genuine to the best knowledge and belief! It's not my fault that there are those amongst us that the contents of the same, find to be upsetting and distressing!
Oh, and my own IP address remains the same at all times for whichever device I might be using...
No it doesn't.
-
But that's exactly what you are trying to do now. And I say trying because your path of crumbs that you portray as the truth has less commuters than Blake Hall tube station.
Except I know it's a fake - you WANT it to be real. Put your money where your mouth is and send it to one of your 'in the know' errrrrr contacts. Let them all have a laugh!
-
For those who believe the document a forgery need to explain the signature on the statement.
Furthermore those who insinuate that Mike created it need to explain why he did not point out such a detail in his own forgery and have the authenticity of the statement concealed. ::)
-
For those who believe the document a forgery need to explain the signature on the statement.
Furthermore those who insinuate that Mike created it need to explain why he did not point out such a detail in his own forgery and have the authenticity of the statement concealed. ::)
No we don't - this is just YOU claiming it's his signature - search the forum for the word 'aforementioned' ::)
-
The sound moderator / silencer / suppressor which Cook took to the lab' on 13th August 1985, did not have an exhibit label attached to it when Jones handed it over to Cook and Cook handed it over at the lab' to Glynis Howard - so when Cook arrived at the lab' he attached his own exhibit label labelling it 'SJ/1', not 'SBJ/1', not 'DB/1' and not 'DRB/1'...
It is important that everyone knows this, and understands it...
'SJ/1'
-
The sound moderator / silencer / suppressor which Cook took to the lab' on 13th August 1985, did not have an exhibit label attached to it when Jones handed it over to Cook and Cook handed it over at the lab' to Glynis Howard - so when Cook arrived at the lab' he attached his own exhibit label labelling it 'SJ/1', not 'SBJ/1', not 'DB/1' and not 'DRB/1'...
It is important that everyone knows this, and understands it...
'SJ/1'
Here is the relevant extract from Ron Cooks notebook entry, dated, 13th August 1985:-
-
That sound moderator / silencer / suppressor ('SJ/1') has led a charmed life according to the lab' documentation and the contents of genuinely faked composite witness statements which have sought to alter its unique exhibit reference No. on numerous occasions...
Here, lets take a closer look:-
-
We need to pay particular attention to the genuinely faked composite witness statement created by some cop or other, or a force solicitor or other, or a rogue CPS person or other, because whoever produced this forgery refers to the Sound Moderator, not a silencer, or a gun suppressor...
And whoever, or whichever cop, or solicitor or \CPS person that faked this evidence, didn't even bother to put the date the forgery was created...
-
It would have been a good idea to have got the name of the rifle right for starters. ::)
-
Then there's this:-
This version of this genuinely fake composite witness statement in David Boutflours name, was to all intents and purposes taken by a DC 494 Benton on the 12th September 1985
But...
Why are there two versions of the same composite witness statement created using two different typesets?
How come, nobody gets to see the hand written version which DC 494 Benton must have recorded in his own hand writing bearing his signature, and the signature of David Boutflour?
-
Was DC 494 Benton one of the crooked police officers who has been creating these genuinely fake composite witness statements that are everywhere?
Why no witness statement from DC Benton saying that on a particular date that he took a witness statement from David Boutflour?
-
Was DC 494 Benton one of the crooked police officers who has been creating these genuinely fake composite witness statements that are everywhere?
Why no witness statement from DC Benton saying that on a particular date that he took a witness statement from David Boutflour?
We know that on the 12th September 1985, that David Boutflour contacted the police to report that he had found the sound moderator to the gun because there is a document stating this (unless that too is a genuinely fake police record too..
-
We know that on the 12th September 1985, that David Boutflour contacted the police to report that he had found the sound moderator to the gun because there is a document stating this (unless that too is a genuinely fake police record too..
The sound moderator that Stan Jones took from Peter Eaton on the 12th August 1985, was the same sound moderator which Ron Cook took to the lab' the very next day (SJ/1), to be examined by Glynis Howard. We have seen the notes which Ron Cook recorded in his notebook which says that this / that sound moderator was given the exhibit mark of SJ/1. We also know that there was insufficient blood on the silencer at the time of that examination by Howard and that the sound moderator was handed back to Ron Cook, who says (elsewhere) that he retained that sound moderator in his jacket pocket and carried it around everywhere with him for the next 17 days and nights, until that sound moderator was eventually sent back to the lab' under a different disguise, by then it supposedly being referred to by the exhibit mark of DB/1..
In any event, the sound moderator is finally at the lab' again from 30th August 1985, onwards, where it remained until it was produced at court as court exhibit No.9 but was it?
And, if it was, how come that Ann Eaton and the relatives still had the sound moderator until the day before David Boutflour telephoned Essex police up on the 12th September, 1985, to tell the police that he had found the sound moderator to the gun (Ann Eaton had handed it over to DC Oakey 11th September 1985)?
Why is Boutflour telling police via the telephone on the 12th September 1985, that he has found the sound moderator to the gun, if the cops already knew he found the sound moderator that Stan Jones recovered from Peter Eaton on the 12th August 1985, and by then they also had the sound moderator that Ann Eaton had given to DC Oakey the previous day (11th September 1985)?
Stan Jones, and DC Oakey, dodgy coppers...
-
The role that DC Oakey played at the scene on that first morning of the police investigation, accompanying senior officers to create Sheila Caffells death scene on the main bedroom floor, should not be overlooked easily, because officially he was never at whf that morning, neither was DC Henderson - both were ghosted out of the investigation, in the same way that Stan Jones seized four exhibits from the farmhouse that same morning (7th August 1985)...
Funny how Stan Jones and DC Oakey should both be linked to one of the two sound moderators which Essex police introduced into evidence with the help of consenting relatives and lab' experts, in order to get Jeremy Bamber convicted of killing his sister and of staging her death scene, when it was the cops who are responsible for doing these things. There has clearly been a conspiracy involving cops, relatives and experts in this matter, and documents have been forged and faked by somebody and everybody who was called upon to do so by the corrupt criminal justice system...
-
For those who believe the document a forgery need to explain the signature on the statement.
Furthermore those who insinuate that Mike created it need to explain why he did not point out such a detail in his own forgery and have the authenticity of the statement concealed. ::)
How is that even a signature?
-
Was DC 494 Benton one of the crooked police officers who has been creating these genuinely fake composite witness statements that are everywhere?
Why no witness statement from DC Benton saying that on a particular date that he took a witness statement from David Boutflour?
The clue is in the first 4 letters of his surname.
-
The clue is in the first 4 letters of his surname.
Great spot!
-
The thing that has hurt me Caroline, the fact that this low life can call us th
xxxx all those of you who think that injustice can never occur, you are all lower than a snakes belly, nothing but evil, vile low life scumbags!
Without one person or poster sticking up for us, he is doing what he has blamed the police for with documents, only NGB has had the guts to to say as such so, shame on them and shame on them that openly call the family and experts.
I have not been on the forum today until now and very little the past week or so. If I had been on I would not have just stood by or looked the other way. I completely support ngb's stance.
-
Lets introduce named conspirators involved in the sound moderator debacle - Detective Inspector Ron Cook, to begin with...
Now, we know that Cook kept the sound moderator according to what he told COLP, that he kept the sound moderator (SJ/1) in his jacket pocket for 17 days and nights after Glynis Howard handed it back to him at Huntingdon Lab' on the 13th August 1985. So, on the following day when Cook and Jones went back to the farmhouse on the pretense of taking measurements required for the coroner, Ron Cook must have had that sound moderator with him, because he told COLP in a witness statement (bearing in mind that he made that witness statement of his own free will, knowing that if he stated in it anything that was false or he knew not to be true, that he would be liable to prosecution - in any event, Ron Cook did have that sound moderator with him at the scene when he went there along with police Inspector 'Bob' Miller, and Stan Jones, in the company of Ann Eaton!
Now Ann Eaton was told by the cops on that occasion, that she had not seen whatever it was that the cops had been doing in the region of the kitchen aga!
In Cooks version of the events he merely took a paint sample which he claims was given the exhibit reference RWC/1. Miller and Jones back him up in their respective versions of the events...
But what is very interesting is that in Stan Jones haste to corroborate what Cook said he had done and did, Jones states that the cops didn't have the sound moderator with them when they went to the scene on that day, at the time Cook took that paint sample...
-
Lets introduce named conspirators involved in the sound moderator debacle - Detective Inspector Ron Cook, to begin with...
Now, we know that Cook kept the sound moderator according to what he told COLP, that he kept the sound moderator (SJ/1) in his jacket pocket for 17 days and nights after Glynis Howard handed it back to him at Huntingdon Lab' on the 13th August 1985. So, on the following day when Cook and Jones went back to the farmhouse on the pretense of taking measurements required for the coroner, Ron Cook must have had that sound moderator with him, because he told COLP in a witness statement (bearing in mind that he made that witness statement of his own free will, knowing that if he stated in it anything that was false or he knew not to be true, that he would be liable to prosecution - in any event, Ron Cook did have that sound moderator with him at the scene when he went there along with police Inspector 'Bob' Miller, and Stan Jones, in the company of Ann Eaton!
Now Ann Eaton was told by the cops on that occasion, that she had not seen whatever it was that the cops had been doing in the region of the kitchen aga!
In Cooks version of the events he merely took a paint sample which he claims was given the exhibit reference RWC/1. Miller and Jones back him up in their respective versions of the events...
But what is very interesting is that in Stan Jones haste to corroborate what Cook said he had done and did, Jones states that the cops didn't have the sound moderator with them when they went to the scene on that day, at the time Cook took that paint sample...
But Ron Cook did have the sound moderator in his jacket pocket at the farmhouse that day (14th August 1985)...
-
I have not been on the forum today until now and very little the past week or so. If I had been on I would not have just stood by or looked the other way. I completely support ngb's stance.
The insults and threats -not to mention the foul language- levied against Justice -who MORE than lives up to the name, being one of the most objective and reasonable posters here, were beyond unacceptable and unforgivable.
-
Stan Jones made a false witness statement to the COLP investigators, he knew full well that when Cook, Miller, himself, and Ann Eaton, went to whf on the 14th August 1985...
Here is the blatant lie that Stan Jones put in his so called statement of truth:-
The sound moderator was definitely with Cook, Miller, Jones and Eaton when they went and marked the kitchen aga on the 14th August 1985. Ron Cook took it to the scene concealed in his jacket pocket so now we have key cops telling blatant lies for each other, trying to pretend that the sound moderator was not with the motley crew at the scene on that day, when all along it was!
-
The insults and threats -not to mention the foul language- levied against Justice -who MORE than lives up to the name, being one of the most objective and reasonable posters here, were beyond unacceptable and unforgivable.
I know I have just read through them.
-
Stan Jones made a false witness statement to the COLP investigators, he knew full well that when Cook, Miller, himself, and Ann Eaton, went to whf on the 14th August 1985...
Here is the blatant lie that Stan Jones put in his so called statement of truth:-
The sound moderator was definitely with Cook, Miller, Jones and Eaton when they went and marked the kitchen aga on the 14th August 1985. Ron Cook took it to the scene concealed in his jacket pocket so now we have key cops telling blatant lies for each other, trying to pretend that the sound moderator was not with the motley crew at the scene on that day, when all along it was!
So this brings me on to the coup de grace evidence, the mould that Elliot took from the underside of the kitchen mantelpiece in the kitchen at whf...
Apparently, it had corresponding marks of the knurl around the circumference of the silencers end cap, and so it should be obvious to a headless chicken that Cook and all those present at the scene on that date, did use the silencer to make that mark / impression - it was not just a case of Cook taking a paint sample, it was a case of using the sound moderator to make that indentation which in turn caused red paint particles to become ingrained into the knurl of that silencer!
-
Ron Cook contaminated the end of the sound moderator with paint from the kitchen aga surround, he did this on the 14th August 1985, whilst the other three conspirators looked on! The three bent coppers who were there on that occasion swore Ann Eaton to secrecy, they told her that she hadn't seen what had been done, Ann Eaton knew the truth right from that day onward, she knew how red paint from the kitchen aga surround got into the knurl of the silencers end cap...
-
And there was Stan Jones, talking the big talk how he knew on the 14th August 1985, that the blood on the silencer was human, and that he knew this by the 14th August 1985:-
According to Glynis Howard, there was insufficient blood on the outside of the sound moderator for blood grouping purposes...
Its not at all surprising that there should bee any blood on the outside of that sound moderator considering that it was transported away from the scene in the boot of Ann Eatons car along with bloodstained knickers belonging to Sheila Caffell in a bucket, which were all transported to the Eaton home, and handled without gloves by the relatives...
That's the most likeliest explanation for how a small amount of human blood got onto the outside of the sound moderator, it got there as a result of contamination during the transportation of it and other bloodstained items that relatives took away from the scene on the 10th August 1985...
-
The insults and threats -not to mention the foul language- levied against Justice -who MORE than lives up to the name, being one of the most objective and reasonable posters here, were beyond unacceptable and unforgivable.
Well it's not me,I've hardly been on the forum this week. I can't be blamed for everything ?
-
I wonder how Stan Jones knew it was human blood as early as the 14th August. Did EP have equipment which could determine it was human blood ?
What date was the silencer given to Huntingdon ?
-
He wouldn't have known until it had been tested and verified as such.
-
And there was Stan Jones, talking the big talk how he knew on the 14th August 1985, that the blood on the silencer was human, and that he knew this by the 14th August 1985:-
According to Glynis Howard, there was insufficient blood on the outside of the sound moderator for blood grouping purposes...
Its not at all surprising that there should bee any blood on the outside of that sound moderator considering that it was transported away from the scene in the boot of Ann Eatons car along with bloodstained knickers belonging to Sheila Caffell in a bucket, which were all transported to the Eaton home, and handled without gloves by the relatives...
That's the most likeliest explanation for how a small amount of human blood got onto the outside of the sound moderator, it got there as a result of contamination during the transportation of it and other bloodstained items that relatives took away from the scene on the 10th August 1985...
Also of some significance, was the fact that when Ann Eaton came to make her COLP witness statement, she was telling COLP that DCS 'Mick' Ainsley, had told her that when it came time for her to give evidence during the forthcoming trial, that the defence might allege that relatives had deliberately contaminated the sound moderator with Sheila's blood from her soiled panties. How she had responded to Ainsley by saying that she would say that there was a different smell to ordinary blood as opposed to menstrual blood! And, How Ainsley had told her to make sure she told the court that when she gave evidence if she was asked about it...
-
Also of some significance, was the fact that when Ann Eaton came to make her COLP witness statement, she was telling COLP that DCS 'Mick' Ainsley, had told her that when it came time for her to give evidence during the forthcoming trial, that the defence might allege that relatives had deliberately contaminated the sound moderator with Sheila's blood from her soiled panties. How she had responded to Ainsley by saying that she would say that there was a different smell to ordinary blood as opposed to menstrual blood! And, How Ainsley had told her to make sure she told the court that when she gave evidence if she was asked about it...
The really strange thing concerning this point, is that neither Glynis Howard, nor John Hayward who would later produce the key blood group evidence which he said belonged exclusively to Sheila caffell, was that they didn't make such a distinction, or comment upon the fact that the blood group activity would be identical whether or not the blood being tested was ordinary blood or menstrual blood!
-
Well it's not me,I've hardly been on the forum this week. I can't be blamed for everything ?
It was not you lookout. A lot of posts have been removed. You were not involved.
-
Nobody bothered to argue during the trial that relatives had damaged any prospect of the silencer evidence, and blood associated with it being reliable because there was a very strong possibility that blood had got onto the sound moderator and inside it too, as a result of contamination! The relatives by their own admission had gone to the scene that morning to clean up the blood and take away firearms and accessories which themselves could have got blood on them! The relatives had been touching bloodstained items, none of them had taken any precautions to prevent anything that they had taken away from the scene from being innocently, or accidentally contaminated with blood!
-
Well it's not me,I've hardly been on the forum this week. I can't be blamed for everything ?
No one is blaming you Lookout.
-
Stan Jones was just a natural liar...
It was obvious to an headless chicken that PC Bird was not at the scene when Jones and Clark first visited the main bedroom scene at just after 9.00am, because Cook and Bird did not even arrive at the scene until 9.20am. They were kept waiting another 40 minutes before senior officers allowed them in to do their (SOC) work. But when Jones returned back to the scene at about 11.30am, PC Bird was present when Jones took possession of SBJ/1 from the downstairs toilet...
-
Despite what Jones was telling the COLP investigators in his COLP witness statement, he was wrong about the rifle having been found on the body. He saw the same rifle on the bed in between the bodies of June Bamber and Sheila Caffell which were laid on top of the bed alongside each other, when he first entered the main bedroom,and Sheila had only one shot to her neck by that stage!...
-
He was just telling lie after lie...
-
Stan Jones and Mick Clark told the relatives, including Ann Eaton everything they wanted to know about where the bodies of the five victims had been found on the first morning of the police investigation! Neville Bamber was found in the kitchen, they told her and them, June and Sheila were on the bed next to each other, and the two child victims were found dead in their respective beds in another bedroom. They told her and the other relatives that Sheila had only been shot once, because she only had one bullet wound to her neck when they visited the bedroom and saw the carnage!
There can be little doubt that Stan Jones was full of bullshit!
He only saw Peter Eaton when he collected the sound moderator from him on the 12th August 1985,
but he told the COLP investigators that Ann Eaton was there as well on that occasion!
Amazing, Ann Eaton was there when her husband Peter handed Jones the sound moderator (SJ/1) on the 12th August 1985, and she herself handed a sound moderator (DRB/1) over to DC Oakey the following month on the 11th September 1985...
-
And, here is Stan Jones referring to the silencer as the sound moderator as of the 12th and 13th August 1985, as per his COLP witness statement:-
Stan Jones didn't need to put an exhibit label on the sound moderator he took from Peter Eaton, because Ron Cook knew that Jones had seized the sound moderator from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation! Cook was just given that sound moderator by Jones, and Cook didn't know that Jones and Jones had returned it to whf on the 9th August 1985, Cook took it for granted that it was the same sound moderator, and that's why he himself attached a label to it upon arriving at the lab' and why he gave it the identifying mark of SJ/1...
-
It was not you lookout. A lot of posts have been removed. You were not involved.
Thank goodness for that. I wouldn't have known what it was about anyway as I've been in and out lately.Thankyou for the reassurance NGB.
-
And, here is Stan Jones referring to the silencer as the sound moderator as of the 12th and 13th August 1985, as per his COLP witness statement:-
Stan Jones didn't need to put an exhibit label on the sound moderator he took from Peter Eaton, because Ron Cook knew that Jones had seized the sound moderator from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation! Cook was just given that sound moderator by Jones, and Cook didn't know that Jones and Jones had returned it to whf on the 9th August 1985, Cook took it for granted that it was the same sound moderator, and that's why he himself attached a label to it upon arriving at the lab' and why he gave it the identifying mark of SJ/1...
Here is Stan Jones suddenly knowing everything there was to know about the different exhibit references attributed to the sound moderator at different stages of the police investigation - SBJ/1 and then DB/1, when Ron Cook gave it SJ/1...
-
How is that even a signature?
Try looking at it. Someone has tried to scribble it out but you can still see outer edges of DS Jones signature.
-
Try looking at it. Someone has tried to scribble it out but you can still see outer edges of DS Jones signature.
Oh sorry! I was using my ear but now you have pointed out that I should use my eyes - I'll go back and have another look - Nope sorry! How is what you posted a signature?
-
Oh, peace and quiet, before the storm, as the saying goes...
-
Well, here we are now dealing with what Stan Jones said to the COLP investigators as per the notes relating to his interview by them:-
According to log (which log) Stan Jones left the scene at 10.59am (what)?
And he was dropped off at Jeremy's cottage at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger (What)? Arriving there at 11.15am (What)?
So, he left Head Street at 11.35am, did he? That means that Stan Jones on this version of his evidence was only at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, Jeremy's cottage for a maximum of 20 minutes between 11.15am, and 11.35am (What)?
So, in this 20 minutes or so, Stan had been present long enough to inform Ann Eaton and the other relatives that June Bambers and Sheila Caffells bodies had been laid on top of the bed, and that there was a rifle laying on the bed in between both bodies, and that Sheila had got a bible on her chest!!
Now, if Stan Jones did not leave the scene until 10.59am, then of course the second team of SOC, Cook, Bird, Davidson and Hammersley, had already been in control of the farmhouse crime scene for almost an hour, and if this is true, then of course Stan Jones has told a blatant lie in one of his witness statements, where he states that he did not recollect PC Bird being present inside the farmhouse whilst he was there! (What)? Well of course PC Bird was there in the farmhouse between 10.00am and 10.59am, so Stan Jones has demonstrated a propensity to lie about matters...
Then, at 11.45am, Stan Jones returns to the scene but he claims he does not know the reason why he went back there within about 45 minutes of having left there? Well Stanley old boy, you went back to seize the four exhibits from the downstairs toilet and the kitchen, namely exhibits SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1 and these four exhibits were recorded in a Property Register - you seized the rifle belonging to Anthony Pargeter, and his 17 baffled Parker Hale Silencer. You took this back to Witham Police station and you placed it in DCI Jones office because he had sent you there to recover the gun and the sound moderator in question...
-
How coincidental that although Stan Jones only stayed 20 minutes at Jeremy's cottage on that first morning of the investigation, that he should find time to tell Ann Eaton and the other relatives gathered there, that Neville Bambers body was found in the kitchen, and that the two bodies of June and Sheila were found on top of the bed in the main bedroom, and that there was a rifle on the bed in between both bodies, and that Sheila had got a bible on her chest! By all accounts he overheard Jeremy Chuckling when he had a quite moment with Julie, as described...
Then he left Jeremy's cottage, and as it were he returned back to the scene!
Of course he did..
-
Well it's not me,I've hardly been on the forum this week. I can't be blamed for everything ?
No, you're right, Lookout. It wasn't you :)
-
It was not you lookout. A lot of posts have been removed. You were not involved.
One of mine was removed also Neil - I asked who had been banned (as there was reference made to a ban in other posts).
-
One of mine was removed also Neil - I asked who had been banned (as there was reference made to a ban in other posts).
I have pmd you Roch.
-
Stan Jones and Mick Clark told the relatives, including Ann Eaton everything they wanted to know about where the bodies of the five victims had been found on the first morning of the police investigation! Neville Bamber was found in the kitchen, they told her and them, June and Sheila were on the bed next to each other, and the two child victims were found dead in their respective beds in another bedroom. They told her and the other relatives that Sheila had only been shot once, because she only had one bullet wound to her neck when they visited the bedroom and saw the carnage!
here:-
-
Exactly how Stan Jones could not have seen that Sheila had two bullet wounds with blood streaming also from the corners of her mouth, by reference to the crime scene showing both injuries and the mess on her neck and face of the blood pouring out from all over the place is testimony to what must have happened and did happen once Stan Jones left the farmhouse to go to Jeremy's cottage...
How did he miss noticing all this blood on her face, on her neck, running from her nostril and pooling in her left eye socket?
Stan Jones does not see the two bloodied fingermarks against the top wound, or notice the fact that fresh blood has run over the top of these fingermarks...
It doesn't seem to dawn on Stan Jones how fresh looking the blood appears to be on her neck wounds..
Bright red blood on her neck and on her nightdress!!!
-
Oh sorry! I was using my ear but now you have pointed out that I should use my eyes - I'll go back and have another look - Nope sorry! How is what you posted a signature?
Well if you can't see it or don't want to see it (I suspect the latter). It's really not my problem.
-
Exactly how Stan Jones could not have seen that Sheila had two bullet wounds with blood streaming also from the corners of her mouth, by reference to the crime scene showing both injuries and the mess on her neck and face of the blood pouring out from all over the place is testimony to what must have happened and did happen once Stan Jones left the farmhouse to go to Jeremy's cottage...
How did he miss noticing all this blood on her face, on her neck, running from her nostril and pooling in her left eye socket?
Stan Jones does not see the two bloodied fingermarks against the top wound, or notice the fact that fresh blood has run over the top of these fingermarks...
It doesn't seem to dawn on Stan Jones how fresh looking the blood appears to be on her neck wounds..
Bright red blood on her neck and on her nightdress!!!
I find that the reason Stan Jones does not mention these features was because Sheila hadn't been shot a second time by that stage...
Police are responsible for shooting Sheila the second time after Stan Jones first view of the body prior to him leaving the scene, and going to Jeremy's cottage!!
When he next returned to the scene, she had by that stage been shot on the second occasion...
-
Stan Jones did not see the blood which had run from the corners of Sheila's mouth, or out from her left nostril that pooled in her left eye socket - because at the time of his first visit to the scene, in particular the main bedroom, there was no blood running from the corners of her mouth, or out of one nostril, and there was no pooling of blood in her left eye socket!
I find that the blood only started to run from the corners of Sheila's mouth, and out of her nostril, once the second fatal shot had penetrated the base and roof of her mouth en route to its final resting place inside her brain, and that when Stan Jones first saw Sheila, that that second shot could not have been fired...
Hence, why he only saw one bullet wound on Sheila's neck on the very first occasion that he viewed her body!
-
We'll never know if that second shot had been a" coup-de-grace " or not.
-
We'll never know if that second shot had been a" coup-de-grace " or not.
If Sheila had already been shot twice by the time the police surgeon (Dr Craig), at 8.44am, and when Stan Jones saw Sheila's body on the bed shortly afterwards, both would have been able to see that she had been shot twice, they would not be saying that she had what appeared to be a single wound, or a solitary wound, or that they didn't realise until later that she had been shot twice!!!
Nobody can be mistaken looking at those photographs that in them Sheila has been shot twice by the time that PC Bird took those pictures after 10.00am...
-
If Sheila had already been shot twice by the time the police surgeon (Dr Craig), at 8.44am, and when Stan Jones saw Sheila's body on the bed shortly afterwards, both would have been able to see that she had been shot twice, they would not be saying that she had what appeared to be a single wound, or a solitary wound, or that they didn't realise until later that she had been shot twice!!!
Nobody can be mistaken looking at those photographs that in them Sheila has been shot twice by the time that PC Bird took those pictures after 10.00am...
Stan Jones also told the COLP investigators that Sheila looked so clean as though she couldn't have been involved in the attacks upon June and Neville Bamber - but she doesn't look that clean in the disclosed photographs that PC Bird took after 10.00am...
-
Stan Jones also told the COLP investigators that Sheila looked so clean as though she couldn't have been involved in the attacks upon June and Neville Bamber - but she doesn't look that clean in the disclosed photographs that PC Bird took after 10.00am...
She had grab marks in the region of her right wrist and hand, and multiple smudge marks in blood on her right forearm, well defined marks in blood as though she had been holding the rifle at the tritgger guard and stock region, all marks that are consistent with her having been involved in some altercation with her victims at some stage, and handling and firing the gun!
Neither Stan Jones, or Dr Craig, or anybody else for that matter, noticed the huge triangular bloodstain in the region of her right armpit and shoulder, something which was not present of course at the time of their sightings. These were formed upon that part of the nightdress after Craig and Jones had left the scene and the second shot got inflicted. Cops realised that she had not been dead when they shot her in a humongous blunder at about 9.13am, cops hurriedly tried to stem the flow of blood by pressing two fingers against the second wound and placed her body upon its right side in the recovery position, trying desperately to keep her alive. It was clear that by 10.00am, cops were finally satisfied that Sheila had died, and that's when the second team of SOC (Cook, Bird, Davidson and Hammersley were permitted to record the crime scene from that stage forward...
-
Why was it that Julie Mugford only saw one shot while visiting the mortuary ? Given that both are so close ?
-
Why was it that Julie Mugford only saw one shot while visiting the mortuary ? Given that both are so close ?
Well it can be an extremely distressing time and I think most people charged with that task just take a quick look then withdraw.
-
Well it can be an extremely distressing time and I think most people charged with that task just take a quick look then withdraw.
She hadn't been " charged " with the task Steve------she volunteered.
-
She hadn't been " charged " with the task Steve------she volunteered.
Well we've been over this before. She was the only one present apart from Colin who could tell the twins apart.
-
Well we've been over this before. She was the only one present apart from Colin who could tell the twins apart.
In view of her post-funeral antics,I don't take the fact that she'd been the only one who could identify the twins as her " excuse " for having gone.
Why hadn't S.Jones permitted Heather,who'd been the first to offer on Colin's behalf.?
One can't help but feel an ulterior motive in everything that man did.
-
I don't believe posters should support Bamber just because Julie identified the twins. Which some supporters do.
A decision needs to be made on the evidence. Of which none shows Sheila was the killer.
Bamber rang Julie 3 times within 7 hours either side of the massacre. After being whisked over to WHF in a police car against her will, she probably assumed she should try to do something to be helpful.
The jury at trial knew Julie identified the twins. She mentioned it herself. However it was not considered worthy of being mentioned by the judge in his summing up & the jury voted guilty.
-
Despite what Stan Jones says about Sheila being almost spotlessly clean, the photographic evidence taken by PC Bird (part of second SOC team which started taking pictures from 10.00am onward) tells an entirely different story - since, her body was bloodstained, her clothing was bloodstained, her face was bloodstained, her neck was bloodstained, there was blood in her left eye socket, her right forearm was bloodstained, the top part of her right wrist / hand was bloodstained, her feet were bloodstained, she had a broken toe nail...
-
I don't believe posters should support Bamber just because Julie identified the twins. Which some supporters do.
A decision needs to be made on the evidence. Of which none shows Sheila was the killer.
Bamber rang Julie 3 times within 7 hours either side of the massacre. After being whisked over to WHF in a police car against her will, she probably assumed she should try to do something to be helpful.
The jury at trial knew Julie identified the twins. She mentioned it herself. However it was not considered worthy of being mentioned by the judge in his summing up & the jury voted guilty.
Youre xxxxxxx xxx
Julie had a million chances to be helpful after the murders but she didn't did she according to your take on things
The jury didn't know at trial about the NOTW deal did they?
You need to find another hobby if u continue to ignore facts
How about train spotting
-
I have decided that she did have blood all over her body and on her clothing and that this is consistent with her being involved in an altercation with someone who was bleeding at the time, or that some of these bloodstains manifested after cops shot her the second time...
-
I have decided that she did have blood all over her body and on her clothing and that this is consistent with her being involved in an altercation with someone who was bleeding at the time, or that some of these bloodstains manifested after cops shot her the second time...
I have decided that Sheila could not possibly have been shot twice in quick succession there on the bedroom floor, because what Stan Jones told Ann Eaton at Jeremy's cottage on the first morning of the police investigation about Sheila's body being laid on top of the bed was true, he would have had no need to lie about it, and he didn't...
-
I have decided that she did have blood all over her body and on her clothing and that this is consistent with her being involved in an altercation with someone who was bleeding at the time, or that some of these bloodstains manifested after cops shot her the second time...
I'm with you up to the point of the cops shooting Shiela. I can't believe that happened.
It would not have harmed the police to admit that they had shot her, either accidently or on purpose
On the other hand perhaps Taff knew this, and went with murder/suicide so the cops were not grilled.
It was not until Taff was replaced that things changed.
-
Youre barking mad
Julie had a million chances to be helpful after the murders but she didn't did she according to your take on things
The jury didn't know at trial about the NOTW deal did they?
You need to find another hobby if u continue to ignore facts
How about train spotting
If I'm the 'xxxxxxx xxx one, why do people call you xxx' Jackie.
I have lots of hobbies thanks. Making Bamber Youtube videos not being one of them. But thanks for the train spotting suggestion. I'll look into it.
-
I'm with you up to the point of the cops shooting Shiela. I can't believe that happened.
It would not have harmed the police to admit that they had shot her, either accidently or on purpose
On the other hand perhaps Taff knew this, and went with murder/suicide so the cops were not grilled.
It was not until Taff was replaced that things changed.
It would be interesting to know the truth of why " Taff " was replaced,would it not ? The real reason.
-
It would be interesting to know the truth of why " Taff " was replaced,would it not ? The real reason.
I thought it was the family who said they had no confidence in Taff.
-
I thought it was the family who said they had no confidence in Taff.
[/quote
Mmmmm.
-
It wouldn't surprise me if he faked his own suicide whilst the balance of his mind was disturbed, the Bamber case preying on him as he realized he had been outwitted by a person who had ostensibly deceived him by achieving a similar outcome.
-
Just 30 years+ experience under his belt,10 + commendations against a two-bit sergeant to solve one of the worst crimes of its time ? Can you believe that ?
-
It wouldn't surprise me if he faked his own suicide whilst the balance of his mind was disturbed, the Bamber case preying on him as he realized he had been outwitted by a person who had ostensibly deceived him by achieving a similar outcome.
You are joking ?
-
It wouldn't surprise me if he faked his own suicide whilst the balance of his mind was disturbed, the Bamber case preying on him as he realized he had been outwitted by a person who had ostensibly deceived him by achieving a similar outcome.
Surely Steve you do not believe that? So you believe he threw himself off a roof?
-
I know who I would rather trust and rely on in such a case !! And it wouldn't be a " wild-eyed " sergeant who drank from a flask---------against a DCI ?? Say it was any of us,who would we choose ??
-
I'm with you up to the point of the cops shooting Shiela. I can't believe that happened.
It would not have harmed the police to admit that they had shot her, either accidently or on purpose
On the other hand perhaps Taff knew this, and went with murder/suicide so the cops were not grilled.
It was not until Taff was replaced that things changed.
Sheila was only shot once (wounded once) when her body was reported as being present downstairs in the kitchen! If she had already been shot twice by that stage her body would have remained downstairs in the kitchen, it couldn't wind up laid on top of the bed if she had been shot twice by that stage! If she had been shot twice already by the time her body was laid on the bed by Ann Eatons, Stan Jones and Mick Clarks versions of the events, the police surgeon (8.44am) and Jones and Clark (after 9.05am, but prior to 9.13am) would have seen the two bullet wounds on Sheila's throat, and they would have seen all the blood on her nightdress, her face, coming out of her mouth, in her left eye socket, all the bloodstains on her right forearm, and thee top part of her right hand, but none of them did because I have decided that many of these bloodstains were caused after the second shot was discharged into Sheila's throat, and that this occurred after the police surgeon and Jones and Clark had left the main bedroom scene, and even the farmhouse altogether..
If the cops didn't shoot Sheila for the second time, then who else could have done it, only Sheila herself! But how could she shoot herself the second time without a gun? The rifle was at the boxroom window, two rooms away from the main bedroom! One thing is certain, it can't have been Jeremy Bamber who fired that second shot because he was outside with the police, he never set foot inside the farmhouse all the while he was present at the scene that morning (from 3.52am, onwards), and it can't have been any hitman, or mercenary, or the IRA or the PLO. I have decided that if Sheila had gone on to shoot herself on the second occasion that the cops would have said that was what happened, there would be no need for them to lie (so I agree with you there, on that point). Therefore, they must have shot her..
I have decided that they did shoot her...
They shot her when she was unarmed and mistakenly presumed to be dead already on the bed in the main bedroom, where according to what cops told Ann Eaton there had been a rifle on the bed in between the bodies of Sheila and June Bamber. Somebody must have brought the gun from the box room window at the time the bodies of June Bamber and Sheila were laid on top of the bed. That person I have decided could not have been Sheila, because if it had been she would have either used it to shoot at police officers inside the farmhouse, or she would have taken it intent upon shooting herself with it! Well, we know that Sheila had not shot herself by the time the police surgeon (Craig) saw her body on the far side of the bed, she had what appeared to be a solitary wound in her neck. When Craig saw Sheila's body the gun was described as laying alongside her body, not on top of it. Furthermore, Sheila had not got a second wound on her neck by the time Jones and Clark saw her body on the bed, when the rifle was laid on the bed (not on Sheila's body), in fact there had been a bible on Sheila's chest by that stage, so the rifle could not possibly also have been laid on the bed in between both bodies, and on Sheila's body where the bible had been at that stage..
Cops brought the rifle and placed it alongside Sheila's body at the stage where Dr Craig viewed Sheila's body, and cops placed the rifle in between both bodies on the bed prior to Jones and Clark seeing what they saw, and told Ann Eaton what they had seen...
To say that Sheila had died because of mistakes and errors made in the overall handling of the siege and raid parts of the investigation would be an understatement. Staging Sheila's body was a piece of police house keeping trying to keep everything under wraps, so that they did not have to be asked any awkward questions in public. Once the decision had been taken to treat the case as one of four murders and a suicide, it was too late for thee police to own up to what had taken place..
The relatives found out about what the cops had done by the beginning of September 1985, and from that point onwards they were able to blackmail Essex police into prosecuting Jeremy as the killer, with the help of an accomplice, who they thought might be Brett Collins...
-
Sheila was only shot once (wounded once) when her body was reported as being present downstairs in the kitchen! If she had already been shot twice by that stage her body would have remained downstairs in the kitchen, it couldn't wind up laid on top of the bed if she had been shot twice by that stage! If she had been shot twice already by the time her body was laid on the bed by Ann Eatons, Stan Jones and Mick Clarks versions of the events, the police surgeon (8.44am) and Jones and Clark (after 9.05am, but prior to 9.13am) would have seen the two bullet wounds on Sheila's throat, and they would have seen all the blood on her nightdress, her face, coming out of her mouth, in her left eye socket, all the bloodstains on her right forearm, and thee top part of her right hand, but none of them did because I have decided that many of these bloodstains were caused after the second shot was discharged into Sheila's throat, and that this occurred after the police surgeon and Jones and Clark had left the main bedroom scene, and even the farmhouse altogether..
If the cops didn't shoot Sheila for the second time, then who else could have done it, only Sheila herself! But how could she shoot herself the second time without a gun? The rifle was at the boxroom window, two rooms away from the main bedroom! One thing is certain, it can't have been Jeremy Bamber who fired that second shot because he was outside with the police, he never set foot inside the farmhouse all the while he was present at the scene that morning (from 3.52am, onwards), and it can't have been any hitman, or mercenary, or the IRA or the PLO. I have decided that if Sheila had gone on to shoot herself on the second occasion that the cops would have said that was what happened, there would be no need for them to lie (so I agree with you there, on that point). Therefore, they must have shot her..
I have decided that they did shoot her...
They shot her when she was unarmed and mistakenly presumed to be dead already on the bed in the main bedroom, where according to what cops told Ann Eaton there had been a rifle on the bed in between the bodies of Sheila and June Bamber. Somebody must have brought the gun from the box room window at the time the bodies of June Bamber and Sheila were laid on top of the bed. That person I have decided could not have been Sheila, because if it had been she would have either used it to shoot at police officers inside the farmhouse, or she would have taken it intent upon shooting herself with it! Well, we know that Sheila had not shot herself by the time the police surgeon (Craig) saw her body on the far side of the bed, she had what appeared to be a solitary wound in her neck. When Craig saw Sheila's body the gun was described as laying alongside her body, not on top of it. Furthermore, Sheila had not got a second wound on her neck by the time Jones and Clark saw her body on the bed, when the rifle was laid on the bed (not on Sheila's body), in fact there had been a bible on Sheila's chest by that stage, so the rifle could not possibly also have been laid on the bed in between both bodies, and on Sheila's body where the bible had been at that stage..
Cops brought the rifle and placed it alongside Sheila's body at the stage where Dr Craig viewed Sheila's body, and cops placed the rifle in between both bodies on the bed prior to Jones and Clark seeing what they saw, and told Ann Eaton what they had seen...
To say that Sheila had died because of mistakes and errors made in the overall handling of the siege and raid parts of the investigation would be an understatement. Staging Sheila's body was a piece of police house keeping trying to keep everything under wraps, so that they did not have to be asked any awkward questions in public. Once the decision had been taken to treat the case as one of four murders and a suicide, it was too late for thee police to own up to what had taken place..
The relatives found out about what the cops had done by the beginning of September 1985, and from that point onwards they were able to blackmail Essex police into prosecuting Jeremy as the killer, with the help of an accomplice, who they thought might be Brett Collins...
Cops had the case of Diana Jones in mind, and all the trouble it caused them at the time they staged Sheila Caffells death on the main bedroom floor as a suicide...
-
Well as I say it wouldn't surprise me, him knowing full well the gruelling he was going to get in the witness box and the concomitant loss of face. Of course I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't rule it out.
-
Steve in his 30+ years of service he'd have had to have endured pretty much the same in the witness box.
He'd have known all this when he joined the force and if he'd felt he couldn't hack it,he would have either dropped out or been as obviously dedicated as he was.
-
Steve in his 30+ years of service he'd have had to have endured pretty much the same in the witness box.
He'd have known all this when he joined the force and if he'd felt he couldn't hack it,he would have either dropped out or been as obviously dedicated as he was.
The point about Sheila being the culprit was Taff Jones' theory and he alone propagated it under threat of revolt by his subordinates. Once developments began to change, which started with Julie's evidence, there was a possibility that he just couldn't bear any loss of face, his questioning of Jeremy that first September morning was tentative and inadequate and gave the latter confidence that he couldn't be broken, and under those circumstances I don't find it difficult to envisage that he just wanted out, maybe in a way not to hurt his relatives or suffer any more loss of face through what might be perceived as a cowardly death of hanging, but leaving a mystique surrounding the death, which was the best result he could hope for faced with the forthcoming drubbing he was about to receive from the rigours of a gruelling trial.
-
(https://steemit-production-imageproxy-web.s3.amazonaws.com/U5drXGQjgywR959CfobVVYCUnVGGvg3)
I didn't say definitively he did, and I apologize to relatives who may be distressed at the thought. There's more on the subject here if members care to peruse. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=183.0
P.S. It has heartened me greatly that the two members who have heretofore ridiculed, namely Jackie and David, had nothing constructive to say whatsoever on the subject.
-
It wouldn't surprise me if he faked his own suicide whilst the balance of his mind was disturbed, the Bamber case preying on him as he realized he had been outwitted by a person who had ostensibly deceived him by achieving a similar outcome.
by all credebile acounts ive heard his death was exactly what has been stated he fell of a ladder.
-
Well if you can't see it or don't want to see it (I suspect the latter). It's really not my problem.
How is what YOU posted (which looks like 3 5 (or S) B) a signature? And why would he put exclamation marks after it and miss out the J or his surname?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50359)
-
how can you cliam mike is fordging documents and then rely on other documens hes posted to support your arguments.
-
how can you cliam mike is fordging documents and then rely on other documens hes posted to support your arguments.
I don't recall that I, or other detractors, have relied on any of Mike's posts to support our argument.
-
How is what YOU posted (which looks like 3 5 (or S) B) a signature? And why would he put exclamation marks after it and miss out the J or his surname?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50359)
-
I don't recall that I, or other detractors, have relied on any of Mike's posts to support our argument.
who posted all the statements here in the first place I belive it was mike.
-
I don't recall that I, or other detractors, have relied on any of Mike's posts to support our argument.
-
Stan Jones signature was very distinctive, and unique...
He had a hand in many naughty things in the investigation - for example, he had a hand in the seizing of the sound Moderator (SBJ/1) on the first morning, he returned 'it' to the farmhouse on evening 9th August, where it remained until David Boutfour found it on the following day! People can pretend all they want to that Stan Jones didn't recover it on that occasion, but he did and what's more, he seized a total of four exhibits at that time, including, SBJ/4, SBJ/3, and SBJ/2...
He took possession of the sound Moderator, on the occasion I have mentioned, so cops had it before the relatives! This can only mean that cops knew it was of limited value to their investigation! Even after relatives re-introduced 'it' cops appeared somewhat reluctant to utilise it...
-
David, you can post as many renditions of this as you like but how is it a signature? You're calling it that but that doesn't make it a signature nor does it mean that the same letters are under that scribble - you just think it is!!
Where does the document you posted mention Stand Jones?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50407)
-
who posted all the statements here in the first place I belive it was mike.
How is that relevant? So because someone posts legit statements - it mean they all are? You and David can believe what you like - that's your prerogative but if I believe that something isn't legit - then that's mine!
-
How is that relevant? So because someone posts legit statements - it mean they all are? You and David can believe what you like - that's your prerogative but if I believe that something isn't legit - then that's mine!
if you think somone posts forged documents then surely you have to qustion everything theyve posted.
-
if you think somone posts forged documents then surely you have to qustion everything theyve posted.
I'd say that there's a very strong possibility that many have. Sometimes it's best to hold onto these things.
-
I'd say that there's a very strong possibility that many have. Sometimes it's best to hold onto these things.
so if you think that as mikes posted all the statements how dou know weather they are the real statments or notso why are you then yousing the same statments to back your own arguments a dource is ethere reliable or it isnt.
it does not become reliable when its suporting your arguments and stop relaible when it doesnt.
-
Caroline, you can post as many excuses as you like but how is that not a signature? You're calling it otherwise but that doesn't make it not a signature nor does it mean that the same letters are not under that scribble - you just think it isn't!!
Caroline, you can post as many excuses as you like but how is that not a signature? You're calling it otherwise but that doesn't make it anything but signature nor does it mean that the same letters are not under that scribble - you just think they are not!!
Where does the document you posted mention Stand Jones?
According to Mike, Its Stan Jones signature on those lab documents. It appears on several of them. If you want to question whether its SJ signature or not, take it up with Mike not me.
-
I don't recall that I, or other detractors, have relied on any of Mike's posts to support our argument.
How many times must I repeat myself, nugs?
-
How many times must I repeat myself, nugs?
as many times as you like im still going to ignore you/
-
as many times as you like im still going to ignore you/
Whilst you persist in repeating the same bloody stupid question which has already BEEN answered, I won't bother. I wonder if it's occurred to you that no one else has bothered, either. Still carry on, if it amuses you.
-
Caroline, you can post as many excuses as you like but how is that not a signature? You're calling it otherwise but that doesn't make it anything but signature nor does it mean that the same letters are not under that scribble - you just think they are not!!
According to Mike, Its Stan Jones signature on those lab documents. It appears on several of them. If you want to question whether its SJ signature or not, take it up with Mike not me.
I can confirm that Stan Jones signatures appear on key Lab' records pertaining to crime scene ammunition. As such I have decided to share with you all the truly outstanding discovery I have been able to decide took place, in an effort to frame Jeremy Bamber for these murders, including the murder of his sister...
I am going to disclose that which I say establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Cops and relatives and their expert witnesses, framed Bamber as the coldblooded murderer, I am starting a new thread for the sole purpose of putting this wrong to right!
At the heart of this conspiracy, were Essex police, in particular, Stan Jones, the relatives, in particular, Robert Boutflour, David Boutflour, Ann and Peter Eaton, and Lab' Experts, Glynis Howard, Malcolm Fletcher, John Hayward and Brian Elliot..
I know what they did, and how they went about making Jeremy Bamber the killer - all will be revealed tonight!
-
I can confirm that Stan Jones signatures appear on key Lab' records pertaining to crime scene ammunition. As such I have decided to share with you all the truly outstanding discovery I have been able to decide took place, in an effort to frame Jeremy Bamber for these murders, including the murder of his sister...
I am going to disclose that which I say establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Cops and relatives and their expert witnesses, framed Bamber as the coldblooded murderer, I am starting a new thread for the sole purpose of putting this wrong to right!
At the heart of this conspiracy, were Essex police, in particular, Stan Jones, the relatives, in particular, Robert Boutflour, David Boutflour, Ann and Peter Eaton, and Lab' Experts, Glynis Howard, Malcolm Fletcher, John Hayward and Brian Elliot..
I know what they did, and how they went about making Jeremy Bamber the killer - all will be revealed tonight!
Thank you Mike.
-
Caroline, you can post as many excuses as you like but how is that not a signature? You're calling it otherwise but that doesn't make it anything but signature nor does it mean that the same letters are not under that scribble - you just think they are not!!
According to Mike, Its Stan Jones signature on those lab documents. It appears on several of them. If you want to question whether its SJ signature or not, take it up with Mike not me.
According to Mike? ;D How is THIS a signature David? And WHERE does the document you posted mention Stan Jones?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50366)
-
According to Mike? ;D How is THIS a signature David? And WHERE does the document you posted mention Stan Jones?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50366)
I don't think writing Stan Jones on a document is evidence of his signature, but you havehelped further the myth David. Well done! ::)
-
I don't think writing Stan Jones on a document is evidence of his signature, but you havehelped further the myth David. Well done! ::)
see latest thread, and see Stan Jones signature on the lab' documents, regarding how he was involved in the introduction of at least 10 spent cartridge cases (DRH/4, DRH/19, DRH/20, DRH/37, DRH/38, DRH/39 (a), DRH/39 (b), DRH/40, DRH/41 and DRH/43) so that the cops could allege the shootings had been a one gun crime!!
-
see latest thread, and see Stan Jones signature on the lab' documents, regarding how he was involved in the introduction of at least 10 spent cartridge cases (DRH/4, DRH/19, DRH/20, DRH/37, DRH/38, DRH/39 (a), DRH/39 (b), DRH/40, DRH/41 and DRH/43) so that the cops could allege the shootings had been a one gun crime!!
I'm really more concerned that a document posted out of the blue by David,is now being used as proof that a dubious series of numbers and letters ends up being Stan Jone's signature. Where is the proof that what David posted is Stan Jone's signatire? With all due respect, neither yours or his word is good enough - where is the proof?
-
I think that's the least of anyone's problems at this stage,Caroline. As things are all but done and dusted.
-
I'm really more concerned that a document posted out of the blue by David,is now being used as proof that a dubious series of numbers and letters ends up being Stan Jone's signature.
Now? ??? Mike posted this over a year a ago
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.msg366966.html#msg366966 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.msg366966.html#msg366966)
-
I think that's the least of anyone's problems at this stage,Caroline. As things are all but done and dusted.
Well, that's clearly NOT the case, it's certainly a concern of mine and should be of yours. A statement is posted without any corroboration it's then suggested that a dubious series of numbers and letters is Stan Jone's signature from a document that doesn't even mention him - then all of s suddenly because of these DUBIOUS bits of info - the whole case is cracked. Sorry, you might lap this incredulous guff up, but not me - I need PROOF and not simply the words of posters who have made highfalutin claims before, that have turned out to be nothing more than bluster.
How do you imagine that for one moment ANY of this would help Bamber get an appeal?
-
Now? ??? Mike posted this over a year a ago
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.msg366966.html#msg366966 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.msg366966.html#msg366966)
WHERE does the document state that what you posted is STAN JONE'S signature?
-
Stan Jones signature is on the lab' documents, its been verified by Ewen Smith when he was Jeremy's solicitor (2003)...
-
Stan Jones signature is on the lab' documents, its been verified by Ewen Smith when he was Jeremy's solicitor (2003)...
Well, yes, you've said that but where did Ewen Smith to back that up? Sorry but no one's signature starts with a number 3 and doesn't include a surname. Post something to back it up and I will concede to being wrong. Jones isn't mentioned in those documents and COLP notes look nothing like the writing posted as his signature. He has a 'distinctive' way or writing an S.
-
Well, yes, you've said that but where did Ewen Smith to back that up? Sorry but no one's signature starts with a number 3.
Stan Jones signature appears on several action reports and other police documents, there is no doubt that its Stan Jones signature, he never signed his signature, with an S, then a B followed by J...
-
Well, that's clearly NOT the case, it's certainly a concern of mine and should be of yours. A statement is posted without any corroboration it's then suggested that a dubious series of numbers and letters is Stan Jone's signature from a document that doesn't even mention him - then all of s suddenly because of these DUBIOUS bits of info - the whole case is cracked. Sorry, you might lap this incredulous guff up, but not me - I need PROOF and not simply the words of posters who have made highfalutin claims before, that have turned out to be nothing more than bluster.
How do you imagine that for one moment ANY of this would help Bamber get an appeal?
My info is from another area-------not this one as I haven't really bothered with it as you'll notice.
-
Stan Jones signature appears on several action reports and other police documents, there is no doubt that its Stan Jones signature, he never signed his signature, with an S, then a B followed by J...
I will look into this further - I certainly have doubts. But I'm not arguing this any further as it's just going round and round. If the above is true, then there must a be a document that carries this signature that actually mentions him.
-
My info is from another area-------not this one as I haven't really bothered with it as you'll notice.
Yeah OK - you mean the CT! ::)
-
I will look into this further - I certainly have doubts. But I'm not arguing this any further as it's just going round and round. If the above is true, then there must a be a document that carries this signature that actually mentions him.
There are many documents in existence giving examples of Stan Jones signature for comparison purposes!
-
There are many documents in existence giving examples of Stan Jones signature for comparison purposes!
What was Stan Jones doing getting himself involved in the introduction of 10 dodgy cartridge casings prior to the 20th September, 1985?
-
Well, yes, you've said that but where did Ewen Smith to back that up? Sorry but no one's signature starts with a number 3 and doesn't include a surname. Post something to back it up and I will concede to being wrong. Jones isn't mentioned in those documents and COLP notes look nothing like the writing posted as his signature. He has a 'distinctive' way or writing an S.
The COLP statement notes were written up by a COLP officer, not by the individual officers such as Stan Jones...
-
Well, that's clearly NOT the case, it's certainly a concern of mine and should be of yours. A statement is posted without any corroboration it's then suggested that a dubious series of numbers and letters is Stan Jone's signature from a document that doesn't even mention him - then all of s suddenly because of these DUBIOUS bits of info - the whole case is cracked. Sorry, you might lap this incredulous guff up, but not me - I need PROOF and not simply the words of posters who have made highfalutin claims before, that have turned out to be nothing more than bluster.
How do you imagine that for one moment ANY of this would help Bamber get an appeal?
That's a bit rich coming from someone who peddles myths. Such as but not limited to - Sheila's feet, Mugford's credibility, Walletgate and the mysterious other McDonald from Scotland.
-
That's a bit rich coming from someone who peddles myths. Such as but not limited to - Sheila's feet, Mugford's credibility, Walletgate and the mysterious other McDonald from Scotland.
Prove it's Stan Jone's signature and stop writing bollox!
-
Yeah OK - you mean the CT! ::)
No,not directly.
-
No,not directly.
Well, good luck with that Lookout.
-
The Macdonald in Scotland waa a strange recent incident.
Nugs & David went to great lenghts to try to show that RB knew MM. unsuccessfully.
Then failed to give one reason why RB would attempt to persuade Julie that MM committed the massacre.
-
Who's signature is this highlighted in yellow?
-
Well, that's clearly NOT the case, it's certainly a concern of mine and should be of yours. A statement is posted without any corroboration it's then suggested that a dubious series of numbers and letters is Stan Jone's signature from a document that doesn't even mention him - then all of s suddenly because of these DUBIOUS bits of info - the whole case is cracked. Sorry, you might lap this incredulous guff up, but not me - I need PROOF and not simply the words of posters who have made highfalutin claims before, that have turned out to be nothing more than bluster.
How do you imagine that for one moment ANY of this would help Bamber get an appeal?
There's clearly something dubious about the comparison tests being performed on exactly 10 crime scene cartridge cases before the ballistic expert even officially received possession of them and the rifle and control ammunition with which only then could the rifle in question have been test fired, and comparisons made thereafter..
How come the comparison tests were done before the ballistic expert received the crime scene ammunition, the rifle and the control ammunition?
There has clearly been a massive deception here, there was clearly an earlier test fire of the rifle with control ammunition, the purpose of which seems to me to have been instrumental in the prosecution being able to argue that all 25 cartridges were loaded into the rifles ammunition magazine, fired, extracted and ejected, when only 15 of the 25 bullets could be matched to the same rifle! How can it simply be just a coincidence that there are 10 of these cartridge cases which had comparison tests performed against control ammunition that must have been fired via the rifle in time for these comparison tests to have been conducted on all occasions before the 20th September 1985?
The ballistic evidence has been doctored to make out a false case that the shootings were a one gun crime, when they wasn't, and aren't...
There was clearly two guns used in these shootings (three if you include the non fatal shot sustained by Sheila in the kitchen). For now though, lets forget about the cop gun, put that to one side, I can return to that topic later on...
There were two guns used in the shootings, not just the anshuzt rifle, and there were two Parker Hale Sound Moderators / silencers / suppressors, however you want to describe them..
Cops definitely had a sound moderator in their possession on the first morning of the police investigation (SBJ/1), no doubt whatsoever in my mind, and I think they also took Anthony Pargeters Bruno rifle, I think exhibit SBJ/1 was Pargeters rifle and Parker hale. Let me tell you why I believe that, in part its because I believe what Jeremy has told me countless times, about Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle being there at the farmhouse in the downstairs bathroom (toilet). Also, Jeremy told the police at the scene on that first morning that Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle was there inside the house! Anthony Pargeter himself told Essex police that he always kept his .22 bolt action rifle at the farmhouse but that he always removed the bolt from it and took that home with him, so that no-one could fire it in his absence. Nevertheless, whether anybody could fire it in his absence is irrelevant, if it was there along with his silencer...
I am convinced that the gun barrel found downstairs which had paint on the end of its barrel may have been the Pargeter gun, the one that DS Davidson told the COLP investigators about which had been found to have paint on the end of its barrel...
I believe that police knew that Pargeter could not take the bolt to his gun home with him because the bolt is a component part of a firearm which if under license must be kept where it says on the firearms certificate, which in this case, was white house farm. Seems to me, that the anshuzt and Bruno rifles must have both been used in the shootings, but that the police wanted to simplify the investigation because of their mishandling of Sheila during the siege situation and afterwards when armed officers, and then senior officers entered the farmhouse at different times, culminating in Sheila's death on the bedroom floor. Cops guided the lily somewhat and produced a composite witness statement in Anthony Pargeters name, claiming that although he always kept his gun there at whf, it was his practice to remove the bolt and take that home with him so that no-one could fire his gun in his absence!
But he didn't take the bolt home, and I believe that his gun was fired at the time of the tragedy!
I also believe that there were three ammunition magazines fully loaded up with bullets from the outset, for example, the 10 shot Anshuzt magazine, and two ammunition magazines belonging to Anthony Pargeters bruno gun, a 10 shot, and a five shot (at least that's what Jeremy told me regarding the number of ammunition magazines were at the farmhouse that evening)...
I think that somebody loaded up both 10 shot ammunition magazines, one belonging to the anshuzt rifle, and the other belonging to the bruno rifle, and that there was already five rounds in the five shot magazine belonging to the bruno gun - and that the loading of these guns took place after Jeremy claims he left the farmhouse at about 9.30pm. Even on the off chance that Jeremy carelessly forget or wasn't bothered to unload the anshuzt rifle he had preloaded, after being disappointed about not catching any rabbits to shoot at, and lets say he left the ammunition magazine to the anshuzt rifle still loaded, all that would be required was for Sheila to load 10 bullets into the 10 shot magazine of the bruno weapon...
Another possibility, would be that Anthony Pargeter aided and abetted Sheila to kill her family, which I dismiss, for obvious reason, this being that when Neville Bamber telephoned Jeremy he told him that 'Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy', whereas, when Neville contacted the police, he told them, 'My daughter has got one of my guns and has gone berserk'...
-
Who's signature is this highlighted in yellow?
It's one version of Stan Jones signature, he had a habit of extending his signature sometimes, but it was much shorter than the example given quite often...
-
It's one version of Stan Jones signature, he had a habit of extending his signature sometimes, but it was much shorter than the example given quite often...
Did he? ;D
-
Did he? ;D
It's the same signature, only on that example you have given there's a slight extension, we all have a tendency to sign things differently at times...
Here's some examples of my own:-
-
It's the same signature, only on that example you have given there's a slight extension, we all have a tendency to sign things differently at times...
Here's some examples of my own:-
Not that differently Mike and \never using a number in front and completely missing off a surname. As a police officer, he would have needed to stay pretty close to a signature style for obvious reasons.
-
Not that differently Mike and \never using a number in front and completely missing off a surname. As a police officer, he would have needed to stay pretty close to a signature style for obvious reasons.
Well, I had better find some of his examples then, in the piles of paperwork I have at my disposal, hadn't I...
-
Like I said, cops had sound moderator / silencer / suppressor to gun on the first day (7th August 1985) of the police investigation:-
-
It's the same signature, only on that example you have given there's a slight extension, we all have a tendency to sign things differently at times...
Here's some examples of my own:-
You can certainly see similarities. Specially with what appears to a B.
As for those who insinuate its a forgery made by you. Why would you scribble out a signature you put there in the first place? You can clearly see someone has tired to scribble it out using a biro pen then started using a felt tip pen. This is not something done on a computer.
-
You can certainly see similarities. Specially with what appears to a B.
As for those who insinuate its a forgery made by you. Why would you scribble out a signature you put there in the first place? You can clearly see someone has tired to scribble it out using a biro pen then started using a felt tip pen. This is not something done on a computer.
Ha. ha! What a load of bollox! It's not Jones's signature - that's now proven! Just admit you were wrong and got carried away AGAIN! Oh and - ever heard of a scanner?
-
Well, I had better find some of his examples then, in the piles of paperwork I have at my disposal, hadn't I...
It would help greatly.
-
You can certainly see similarities. Specially with what appears to a B.
"Similarities" don't make it definitively what you say it is. The 'letter' looks as much like an umlaut as a B.
-
You can certainly see similarities. Specially with what appears to a B.
As for those who insinuate its a forgery made by you. Why would you scribble out a signature you put there in the first place? You can clearly see someone has tired to scribble it out using a biro pen then started using a felt tip pen. This is not something done on a computer.
Both S's have the same sweep.
-
3 S B and SB Jones.
-
Ha. ha! What a load of bollox! It's not Jones's signature - that's now proven! Just admit you were wrong and got carried away AGAIN! Oh and - ever heard of a scanner?
On the contrary. Next to where it is written "which I have signed" is a signature and an attempted has been made to scribble that signature out.
Mike (to my knowledge) does not have a scanner. He makes all copies on his phone/camera. Nor would he have a duplex photocopier. Thus he has been sent this document from somewhere.
You have thus far failed to show any evidence that this document is a forgery. The motive for this is purley down to you not liking the contents of the document. Much like your claims about the photos of Sheila's feet and the photos of Sheila's bleeding wounds. Yet I know that material is genuine. I suspect history is repeating itself here. But I could be wrong.
If you want this to be your third time lucky you will need to prove it. Two document's photocopied on one sheet of paper and containing the word 'aforementioned' does not satisfy the burden of proof by any means.
-
"Similarities" don't make it definitively what you say it is. The 'letter' looks as much like an umlaut as a B.
I'm off your ignore list! Did you miss me? ^-^
-
On the contrary. Next to where it is written "which I have signed" is a signature and an attempted has been made to scribble that signature out.
Mike (to my knowledge) does not have a scanner. He makes all copies on his phone/camera. Nor would he have a duplex photocopier. Thus he has been sent this document from somewhere.
You have thus far failed to show any evidence that this document is a forgery. The motive for this is purley down to you not liking the contents of the document. Much like your claims about the photos of Sheila's feet and the photos of Sheila's bleeding wounds. Yet I know that material is genuine. I suspect history is repeating itself here. But I could be wrong.
If you want this to be your third time lucky you will need to prove it. Two document's photocopied on one sheet of paper and containing the word 'aforementioned' does not satisfy the burden of proof by any means.
I don't need to prove anything you idiot! You're the one claiming that some obscure numbers and letters are SJ's signature when his signature is readily available for anyone who can be arsed to find it. You're another one who can't grow a pair and admit they were wrong - not surprised though.
It's proven as far as I'm concerned - what you posted is NOT SJ's signature and you can wriggle and squirm as much as you like - but burden of proof is as clear as the naked Emperor in his new clothes and you are in the 'altogether'! ;D
-
Both S's have the same sweep.
Does your signature start with a number? ::)
-
Does your signature start with a number? ::)
There could have been a purpose in putting a number before the initials of SB. Other than that neither I nor anyone I know has a number before their initials---------but I suppose there's always a first time. ;D
-
Just to clarify, the first picture IS SJ's signature and the second isn't - in fact, it isn't a signature AT ALL! Why certain people just can't admit it, is beyond me. Are we really meant to believe that sometimes he writes his signature as per the first picture and other times he goes completely off piste and writes his signature as 3 S B? RUBBISH!
-
There could have been a purpose in putting a number before the initials of SB. Other than that neither I nor anyone I know has a number before their initials---------but I suppose there's always a first time. ;D
Well, at least you don't seem to be giving this any credence - good for you!
-
Well, at least you don't seem to be giving this any credence - good for you!
Who said I didn't ? The " S's " are the same.
-
I don't see what the big deal is about this document.
It seems to me like the police were worried or embarrassed about the fact they looked inside the cupboard and never discovered a sound moderator. So they thought they could create a false chain of custody that makes it appear like they discovered it and also fits in with how the relatives could then have handed it to them at a later date.
Later on they had second thoughts about it and decided to scrap the idea. Scribble stuff out and scrunch this page up. but someone managed to recover it.
That's the impression im getting.
-
Who said I didn't ? The " S's " are the same.
You have admitted that no one has a signature that begins with a number and you can see Stan Jones's REAL signature but you're still gullible enough to buy into this rubbish?
-
I don't see what the big deal is about this document.
It seems to me like the police were worried or embarrassed about the fact they looked inside the cupboard and never discovered a sound moderator. So they thought they could create a false chain of custody that makes it appear like they discovered it and also fits in with how the relatives could then have handed it to them at a later date.
Later on they had second thoughts about it and decided to scrap the idea. Scribble stuff out and scrunch this page up. but someone managed to recover it.
That's the impression im getting.
(https://steemit-production-imageproxy-web.s3.amazonaws.com/U5drXGQjgywR959CfobVVYCUnVGGvg3)
-
I don't see what the big deal is about this document.
It seems to me like the police were worried or embarrassed about the fact they looked inside the cupboard and never discovered a sound moderator. So they thought they could create a false chain of custody that makes it appear like they discovered it and also fits in with how the relatives could then have handed it to them at a later date.
Later on they had second thoughts about it and decided to scrap the idea. Scribble stuff out and scrunch this page up. but someone managed to recover it.
That's the impression im getting.
I get it.
The police didn't find the silencer.
The relatives then found and handed in the silencer.
The police then decided to pretend they found the silencer.
The police asked the relatives to keep quiet about finding the silencer.
The police then started creating false documentation showing they found the silencer.
The police then changed their mind about pretending they found the silencer. Deciding the relatives should say they found it. Which was correct.
The police forgot to dispose of the false paperwork they created showing they found the silencer.
The police asked the relatives to keep to their original & true version.
-
I don't see what the big deal is about this document.
It seems to me like the police were worried or embarrassed about the fact they looked inside the cupboard and never discovered a sound moderator. So they thought they could create a false chain of custody that makes it appear like they discovered it and also fits in with how the relatives could then have handed it to them at a later date.
Later on they had second thoughts about it and decided to scrap the idea. Scribble stuff out and scrunch this page up. but someone managed to recover it.
That's the impression im getting.
Was there any reason for them to be looking for a sound moderator/silencer? Was there any reason for them to think such had been part of the crime? If the answer to those questions is "NO", I find nothing odd in the fact that they didn't find it because they simply weren't looking for it. It seems that, when it was found by the relatives, it hadn't ever right in front of their eyes, but allegedly concealed -in a box?- right at the very back of the wedge which was the understairs cupboard.
-
3 silencers.
-
Just to clarify, the first picture IS SJ's signature and the second isn't - in fact, it isn't a signature AT ALL! Why certain people just can't admit it, is beyond me. Are we really meant to believe that sometimes he writes his signature as per the first picture and other times he goes completely off piste and writes his signature as 3 S B? RUBBISH!
The cartridge cases, are still being compared against test fired rounds, long before the 20th September, 1985...
Or, don't you understand the significance of this fact?
-
3 silencers.
And a partridge in a pear tree? ;D
-
And a partridge in a pear tree? ;D
:)) :)) :)) :)). If there'd been 4,I'd have said 4 candles ( fork handles )
-
They Knew that Stan Jones attended the crime scene after 11.30am, on that morning, (7th August 1985) and he had recovered the sound moderator - with little if any room for error and or mistake...
The blaggers, will maintain that Stan Jones could not have recovered a sound moderator on that (7th August 1985) occasion, but rest assured, that he did..
Exhibit, SBJ/1...
-
Was there any reason for them to be looking for a sound moderator/silencer? Was there any reason for them to think such had been part of the crime? If the answer to those questions is "NO", I find nothing odd in the fact that they didn't find it because they simply weren't looking for it. It seems that, when it was found by the relatives, it hadn't ever right in front of their eyes, but allegedly concealed -in a box?- right at the very back of the wedge which was the understairs cupboard.
Four police had already looked inside that cupboard. That is on record. The fact they never recovered what would be the foundation of the prosecution case despite seaching the cupboard is problemactic for a range of obvious reasons.
-
Four police had already looked inside that cupboard. That is on record. The fact they never recovered what would be the foundation of the prosecution case despite seaching the cupboard is problemactic for a range of obvious reasons.
Not really, why would they be looking for a silencer? At that point, they had no reason to be searching for it.
-
Four police had already looked inside that cupboard. That is on record. The fact they never recovered what would be the foundation of the prosecution case despite seaching the cupboard is problemactic for a range of obvious reasons.
Was there any reason for them to be looking for a sound moderator/silencer? Was there any reason for them to think such had been part of the crime? If the answer to those questions is "NO", I find nothing odd in the fact that they didn't find it because they simply weren't looking for it. It seems that, when it was found by the relatives, it hadn't ever right in front of their eyes, but allegedly concealed -in a box?- right at the very back of the wedge which was the understairs cupboard.
-
Just for a moment -and ONLY a moment- I'm going to allow myself to believe Sheila to have been responsible for the deaths of her children and parents, and that her weapon of choice had been a rifle with an attachment.
Let's look at why she might have thought an 'attachment' was necessary. If she'd thought it would prevent her children from waking, having once killed them, it would hardly have been a matter of concern about whether or not her parents heard the shots which ended their own lives. Why would she need to remove the 'attachment'? The obvious answer is that with it, it would prove too unwieldy to shoot herself, so she decided to remove it, but WHY the necessity to hide it? WHY, when it would be obvious to all that she'd committed the crime before killing herself, would she have thought it necessary to go to the trouble of getting down on her hands and knees to place the unneeded 'attachment' so far back into the recesses of the understair (gun) cupboard, that it's presence went undetected, despite several searches? -if she'd been SO tidy minded, and evidence suggests otherwise, she could have opened the door and thrown it in randomly- surely SUCH fastidious concealment would only be contemplated by someone who was seeking to hide what they'd done, NOT someone who was going to take their own life?
I weary of the crude attempts to point-score that are going on here. Accusations are becoming more and more outrageous in order to be made to fit whatever is the poster's current take on the crime. No holds barred. Every possible scenario is thrown into the mix in order to incriminate their chosen victims. The motivations and aims of the person they believe to be responsible for the crime, are ignored.
-
Not really, why would they be looking for a silencer? At that point, they had no reason to be searching for it.
That's beside the point. They looked inside the gun cupboard and inside that gun cupboard was an accessory device to the murder weapon. They failed to notice and take custody of it. This creates a predicament for both police and the prosecution.
-
Four police had already looked inside that cupboard. That is on record. The fact they never recovered what would be the foundation of the prosecution case despite seaching the cupboard is problemactic for a range of obvious reasons.
According to what Ron Cook told the COLP investigators in 1991, he said that the thread on the end of the anshuzt guns barrel was free of blood and that although it did cross his mind that there ought to have been some sort of an attachment of sorts that should fit there. However, he said, that nobody asked him to look for whatever had been or could have been attached there. He then told COLP that there came a time when he himself had looked in a cupboard under the stairs in the den, and that he did not see a silencer, and that if he had done that he would have taken it, for takings sake, not because he thought it might have been used in the shootings! It is apparent that Cook was not merely referring to the silencer which could fit on the end of the barrel, but also its metal end cap which screwed onto the guns barrel as well...
Everything points to the silencer, a silencer , not being present in the so called gun cupboard in the den, that one wasn't present in that gun cupboard that morning. The sound moderator which Stan Jones seized on that first morning was one that he took from the vicinity of the downstairs toilet where Anthony Pargeters bruno rifle and Parker Hale sound moderator was 'normally' kept...
The other piece that could fit on the end of the anshuzt guns barrel, was its metal end cap - in September 1985, David Boutflour handed this metal end cap to DC Oakey, it was contained inside the same ammunition box that he claimed he had found the sound moderator in on the 10th August 1985...
Neither item was present in the gun cupboard on the first morning of the tragedy, otherwise, as Ron Cook said to the COLP investigators, he would have taken them, for takings sake, because of the clean looking external thread on the end of the anshuzt rifles barrel...
-
Just for a moment -and ONLY a moment- I'm going to allow myself to believe Sheila to have been responsible for the deaths of her children and parents, and that her weapon of choice had been a rifle with an attachment.
Let's look at why she might have thought an 'attachment' was necessary. If she'd thought it would prevent her children from waking, having once killed them, it would hardly have been a matter of concern about whether or not her parents heard the shots which ended their own lives. Why would she need to remove the 'attachment'? The obvious answer is that with it, it would prove too unwieldy to shoot herself, so she decided to remove it, but WHY the necessity to hide it? WHY, when it would be obvious to all that she'd committed the crime before killing herself, would she have thought it necessary to go to the trouble of getting down on her hands and knees to place the unneeded 'attachment' so far back into the recesses of the understair (gun) cupboard, that it's presence went undetected, despite several searches? -if she'd been SO tidy minded, and evidence suggests otherwise, she could have opened the door and thrown it in randomly- surely SUCH fastidious concealment would only be contemplated by someone who was seeking to hide what they'd done, NOT someone who was going to take their own life?
I weary of the crude attempts to point-score that are going on here. Accusations are becoming more and more outrageous in order to be made to fit whatever is the poster's current take on the crime. No holds barred. Every possible scenario is thrown into the mix in order to incriminate their chosen victims. The motivations and aims of the person they believe to be responsible for the crime, are ignored.
Jeremy left the rifle with the silencer unattached. The silencer was in cupboard all night along, nobody used it. There is an abundance of evidence to support this.
-
Jeremy left the rifle with the silencer unattached. The silencer was in cupboard all night along, nobody used it. There is an abundance of evidence to support this.
What evidence is there to support the silencer was not used ?
The silencer had human blood in. Which was from Sheila's contact shot. It also had the aga paint on which got there from the kitchen fight.
The only way this evidence be on the silencer is with Bamber as the killer. Or in you're view, the police & relatives working together to fabricate the silencer.
-
Jeremy left the rifle with the silencer unattached. The silencer was in cupboard all night along, nobody used it. There is an abundance of evidence to support this.
Unless Jeremy specifies what lead up to the silencer being unattached, surely there must be several possibilities as to why this was. To look at this we have to go back to when he first decided to go bunny bashing. 1) did he make the decision that the silencer was superfluous to the job and so removed it 1a) did he then unscrew it and replace it right at the back of the understair (gun) cupboard 1b) leave it on the table/settle where it was found by another person and placed right at the back of the understair (gun) cupboard? 2) was the rifle already sans silencer when Jeremy first picked it up. It actually matters not a jot whether it was/wasn't attached. The important thing isn't even that it was located in the understair (gun) cupboard. The important thing is about WHERE it was in the gun cupboard. It isn't usual for anyone to place something in regular use in a place where it's at it's most inaccessible, but it IS a place where someone might try to hide something.
-
Unless Jeremy specifies what lead up to the silencer being unattached, surely there must be several possibilities as to why this was. To look at this we have to go back to when he first decided to go bunny bashing. 1) did he make the decision that the silencer was superfluous to the job and so removed it 1a) did he then unscrew it and replace it right at the back of the understair (gun) cupboard 1b) leave it on the table/settle where it was found by another person and placed right at the back of the understair (gun) cupboard? 2) was the rifle already sans silencer when Jeremy first picked it up. It actually matters not a jot whether it was/wasn't attached. The important thing isn't even that it was located in the understair (gun) cupboard. The important thing is about WHERE it was in the gun cupboard. It isn't usual for anyone to place something in regular use in a place where it's at it's most inaccessible, but it IS a place where someone might try to hide something.
The rifle does not fit in its case with the silencer attached. Nor does it fit in gun cupboard with the silencer attached (unless you place it in an awkward upward diagonal position that blocks the cupboard entry)
If you want to hide something you don't leave it in a place where it is usually kept. The silencer was usually kept in the gun cupboard thus that is where it was found.
-
The rifle does not fit in its case with the silencer attached. Nor does it fit in gun cupboard with the silencer attached (unless you place it in an awkward upward diagonal position that blocks the cupboard entry)
If you want to hide something you don't leave it in a place where it is usually kept. The silencer was usually kept in the gun cupboard thus that is where it was found.
That's where the silencer was alleged to have been found------------I don't believe it !!
-
The rifle does not fit in its case with the silencer attached. Nor does it fit in gun cupboard with the silencer attached (unless you place it in an awkward upward diagonal position that blocks the cupboard entry)
If you want to hide something you don't leave it in a place where it is usually kept. The silencer was usually kept in the gun cupboard thus that is where it was found.
Did Bamber say he took the silencer out of the case when he decided to shoot rabbits ?
Do you believe the police approached the relatives & asked them to pretend they found the silencer. Or the relatives approached the police with a silencer fabrication idea ?
-
The rifle does not fit in its case with the silencer attached. Nor does it fit in gun cupboard with the silencer attached (unless you place it in an awkward upward diagonal position that blocks the cupboard entry)
If you want to hide something you don't leave it in a place where it is usually kept. The silencer was usually kept in the gun cupboard thus that is where it was found.
I don't have a problem with any gun component being found in the place where gun components were normally housed. The problem I have is about WHERE, in that place, as a frequently used item, it was found. Having lived in a house in which that understair space had, before being removed to make room for a phone table, been a cupboard, I recall having to become a contortionist to reach those infrequently used things which had become 'lost' in the thinnest end of the wedge, especially as there was no internal light. It was a perfect hiding place.
-
Do you believe the police approached the relatives & asked them to pretend they found the silencer. Or the relatives approached the police with a silencer fabrication idea ?
Neither.
-
Neither.
What is your belief?
-
Neither.
Do you believe the relatives found a silencer with blood, a hair & aga paint on ?
-
Do you believe the relatives found a silencer with blood, a hair & aga paint on ?
No.
-
What is your belief?
-
No.
Do you believe the police found a silencer with human blood, the aga paint & a grey hair on. Then asked the relatives to pretend they found it ?
-
What is your belief?
Based on the evidence, it can be safely deduced that the blood was planted maliciously by someone who has both access to Sheila's blood and a vested interest in seeing Jeremy disinherited. Who that person is I do not know for sure, but it can be narrowed down to a list of five people that meet the two prerequisites I just mentioned.
-
Based on the evidence, it can be safely deduced that the blood was planted maliciously by someone who has both access to Sheila's blood and a vested interest in seeing Jeremy disinherited. Who that person is I do not know for sure, but it can be narrowed down to a list of five people that meet the two prerequisites I just mentioned.
Who are these 5 people who had access to Sheila's blood & wanted to see Bamber disinherited ?
-
Based on the evidence, it can be safely deduced that the blood was planted maliciously by someone who has both access to Sheila's blood and a vested interest in seeing Jeremy disinherited. Who that person is I do not know for sure, but it can be narrowed down to a list of five people that meet the two prerequisites I just mentioned.
OK. Whilst I won't rule out what you say, I'm supposing that -at least, initially, all police personnel can be ruled out because they were convinced it was Sheila. Which leaves the family, who, initially and until Jeremy's story started not to make sense, after which they held a family 'conference', also believed it to have been Sheila. Naturally, all of this is going to take time, during which, all the blood which had been shed, is getting drier, but having decided, between them, that Jeremy was responsible, the family must now A) decide on a course of action B) gain access to WHF C) persuade police that Jeremy is the culprit and get them on side....................and all the time, any available blood is becoming too dry to be of use. We HAVE to rule out anything the infamous 'blood filled bucket' could produce. The blood -even if the items hadn't been pre-rinsed to get rid of excess prior to soaking- would have become too diluted to have been inserted into a silencer. There would certainly have been a finite window of time during which this -alleged pre-conceived plan- could have been acted on.
-
The flake of dried blood which David Boutflour scraped off the sound moderator, seems the most likliest source for a similar flake of blood found trapped between baffle plates when the ballistic expert Fletcher dismantled the sound moderator at the Lab' on the 12th September 1985 (a flake of dried blood which when analysed by the blood expert John Hayward, produced the key blood group evidence, A, EAP BA, AK1, and HP2-1, which the prosecution attributed exclusively to Sheila Caffell...
We all know that Robert Boutflour had the same blood groups as Sheila, but that the prosecution and its witnesses played down this possibility!
The evidence concerning the flake of blood which David Boutflour scraped from the silencer, only came to light when the COLP investigators interviewed him in 1991. But he told them that Essex police knew about what he had told COLP what he had done, without him sayi g what had happened to the flake of blood he had removed from the silencer! However, if Essex police had been told about what he had done, surely they would have asked him where that flake of blood was, or what he had done with it..
The really worrying aspect of this matter, was that there is no mention of this activity of David Boutflours was made in any disclosed witness statement made to Essex Police, or made by Essex police on his behalf!
Well, this information was capable of excluding the silencer evidence, on the footing that David Boutflour tampered with the integrity of it, when he scraped blood from it!
Essex police kept silent about what David Boutflour told them what he had done!
I find this approach of Essex police in this matter to be unacceptable, the court which tried this matter ought really to have been availed of the fact that Boutflour had tampered with blood on the silencer, entitling the defence to put forward the claim that blood group evidence attributed as having been found inside the silencer trapped between two baffle plates had in fact been originally present on the outside of the silencer. Its presence had been transferred to the inside of the sound moderator so that the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher could postulate his ' backspatter' theory!
David Boutflour needs to be arrested and questioned under caution, so that all the facts concerni g the date and time he used that razor blade to scrape the dried flake of blood from that silencer. Where he was at the time he did it? Who else was present at the time he did it? What he did with the flake after he removed it? Whether he told police and which named police officers were notofied, and whether he handed it to them !
-
That's beside the point. They looked inside the gun cupboard and inside that gun cupboard was an accessory device to the murder weapon. They failed to notice and take custody of it. This creates a predicament for both police and the prosecution.
No it isn't, it is IS the point! Why would they collect evidence that they didn't know they needed? There were other guns left at the scene so why take a silencer that could have come from any gun owned at WHF at ANY time?
-
No it isn't, it is IS the point! Why would they collect evidence that they didn't know they needed? There were other guns left at the scene so why take a silencer that could have come from any gun owned at WHF at ANY time?
There was a blob of blood on it , jam like , was there not ?
Or was AE lying ?
-
There was a blob of blood on it , jam like , was there not ?
Or was AE lying ?
That one -literally- bit the dust ages ago. Jam=sticky=wet blood. Dried blood=dust. Perhaps AE was simply mistaken over what she thought she saw.
-
That one -literally- bit the dust ages ago. Jam=sticky=wet blood. Dried blood=dust. Perhaps AE was simply mistaken over what she thought she saw.
Bit the dust alright , once Caroline proved it to be a lie .
-
No it isn't, it is IS the point! Why would they collect evidence that they didn't know they needed? There were other guns left at the scene so why take a silencer that could have come from any gun owned at WHF at ANY time?
The scene of crime personnel are supposed to record and secure as much evidence as possible, specially any weapons and their accessories for processing at the lab. Not wait around for other people to find it for them and potentially contaminate/manipulate those items in the process.
The fact the police looked in the cupboard and never recovered the item, could enable the defence come trial to argue it was never there in the first place. Hence why I speculated the police could have tried to make out they did recover it in the first place. By writing false statements they could appear to fill the gaps in their initial handling of the scene.
-
The scene of crime personnel are supposed to record and secure as much evidence as possible, specially any weapons and their accessories for processing at the lab. Not wait around for other people to find it for them and potentially contaminate/manipulate those items in the process.
The fact the police looked in the cupboard and never recovered the item, could enable the defence come trial to argue it was never there in the first place. Hence why I speculated the police could have tried to make out they did recover it in the first place. By writing false statements they could appear to fill the gaps in their initial handling of the scene.
Had they KNOWN a silencer was part of the crime and left without locating one, it would have been extremely careless, especially as they'd looked in the cupboard several times. However, because they'd accepted that Sheila was responsible, it follows that it would never have crossed their minds that she'd have shot herself with an attachment on the rifle.
-
Who are these 5 people who had access to Sheila's blood & wanted to see Bamber disinherited ?
Hopefully David will say who the 5 people were who had access to Sheila's blood & also wanted Bamber disinherited.
-
Based on the evidence, it can be safely deduced that the blood was planted maliciously by someone who has both access to Sheila's blood and a vested interest in seeing Jeremy disinherited. Who that person is I do not know for sure, but it can be narrowed down to a list of five people that meet the two prerequisites I just mentioned.
-
The scene of crime personnel are supposed to record and secure as much evidence as possible, specially any weapons and their accessories for processing at the lab. Not wait around for other people to find it for them and potentially contaminate/manipulate those items in the process.
The fact the police looked in the cupboard and never recovered the item, could enable the defence come trial to argue it was never there in the first place. Hence why I speculated the police could have tried to make out they did recover it in the first place. By writing false statements they could appear to fill the gaps in their initial handling of the scene.
So the police didn't find the silencer. The relatives did.
The police then drew up false documents showing they had found the silencer. But changed their minds and forgot to throw away the false documents.
-
There was a blob of blood on it , jam like , was there not ?
Or was AE lying ?
And?
-
The scene of crime personnel are supposed to record and secure as much evidence as possible, specially any weapons and their accessories for processing at the lab. Not wait around for other people to find it for them and potentially contaminate/manipulate those items in the process.
The fact the police looked in the cupboard and never recovered the item, could enable the defence come trial to argue it was never there in the first place. Hence why I speculated the police could have tried to make out they did recover it in the first place. By writing false statements they could appear to fill the gaps in their initial handling of the scene.
They didn't know it was evidence but that;s besides the point. You're changing the subject from SJ's signature - don't think I haven't noticed!
-
I wish David would say how the silencer was fabricated. He changed stance 2 years ago after deciding it was possible.
He said it was done by someone who had access to Sheila's blood, so is ruling out the possibility it was not Sheila's blood. This is a wise move as it was 100% human blood meaning the silencer was used.
However then says the police did not use Sheila's blood they had available at the police station prior to asking the relatives to pretend they found the silencer.
He then rules out the relatives approaching the police asking them to come on board with a framing attempt.
Either the police approached the relatives, or the relatives approached the police. It can't be neither.
-
Hopefully David won't go silent & then start posting again when he thinks I've gone.
I only want to know his silencer fabrication scenario which he must have. And the 5 people who had access to Sheila's blood & wanted Bamber disinherited.
-
Had they KNOWN a silencer was part of the crime and left without locating one, it would have been extremely careless, especially as they'd looked in the cupboard several times. However, because they'd accepted that Sheila was responsible, it follows that it would never have crossed their minds that she'd have shot herself with an attachment on the rifle.
How can the police possibly know whats part of a crime before its been examined by the forensics? Thats why they collect items to send back. They cannot know such things in advance in any case. Such argument is thoughtless.
"The first officer to arrive at the scene of a crime is responsible for taking steps
to preserve and protect the area to the greatest extent possible. The officer
should not let his or her guard down; the scene should always be treated as
though the crime were still occurring until it is proved otherwise.
First priority should be given to obtaining medical assistance for individuals
in need of it. Steps must be taken by the first responder to exclude all
unauthorized personnel from the scene and keep an accurate log of who enters
and exits the scene and the time at which they do so.
Once the scene has been secured, with the help of others, a lead investigator
will start the process of evaluating the area. The lead investigator will immediately
gain an overview of the situation and develop a strategy for the systematic
examination and documentation of the entire crime scene."
-
Based on the evidence, it can be safely deduced that the blood was planted maliciously by someone who has both access to Sheila's blood and a vested interest in seeing Jeremy disinherited. Who that person is I do not know for sure, but it can be narrowed down to a list of five people that meet the two prerequisites I just mentioned.
It seems David is not going to say who the 5 people were who simultaneously wanted Bamber disinherited & had access to Sheila's blood. I don't know why David, Nugs, Roch & Lookout say things they can't support.
EP had access to Sheila's blood but had no reason to want Bamber disinherited.
The relatives were rich but apparently wanted Bamber disinherited. However had no access to Sheila's blood or a vast amount of other information relating to the silencer.
So either the police fabricated the silencer & amazingly asked the relatives to pretend they found it. Or the relatives asked the police to fabricate the silencer & offerred to pretend they found it for them.
-
How can the police possibly know whats part of a crime before its been examined by the forensics? Thats why they collect items to send back. They cannot know such things in advance in any case. Such argument is thoughtless.
"The first officer to arrive at the scene of a crime is responsible for taking steps
to preserve and protect the area to the greatest extent possible. The officer
should not let his or her guard down; the scene should always be treated as
though the crime were still occurring until it is proved otherwise.
First priority should be given to obtaining medical assistance for individuals
in need of it. Steps must be taken by the first responder to exclude all
unauthorized personnel from the scene and keep an accurate log of who enters
and exits the scene and the time at which they do so.
Once the scene has been secured, with the help of others, a lead investigator
will start the process of evaluating the area. The lead investigator will immediately
gain an overview of the situation and develop a strategy for the systematic
examination and documentation of the entire crime scene."
It isn't thoughtless. It's actually logical. You refer to them not letting their guard down. Their guard was already down. Jeremy had given them clear and succinct detail of Sheila's medical history. Jeremy had practically told them what they'd find. They knew that no one else was involved. All the family, other than Jeremy, whose belated arrival they'd witnessed, were in the house with a insane woman who had full working knowledge of guns, and a gun in her hands! We KNOW they were wrong to accept his word, but the fact remains, they did.
To get back to the silencer. There is still an ongoing debate about whether or not she could have shot herself twice whilst it was still attached. At a guess, as there wasn't one ON the weapon when it was found, it would hardly have occurred to them that she'd used one, if only because there wasn't one to be seen. IF she'd used such to shoot the others, sooner than make her own demise more difficult/take longer than necessary, she'd most certainly have removed it, prior to taking the shot, and it would most likely have been found close by.
-
It seems David is not going to say who the 5 people were who simultaneously wanted Bamber disinherited & had access to Sheila's blood. I don't know why David, Nugs, Roch & Lookout say things they can't support.
EP had access to Sheila's blood but had no reason to want Bamber disinherited.
The relatives were rich but apparently wanted Bamber disinherited. However had no access to Sheila's blood or a vast amount of other information relating to the silencer.
So either the police fabricated the silencer & amazingly asked the relatives to pretend they found it. Or the relatives asked the police to fabricate the silencer & offerred to pretend they found it for them.
This question goes out to everybody. If it can be answered it is a game changer.
If it can be proved that 5 members of EP wanted Bamber disinherited, then EP could have fabricated the silencer. EP already had access to Sheila's blood. Quite why EP were interested in inheritance and asked the relatives to lie in their WS by saying they found the silencer, I don't know.
If it can be proved that 5 members of the family had access to Sheila's blood & a vast amount of other silencer information, they could have fabricated the silencer. They were already rich & law abiding citizens so attempting something so serious & risky is a 1 in a million chance.
-
Things the relatives needed prior to attempting to frame Bamber with the silencer -
Contact shots during the massacre.
Liklihood of back splatter with that rifle.
Blood already on rifle nozzle.
Photos of aga.
Lenght of rifle with silencer.
Lenght of Sheila's arms.
Other evidence showing guilt/innocence.
Police checks already carried out on silencers.
Where to get Sheila's blood.
How to insert Sheila's blood.
If unable to get Sheila's blood, what was her blood type.
Would someone else's blood be enough.
How to effectivly scrape the aga to replicate a scrape during a random fight.
Possibility of a successful silencer frame securing a conviction.
Punishment if convicted of a attempting to frame a man of murdering 5 people.
--------------------
Obviously all this information could only be given to them by EP.
-
How can the police possibly know whats part of a crime before its been examined by the forensics? Thats why they collect items to send back. They cannot know such things in advance in any case. Such argument is thoughtless.
"The first officer to arrive at the scene of a crime is responsible for taking steps
to preserve and protect the area to the greatest extent possible. The officer
should not let his or her guard down; the scene should always be treated as
though the crime were still occurring until it is proved otherwise.
First priority should be given to obtaining medical assistance for individuals
in need of it. Steps must be taken by the first responder to exclude all
unauthorized personnel from the scene and keep an accurate log of who enters
and exits the scene and the time at which they do so.
Once the scene has been secured, with the help of others, a lead investigator
will start the process of evaluating the area. The lead investigator will immediately
gain an overview of the situation and develop a strategy for the systematic
examination and documentation of the entire crime scene."
The gun cupboard wasn't part of the crime scene as far as they knew. They went on information received - information fro your mate Bamber!
-
The gun cupboard wasn't part of the crime scene as far as they knew. They went on information received - information fro your mate Bamber!
Four police officers searched the gun cupboard , they probably saw the silencer , with blob of blood ,
Jam looking , and thought , we just leave that there. .
Or it wasn't there , when they looked .
-
Four police officers searched the gun cupboard , they probably saw the silencer , with blob of blood ,
Jam looking , and thought , we just leave that there. .
Or it wasn't there , when they looked .
Perhaps it was mistaken for a tampon holder?
-
Four police officers searched the gun cupboard , they probably saw the silencer , with blob of blood ,
Jam looking , and thought , we just leave that there. .
Or it wasn't there , when they looked .
The silencer was in a box at the back of the gun cupboard. Not sure why the police would start opening boxes.
-
It's not the end for supporters because the relatives would have needed huge police assistance to secure a successful fabrication.
It just means the police & relatives worked together. Either the police fabricating the silencer & then asking the relatives to pretend they found it in false WS's. Or the relatives asking the police to assist them in framing Bamber.
For some reason supporters refuse to say who approached who. Most recently David today.
-
Four police officers searched the gun cupboard , they probably saw the silencer , with blob of blood ,
Jam looking , and thought , we just leave that there. .
Or it wasn't there , when they looked .
They weren't looking for a silencer!
-
Four police officers searched the gun cupboard , they probably saw the silencer , with blob of blood ,
Jam looking , and thought , we just leave that there. .
Or it wasn't there , when they looked .
They would certainly have seen what was in front of them. The silencer wasn't, and according to where it was, they wouldn't have seen it even if they'd had a torch, and even IF they had, why would they think a boxed object in the deepest recesses of a wedge shaped cupboard had been recently used in a crime which didn't require it's use............. the fact remains that they weren't looking for it.
-
They would certainly have seen what was in front of them. The silencer wasn't, and according to where it was, they wouldn't have seen it even if they'd had a torch, and even IF they had, why would they think a boxed object in the deepest recesses of a wedge shaped cupboard had been recently used in a crime which didn't require it's use............. the fact remains that they weren't looking for it.
The silencer that Stan Jones took from the scene on that first morning of the investigation wasn't in the cupboard, it was attached to Anthony Pargeters Bruno rifle in the downstairs bathroom. The reason the cops never took the other sound moderator out of the gun cupboard was because they had already taken the other one, as mentioned...
Where is Stan Jones witness statement which makes mention of the four exhibits (SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1) he removed from whf on the 7th August 1985?
Its being withheld under pii, but there exists clear mention of its existence in several police documents...
-
The silencer that Stan Jones took from the scene on that first morning of the investigation wasn't in the cupboard, it was attached to Anthony Pargeters Bruno rifle in the downstairs bathroom. The reason the cops never took the other sound moderator out of the gun cupboard was because they had already taken the other one, as mentioned...
Where is Stan Jones witness statement which makes mention of the four exhibits (SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1) he removed from whf on the 7th August 1985?
Its being withheld under pii, but there exists clear mention of its existence in several police documents...
Well, if they could see it clearly enough to discuss it and take a unilateral decision to leave it there, not only was it in their sight, it was also well within sight of anyone else who looked.
-
The following references to a silencer and a sound moderator are amongst documents inj my possession:-
Doc.6 - Property Book No.4 Entry 512, reference Sound Moderator DRB/1
Doc.7 - Property Book No.5 Entry 648, reference Sound Moderator DRB/1
Doc.10 - Form F. P. /1 relating to silencer DRB/1
Doc.19 - Property Book No.5 Entry No.675 and 676 relative to 2 sound moderators and a gun cover
-
They would certainly have seen what was in front of them. The silencer wasn't, and according to where it was, they wouldn't have seen it even if they'd had a torch, and even IF they had, why would they think a boxed object in the deepest recesses of a wedge shaped cupboard had been recently used in a crime which didn't require it's use............. the fact remains that they weren't looking for it.
The gun cupboard wasn't part of the crime scene as far as they knew. They went on information received - information fro your mate Bamber!
::)
I just can't believe that ALL of the evidence was found AFTER the police were supposed to have completed a search. Moderator in the gun cupboard, scratches on the aga, jigsaw blade under the window, scratches on the catch. The weird thing is, the evidence seemed to grow out of the relatives theory when usually a theory develops from the evidence 'after' it is found.
But Caroline, because the rellies had produced the "evidence" of Jeremy's guilt before the police did, it stands to reasom that they would have provided the police with the theory to go with it, as borne out in RWB's "diary."
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4455.msg182871.html#msg182871 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4455.msg182871.html#msg182871)
do you not think it strange that the one piece of physical evidence which convicted Jeremy and MAY or not have been in that cupboard when the police searched, it's use in the crime now disputed, was found and presented to EP by the very people who stood to benefit from his conviction.
-
::)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4455.msg182871.html#msg182871 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4455.msg182871.html#msg182871)
Back to posting old posts David? That's what you do when you have nothing - that's why you do it so often. Ready to admit that you got yourself over excited by 3SB and made a berk of yourself? 8)
-
::)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4455.msg182871.html#msg182871 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4455.msg182871.html#msg182871)
What exactly are you trying to prove here, David? I'm neither ashamed nor embarrassed to admit that I CHANGED MY MIND -it's an irony that much of what was true when I believed him to be innocent STILL holds true- but trying to ridicule others appears to be a need buried deep within you. It says much about you. OR is it that you're simply trying to divert attention from the fact that you once believed Jeremy was innocent but your insecurities are such that you'd prefer the finger wasn't pointed at you?
-
Well, if they could see it clearly enough to discuss it and take a unilateral decision to leave it there, not only was it in their sight, it was also well within sight of anyone else who looked.
Ron Cook told the COLP Investigators, that if he had seen a silencer in the gun cupboard located under the stairs in a room known as the den, he would have taken it for takings sake because the thread on the end of the Anshuzt barrel was clean and blood free, and that it gave an impression that something might attach itself there, such as a silencer (and the rifles metal end cap). One thing appears clear and that is that Cook did not arrive at the farmhouse until 9.20am that morning! Him and his team of SOCO's did not get handed the scene from senior officers until 10 O'clock. By the time Cook got to see the end of the anshuzt rifles barrel, a great deal of activity involving its movement and positioning had already occurred! For example, Cook didn't see the anshuzt rifle at the box room window, where Julia Jeapes and PC Brown had seen it earlier that same morning! Cook didn't see the rifle laying alongside Sheila's body at 8.44am, when the police surgeon, Dr Craig, saw Sheila's body on the far side of the bed at that time! Cook didn't see Sheila's body at about 9.00am when as PS Adams said, he had no recollection of seeing a gun with Sheila's body at that time! Cook was not there when Stan Jones and Mick Clark saw Sheila and Junes bodies laid on top of the bed, with the rifle at that stage resting on the bed in between both bodies! And Cook did not see the bodies being lifted from the bed and placed on the floor, nor could he be expected to know of the whereabouts of the rifle whilst this exercise was going on (informatives)!
But one thing he must have known about, involved Stan Jones return to the scene shortly after 11.30am on that first morning, to collect exhibits SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1. No doubt on the 13th August 1985, when he was given the silencer by Stan Jones, that Cooks mind went into automatic mode, and he must have assumed that the silencer Stan Jones had given him that particular morning, was the very same silencer that he knew Stan Jones had taken from the scene on the first morning of the investigation - hence why Cook attached his own exhibit label and marked it 'SJ/1' he thinking that Stan Jones was the finder of it...
-
Back to posting old posts David? That's what you do when you have nothing - that's why you do it so often. Ready to admit that you got yourself over excited by 3SB and made a berk of yourself? 8)
I don't think he has made a berk of himself - it seems clear cut to me that what I have referred to as being Stan Jones identifying mark, is genuine..
-
Ron Cook told the COLP Investigators, that if he had seen a silencer in the gun cupboard located under the stairs in a room known as the den, he would have taken it for takings sake because the thread on the end of the Anshuzt barrel was clean and blood free, and that it gave an impression that something might attach itself there, such as a silencer (and the rifles metal end cap). One thing appears clear and that is that Cook did not arrive at the farmhouse until 9.20am that morning! Him and his team of SOCO's did not get handed the scene from senior officers until 10 O'clock. By the time Cook got to see the end of the anshuzt rifles barrel, a great deal of activity involving its movement and positioning had already occurred! For example, Cook didn't see the anshuzt rifle at the box room window, where Julia Jeapes and PC Brown had seen it earlier that same morning! Cook didn't see the rifle laying alongside Sheila's body at 8.44am, when the police surgeon, Dr Craig, saw Sheila's body on the far side of the bed at that time! Cook didn't see Sheila's body at about 9.00am when as PS Adams said, he had no recollection of seeing a gun with Sheila's body at that time! Cook was not there when Stan Jones and Mick Clark saw Sheila and Junes bodies laid on top of the bed, with the rifle at that stage resting on the bed in between both bodies! And Cook did not see the bodies being lifted from the bed and placed on the floor, nor could he be expected to know of the whereabouts of the rifle whilst this exercise was going on (informatives)!
But one thing he must have known about, involved Stan Jones return to the scene shortly after 11.30am on that first morning, to collect exhibits SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1. No doubt on the 13th August 1985, when he was given the silencer by Stan Jones, that Cooks mind went into automatic mode, and he must have assumed that the silencer Stan Jones had given him that particular morning, was the very same silencer that he knew Stan Jones had taken from the scene on the first morning of the investigation - hence why Cook attached his own exhibit label and marked it 'SJ/1' he thinking that Stan Jones was the finder of it...
An understair (gun) cupboard is generally located in a hall which may take the form of a narrow corridor, or in the case of a large Georgian house, a wide anti-room, however, be that as it may, your lengthy post in no way addresses the post you quoted.
-
I don't think he has made a berk of himself - it seems clear cut to me that what I have referred to as being Stan Jones identifying mark, is genuine..
I wouldn't rely too much on David for verification. He changed his mind.
-
An understair (gun) cupboard is generally located in a hall which may take the form of a narrow corridor, or in the case of a large Georgian house, a wide anti-room, however, be that as it may, your lengthy post in no way addresses the post you quoted.
The so called gun cupboard at whf was clearly in the den, and was situated beneath the back stairs...
Since the thread I'm posting on, is about the cops returning the silencer to the family, I was just pointing out that Stan Jones took a silencer away from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation, which the relatives obviously handed back to the cops via Peter Eaton on the 12th August 1985. It must follow that if what I am reporting is true, that cops must have handed the silencer (SBJ/1) back to the family by one means or another prior to the 12th August 1985, when the family gave it back....
-
What exactly are you trying to prove here, David? I'm neither ashamed nor embarrassed to admit that I CHANGED MY MIND -it's an irony that much of what was true when I believed him to be innocent STILL holds true- but trying to ridicule others appears to be a need buried deep within you. It says much about you. OR is it that you're simply trying to divert attention from the fact that you once believed Jeremy was innocent but your insecurities are such that you'd prefer the finger wasn't pointed at you?
Not sure what he's 'trying' to prove but once again he's proved to be a dickhead. He wears it well! ;D
-
The so called gun cupboard at whf was clearly in the den, and was situated beneath the back stairs...
Since the thread I'm posting on, is about the cops returning the silencer to the family, I was just pointing out that Stan Jones took a silencer away from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation, which the relatives obviously handed back to the cops via Peter Eaton on the 12th August 1985. It must follow that if what I am reporting is true, that cops must have handed the silencer (SBJ/1) back to the family by one means or another prior to the 12th August 1985, when the family gave it back....
Oh right! I see. It seems that you're saying there was more than one silencer so we're obviously talking about entirely different silencers and different circumstances.
-
Based on the evidence, it can be safely deduced that the blood was planted maliciously by someone who has both access to Sheila's blood and a vested interest in seeing Jeremy disinherited. Who that person is I do not know for sure, but it can be narrowed down to a list of five people that meet the two prerequisites I just mentioned.
David still hasn't said who these 5 people are who simultaneously had access to Sheila's blood & wanted to disinherit Bamber. I have asked several times since 12.41 this afternoon.
David quietly changed stance because he knew he could goad more as a supporter. However you would think he would at least have a scenario of how the silencer was fabricated. That was his sole reason for changing stance. If he has a scenario, he hasn't revealed it.
-
Oh right! I see. It seems that you're saying there was more than one silencer so we're obviously talking about entirely different silencers and different circumstances.
It depends what you know, and what your prepared to accept as being true!
If you go by the police, relatives and prosecutions case at trial, and since, then obviously how can the police take control of a silencer from the scene on the first morning of the investigation, and then three days later the family find that self same silencer in a cupboard in the den at the scene? Moreover, how if there was only one silencer, could cops have sent the silencer in question (DB/1) to the Lab' on the 30th August 1985, and yet Ann Eaton and the other relatives still be in possession of the said silencer right up until the 11th September 1985, at which point only then does Ann Eaton decide to hand it over to DC Oakey? How could the same silencer be at the lab' being dismantled by the firearms expert (Fletcher) on the 12th September 1985, yet still be with Essex police so that DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood could fingerprint it on the 13th September 1985? Also, how could a flake of dried blood be found trapped between baffle plates in a silencer at the lab' which when analysed and results obtained on the 12th, 13th, 18th, and 19th September 1985, cops still hadn't by that stage sent the silencer to the lab' and would not do so until a day after the four key blood group results were obtained? If there was only just the one silencer in this miscarriage debacle, how could such a flake of dried blood have been found inside a silencer which the cops had not yet even submitted to the lab', and would not do so, until the 20th September 1985, accompanied by a request for the silencer to be checked for blood and fibers?
If blood had supposedly already been found inside the silencer, why was a request being made by Essex police for the silencer they sent to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood?
Its starting to look to me like there were two rifles and two silencers at the heart of this tragedy!
The cops, the family, and the experts at the lab' are certainly all guilty of fabrication, and perverting the course of justice!
You simply couldn't make it up what has been going on here with these guns, silencers and bullets!
Jeremy Bamber was definitely framed for these murders, by the cops, the family and experts, who are responsible for manipulating the firearms used in these shootings, the types of ammunition used, and the interchanging misuse of two almost identical Sound moderators! As part of the attempt to frame Jeremy Bamber for these killings, they were cocky in their approach, so cocky and confident that the criminal justice system could be manipulated to secure a conviction, that they even blatantly and openly doctored the exhibit references of key exhibits with a view to creating an environment of confusion which ordinary people would not understand the significance of...
-
No-one has seen any witness statement made either by Stan Jones, or one that was made in his name by another person, when, where, and how, Stan Jones, took possession of, found or seized, or was given the four key exhibits that became known as, SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1, other than some poxy excuse that the silencer that Peter Eaton handed to him on the 12th August 1985, namely a silencer he gave the exhibit reference 'SBJ/1'...
Well, this is remarkable for a number of different reasons, because Ron Cook said that when Stan Jones handed him that particular silencer on the following day (13th August 1985) it did not have any exhibit label attached to it, and before taking it to the Lab' that very same day how Cook had attached his own exhibit label which both he and Glynis Howard signed, he said was marked as 'SJ/1' because he hadn't realised and did not know that Stan Jones even had a middle or a second christian name...
There it is then, as clear as day - one silencer, which Stan Jones claims had the exhibit reference of 'SBJ/1', a silencer which Ron Cook had labelled 'SJ/1', and a silencer which Glynis Howard referred to as exhibit 'DB/1', and 'DRB/1', one silencer, with several different exhibit references at the same time, in the same time frame (13th August 1985)...
Absolutely marvelous, it makes you wonder how these people can sleep or rest at night...
-
I don't think he has made a berk of himself - it seems clear cut to me that what I have referred to as being Stan Jones identifying mark, is genuine..
I think he most certainly has and neither of you has posted anything to prove such an identifying mark - I have to conclude that it is because you don't have any. Stan Jones's signature has now been identified and just because you keep saying 3SB is an ID mark for Stan Jones - doesn't make it so. If people signed things with various marks it would make an absolute joke of the admin system and no one would know who signed what! This is why we have signatures - they identify a person! I'm not particularly interested in the claims people make - if they can't back them up.
I don't believe that the document you originally posted is genuine but it would be easy to create and hide any editing by printing, scanning, and saving. Not sure who would want to or why but maybe it was done just to stir conversation. Add to that David and his back bedroom forensic laboratory ......... and here we are! ::) The faithful will go along with it, the rest will simply keep banging their heads against a brick wall, pointing out the flaws. It will die down eventually, but will once again rear its ugly head and it will all start over again. T'was ever thus!
-
It depends what you know, and what your prepared to accept as being true!
If you go by the police, relatives and prosecutions case at trial, and since, then obviously how can the police take control of a silencer from the scene on the first morning of the investigation, and then three days later the family find that self same silencer in a cupboard in the den at the scene? Moreover, how if there was only one silencer, could cops have sent the silencer in question (DB/1) to the Lab' on the 30th August 1985, and yet Ann Eaton and the other relatives still be in possession of the said silencer right up until the 11th September 1985, at which point only then does Ann Eaton decide to hand it over to DC Oakey? How could the same silencer be at the lab' being dismantled by the firearms expert (Fletcher) on the 12th September 1985, yet still be with Essex police so that DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood could fingerprint it on the 13th September 1985? Also, how could a flake of dried blood be found trapped between baffle plates in a silencer at the lab' which when analysed and results obtained on the 12th, 13th, 18th, and 19th September 1985, cops still hadn't by that stage sent the silencer to the lab' and would not do so until a day after the four key blood group results were obtained? If there was only just the one silencer in this miscarriage debacle, how could such a flake of dried blood have been found inside a silencer which the cops had not yet even submitted to the lab', and would not do so, until the 20th September 1985, accompanied by a request for the silencer to be checked for blood and fibers?
If blood had supposedly already been found inside the silencer, why was a request being made by Essex police for the silencer they sent to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, to be checked for blood?
Its starting to look to me like there were two rifles and two silencers at the heart of this tragedy!
The cops, the family, and the experts at the lab' are certainly all guilty of fabrication, and perverting the course of justice!
You simply couldn't make it up what has been going on here with these guns, silencers and bullets!
Jeremy Bamber was definitely framed for these murders, by the cops, the family and experts, who are responsible for manipulating the firearms used in these shootings, the types of ammunition used, and the interchanging misuse of two almost identical Sound moderators! As part of the attempt to frame Jeremy Bamber for these killings, they were cocky in their approach, so cocky and confident that the criminal justice system could be manipulated to secure a conviction, that they even blatantly and openly doctored the exhibit references of key exhibits with a view to creating an environment of confusion which ordinary people would not understand the significance of...
...........or you could make it up? ;)
-
...........or you could make it up? ;)
Or you could be making it up, in that you are suggesting that I am making it up - the truth of the matter is that the silencer evidence is made up nonsense introduced at the behest of Robert Woodwis Boutflour, who got a bee in his bonnet from the outset claiming that a silencer would have needed to be used when the children were shot so that the adult victims did not get disturbed!
The ballistic expert in this case, Malcolm Fletcher, could not find any evidence that any of the bullets had been fired through a silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, despite him making attempts to verify this to be true. So we have 25 bullets or so that could not be linked as having been fired through a silencer, not one single bullet that could be said to have been fired through the silencer, and this paint evidence from the kitchen aga, that the silocost impression taken from the gouge that Ron Cook claims he made with a pen knife on the 14th August 1985, has 'regular scratches - (all) equally spaced' that could not have been made by any pen knife, but which were made by the end of the silencers end cap which he brought into direct contact with the underside of the aga mantelpiece shelf, a gouge mark that he subsequently covered with a piece of yellow sticky tape, supposedly on that date (14th August 1984), yet how odd that despite the relatives having access to the farmhouse from the entire period from 9th August 1985 until at least the 12th September 1985, not one of them, and that includes Ann Eaton, David Boutflour, Peter Eaton, Anthony Pargeter, Robert Boutflour, Basil Cock, Barbara Wilson, and every cat and dog imaginable, all fail to recognise something they would have seen, and commented upon in the interim period prior to the 14th September 1985, when a key photograph was taken showing that piece of yellow sticky tape stuck on the underside of the kitchen shelf at the scene!
Nobody but Cook himself says he saw that Yellow sticky tape fixed to the underside of the kitchen aga shelf, from 14th August 1985, onwards...
Its all fake evidence, introduced by cops and relatives and experts at the lab'...
The silencer evidence is a red herrin', its bogus, its dodgy, its fake, its total rubbish...
-
I wouldn't rely too much on David for verification. He changed his mind.
Well, there's nothing wrong with anyone changing their minds about anything is there?
I suppose it might depend on what you get to know later on, or what you see with your own two eyes, and your own experiences in life, not just in your own life, but in the way others have lived their lives, in one way or another. I change my mind often when I find a new piece of evidence that I had not seen before which impacts on something I either believed in, or didn't believe in!
I am still on that journey...
I still have at least half as much again material that I have not read yet in connection with this case, I am finding out new things all of the time every time I pick up a document I have not had sight of before or previously...
-
Well, there's nothing wrong with anyone changing their minds about anything is there?
I suppose it might depend on what you get to know later on, or what you see with your own two eyes, and your own experiences in life, not just in your own life, but in the way others have lived their lives, in one way or another. I change my mind often when I find a new piece of evidence that I had not seen before which impacts on something I either believed in, or didn't believe in!
I am still on that journey...
I still have at least half as much again material that I have not read yet in connection with this case, I am finding out new things all of the time every time I pick up a document I have not had sight of before or previously...
It is quite often the case that when I come across a document containing information of interest, that it dawns on me that this must be taken into account with other information I have already come across, and so I backtrack and try to locate the original source of information, and when I find it and apply the latest information against it, it makes me realise that there was more to the original information in the first document, that it might not mean what I originally thought it to mean...
It becomes a matter of trying to verify the facts, by a reliance upon the information contained in the file!
That's why cops and the CPS are withholding evidence under pii, because they know that the information contained in that material will give a clear indication that Jeremy Bamber had not in fact shot his sister and killed her, and that he had not staged his sister's death scene on the main bedroom floor - the police themselves did...
-
It is quite often the case that when I come across a document containing information of interest, that it dawns on me that this must be taken into account with other information I have already come across, and so I backtrack and try to locate the original source of information, and when I find it and apply the latest information against it, it makes me realise that there was more to the original information in the first document, that it might not mean what I originally thought it to mean...
It becomes a matter of trying to verify the facts, by a reliance upon the information contained in the file!
That's why cops and the CPS are withholding evidence under pii, because they know that the information contained in that material will give a clear indication that Jeremy Bamber had not in fact shot his sister and killed her, and that he had not staged his sister's death scene on the main bedroom floor - the police themselves did...
For example, lets take the work that Malcolm Fletcher did in trying to establish whether or not any of the 25 bullets had been fired through the silencer at the time the five victims were shot and killed! Fletcher carried out this work on the 3rd October, 1985 - here are his working handwritten notes of that investigation and its conclusions!
Q - Were the bullets fired through the SM on the rifle (18)
Check bullets fired through the rifle (18) with and without SM. Collected both in cotton wool and water. Cannot see any marks characteristic of bullets having passed through a sound moderator. * Unable to tell if any of the bullets in the case have been fired through a sound moderaator
(See notes - annex to rifle form)
-
So, everyone can now see that there was absolutely no evidence to support the argument that any of the bullets used to shoot and kill the victims had passed through any sound moderator (which is fascinating since Keithy Mallinson states that it is possible to tell whether or not a bullet was fired through a gun fitted with a SM or not)!
No ballistic evidence then that the SM was used, only biological blood evidence! Blood that could have originated from either Sheila Caffell or Robert Boutflour!
-
Then we have another anomaly in the conclusions drawn by the ballistic expert, Fletcher, in this case - since on the 3rd October 1985, he conducts another important test and arrives at specific conclusions which must impact upon the hand swab evidence relied upon in this prosecution to help convict Jeremy Bamber of these murders...
Once again, here are Fletchers working notes, in his own handwriting, and dated, 3rd October, 1985:-
Q - Would lead be visible on a persons fingers after loading magazine of rifle (18) with 2 or 3 X 9 cartridges?
Inspection of fingers after 1st, 2nd and 3rd loadings.
(1) - Some lead specks and frags and some discoloration
(2) - Further specks and frags and darker discoloration
(3) - Quite a few specks and fragments of lead and grey / black discoloration.
Noticeable on close examination - could easily be missed.
-
Well, there's nothing wrong with anyone changing their minds about anything is there?
I suppose it might depend on what you get to know later on, or what you see with your own two eyes, and your own experiences in life, not just in your own life, but in the way others have lived their lives, in one way or another. I change my mind often when I find a new piece of evidence that I had not seen before which impacts on something I either believed in, or didn't believe in!
I am still on that journey...
I still have at least half as much again material that I have not read yet in connection with this case, I am finding out new things all of the time every time I pick up a document I have not had sight of before or previously...
Tell that to David!
-
The problem with these tests that Fletcher conducted on the 3rd October 1985, was that he does not identify the source of the control bullets he loaded in to the rifle (18) on this occasion! He had by the 2nd of October 1985, used up all 29 x Eley .22 LR subsonic Hollow point cartridges (DRH/42) recovered from the kitchen worktop close to the telephone with its handset off its cradle - cartridges which to all intents and purposes had been coated in some sort of wax...
-
Tell that to David!
I don't think I need to do that, he will know that its true in any event..
-
The problem with these tests that Fletcher conducted on the 3rd October 1985, was that he does not identify the source of the control bullets he loaded in to the rifle (18) on this occasion! He had by the 2nd of October 1985, used up all 29 x Eley .22 LR subsonic Hollow point cartridges (DRH/42) recovered from the kitchen worktop close to the telephone with its handset off its cradle - cartridges which to all intents and purposes had been coated in some sort of wax...
If the 29 cartridges subject of exhibit DRH/42 were coated with wax, then the other solitary one in the ammunition box (also on the kitchen worktop) and the other 20 cartridges that were used or missing and unaccounted for, must also have been coated in wax, and if so, there wouldn't be any lead deposit on the shooters fingers! No wonder there was very little traces of lead deposit found on the hand swabs (DRH/44 / DRH/33) in this case..
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6680.msg304451.html#msg304451
-
In order to confirm that Fletcher had used up all the control ammunition prior to the 3rd October 1985, I shall post up some other of his working notes, which were recorded in his own handwriting, and dated...
Lets take the next example, The working notes of Malcolm Fletcher, dated, 1sst October 1985:-
Q - How efficient is the sound moderator
Noise using sound moderator marginally altered - some of the high frequency 'crack' missing. Still a load noise.
Rifle (18); SM 22/23 and cartridges (93) used...
Please note that two sound moderators were used 22 and 23, by Fletcher, on these 1st October 1985, tests!!
-
It should always not be forgotten that 'the devil is always in the detail' - and with this in mind, I would like to explode the myth that Malcolm Fletcher had nothing whatsoever to do with the rifle (18) at least one of the sound moderators, the batch of crime scene ammunition, cartridge cases and bullets, and control ammunition prior to the 20th September 1985! To all intents and purposes, Fletcher claims that he did not carry out the test firing of rifle (18) Sound moderator and control ammunition, until on and after 20th September 1985! Lets hit the nail on the head so that I can direct everybody to the true facts of this matter!
Did the ballistic expert lie?
If he lied, why did he lie?
Who encouraged him to lie if he did lie?
If he has lied it surely blows the prosecutions case wide open, and because the ballistic evidence can no longer be sustainable, then the convictions must be quashed immediately, and if its going to take time, Jeremy Bamber needs to be released on bail as soon as is practicable, until the court of appeal avails itself and duly quashes these convictions!
So, Did the Ballistic expert gild the lily and lie to help the prosecution to convict an innocent man of these five murders?
We shall soon see...
-
I don't think I need to do that, he will know that its true in any event..
Clearly not as he keeps posting old posts as though people don't have a right to change their stance or the nounce to realise that when someone does change their mind, they are likely to hold a opposing view of what they originally thought. It's not rocket science (although David probably thinks he's qualified to talk about that too!). Anyway, enough about David, he already thinks the song is about him!
-
It should always not be forgotten that 'the devil is always in the detail' - and with this in mind, I would like to explode the myth that Malcolm Fletcher had nothing whatsoever to do with the rifle (18) at least one of the sound moderators, the batch of crime scene ammunition, cartridge cases and bullets, and control ammunition prior to the 20th September 1985! To all intents and purposes, Fletcher claims that he did not carry out the test firing of rifle (18) Sound moderator and control ammunition, until on and after 20th September 1985! Lets hit the nail on the head so that I can direct everybody to the true facts of this matter!
Did the ballistic expert lie?
If he lied, why did he lie?
Who encouraged him to lie if he did lie?
If he has lied it surely blows the prosecutions case wide open, and because the ballistic evidence can no longer be sustainable, then the convictions must be quashed immediately, and if its going to take time, Jeremy Bamber needs to be released on bail as soon as is practicable, until the court of appeal avails itself and duly quashes these convictions!
So, Did the Ballistic expert gild the lily and lie to help the prosecution to convict an innocent man of these five murders?
We shall soon see...
There are a number of significant clues to assist us all in this enquiry into whether or not the ballistic expert, Fletcher, deceived the court into helping to convict Bamber as the killer!
First things first - we know that the rifle was submitted to the lab' along with one of the silencers ('DB/1') 23, on the 30th August 1985, because we have seen the documentation confirming this (be it a forgery, or true)! We also know by reference to similar documentation that the batch of crime scene ammunition was also dispatched to Huntingdon Lab' on the same date, along with exhibit DRH/42 which contained the 29 cartridges to be used in the test firing of the same. We know that Fletcher handled the rifle (18) on the 12th September 1985, because he performed his 'Cloth pull-through' test of rifle (18)'s barrel (exhibit 'MDF/1'). We know that Fletcher's signature appears on all the General Examination records pertaining to the spent cartridge cases, and the bullets in this case, and that his signature frequently is dated on occasions prior to the 20th September 1985, confirming that he had performed test firing of rifle (18) and the sound moderator with unreported control rounds...
So, my question is this - what happened to that batch of control rounds?
Why wasn't an accurate record made of the rounds that were test fired out of rifle (18) on all the occasions prior to the 20th September 1985?
Were spent cartridge cases from these initial test firings used in a substitution process to help hide the fact that in fact two different guns had been use in the shootings?
10 bullets that could not be linked to the exclusion of all other weapons formed part of the batch of crime scene ammunition, and as we have seen 10 spent cartridge cases all compared out of sequence, on dates which fell before the 20th September 1985, in particular, comparison tests carried out using markings on test fired rounds against these 10 cartridge cases on the 13th and 18th September 1985?
Fletcher knew about these earlier test firings and that in 10 examples spent cartridge cases recovered from the scene had already been linked to the rifle (18) by earlier comparison tests of the same!
We will now look into the detail of Fletcher's role that he must have played in this conspiracy!
-
Please read the contents of the following handwritten notes made by Fletcher himself, signed by him and dated, 13th September, 1985:-
When you have finished reading it ask yourselves whether or not Fletcher had test fired the rifle (18), using a silencer, and unidentified control ammunition, on an occasion prior to the 20th September 1985?
(document currently being uploaded)...
-
Please read the contents of the following handwritten notes made by Fletcher himself, signed by him and dated, 13th September, 1985:-
When you have finished reading it ask yourselves whether or not Fletcher had test fired the rifle (18), using a silencer, and unidentified control ammunition, on an occasion prior to the 20th September 1985?
-
So, everyone must now know that the Prosecutions ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher did not tell the truth about when he carried out test firing of rifle (18), with use of the silencer ('DB/1') 23, and some as yet unidentified control ammunition, on the 13th September 1985...
He has lied and fabricated his account of when he received the rifle (18), the silencer ('DB/1') and control ammunition in which to do tests to see if the batches of crime scene ammunition had in fact been fired in that rifle (18) which passed through the silencer ('DB/1') 23...
Now, this opens up 'a whole new ball game' - suddenly the prosecutions case is 'on the back foot'!
-
So, everyone must now know that the Prosecutions ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher did not tell the truth about when he carried out test firing of rifle (18), with use of the silencer ('DB/1') 23, and some as yet unidentified control ammunition, on the 13th September 1985...
He has lied and fabricated his account of when he received the rifle (18), the silencer ('DB/1') and control ammunition in which to do tests to see if the batches of crime scene ammunition had in fact been fired in that rifle (18) which passed through the silencer ('DB/1') 23...
Now, this opens up 'a whole new ball game' - suddenly the prosecutions case is 'on the back foot'!
Suddenly, its not just a case of it being a one gun crime, with use of one silencer or sound moderator! Its not just a case of we can call the silencer anything we want at any stage, and nobody will take the slightest notice, so what if we have given the silencer various exhibit references and different lab' item numbers, and what if two different relatives handed over a silencer with a month difference in the hand over of these or this? So what if relatives still had the silencer by 11th September 1985, when the silencer was supposed to have been at the Lab' at Huntingdon from the 30th August 1985, onward? So what if blood was found inside the silencer which had been dismantled at the lab' on the 12th September 1985, if the silencer handed to DC Oakey by Ann Eaton on the 12th September 1985, was not submitted to the lab' until the 20th September 1985? Does it matter that blood was attributed to a silencer ('DRB/1') that wasn't the silencer inside which the key blood group evidence was supposedly found? So what if there were two guns involved in the police investigation? what if there were two Parker Hale silencers? What if Cook deliberately contaminated one of the silencers at the scene on the 14th August 1985?
So many what 'ifs'?
The claim that there was only the one silencer in this police investigation is garbage!
The claim that there was only one gun that fired bullets during the shooting of the victims, is also garbage!
There wasn't just the one silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, which had a variety of different exhibit references ranging from 'SBJ/1', to 'SJ/1' to 'DB/1' then ending up as 'DRB/1' depending upon who was saying what, at a particular time or not! Its all official bullshit, part of a state conspiracy!
How can anyone pretend that what has been going on here is lawful and honest?
-
Suddenly, its not just a case of it being a one gun crime, with use of one silencer or sound moderator! Its not just a case of we can call the silencer anything we want at any stage, and nobody will take the slightest notice, so what if we have given the silencer various exhibit references and different lab' item numbers, and what if two different relatives handed over a silencer with a month difference in the hand over of these or this? So what if relatives still had the silencer by 11th September 1985, when the silencer was supposed to have been at the Lab' at Huntingdon from the 30th August 1985, onward? So what if blood was found inside the silencer which had been dismantled at the lab' on the 12th September 1985, if the silencer handed to DC Oakey by Ann Eaton on the 12th September 1985, was not submitted to the lab' until the 20th September 1985? Does it matter that blood was attributed to a silencer ('DRB/1') that wasn't the silencer inside which the key blood group evidence was supposedly found? So what if there were two guns involved in the police investigation? what if there were two Parker Hale silencers? What if Cook deliberately contaminated one of the silencers at the scene on the 14th August 1985?
So many what 'ifs'?
The claim that there was only the one silencer in this police investigation is garbage!
The claim that there was only one gun that fired bullets during the shooting of the victims, is also garbage!
There wasn't just the one silencer / sound moderator / suppressor, which had a variety of different exhibit references ranging from 'SBJ/1', to 'SJ/1' to 'DB/1' then ending up as 'DRB/1' depending upon who was saying what, at a particular time or not! Its all official bullshit, part of a state conspiracy!
How can anyone pretend that what has been going on here is lawful and honest?
So, what if Robert Boutflour had the exact same blood groups as Sheila Caffell?
So what if cops, relatives and lab' experts colluded to present the case as a one gun crime, one silencer crime, one find and one hand over of one silencer on two separate occasions one month a part?
Ok, ok, ok...
We'll put all of this dishonesty down to 'Noble Cause Corruption'...
Relatives wanted Jeremy to be the killer, cops originally didn't think he was...
But, there came a moment in the Essex police Investigation, when it became 'a case of go for him', or 'we are coming for you'!
-
So, what if Robert Boutflour had the exact same blood groups as Sheila Caffell?
So what if cops, relatives and lab' experts colluded to present the case as a one gun crime, one silencer crime, one find and one hand over of one silencer on two separate occasions one month a part?
Ok, ok, ok...
We'll put all of this dishonesty down to 'Noble Cause Corruption'...
Relatives wanted Jeremy to be the killer, cops originally didn't think he was...
But, there came a moment in the Essex police Investigation, when it became 'a case of go for him', or 'we are coming for you'!
The case turned on what Robert Boutflour spoke to his fellow freemason colleague about (Peter Simpson) on the 6th September 1985! There is no doubt whatsoever that during that meeting that Robert Boutflour told Peter Simpson everything he was reluctant to have to listen too...
'YOU get Jeremy and get him convicted', Robert Boutflour said, 'or we (the family) will be gunning for you and your officers', he told him, we know who shot Sheila, and we know that Sheila and Junes bodies were found on top of the bed, before both ended up on the bedroom floor either side of the bed and thatt police staged her death scene, and we know that police intended to try and force these deaths through the Coroners court system'...
-
The reason why Essex police and the Lab' experts sought to conceal the truth about the earlier test firing of rifle (18), with and without use of the silencer ('DB/1') 23, using as yet unidentified control ammunition, on the 13th September 1985, should become self-evident considering that exactly 10 spent cartridge cases had been verified as having been compared against markings on control ammunition fired through the rifle (18) before the ballistic expert, Fletcher officially receive the gun, silencer and control ammunition from Essex police! In his witness statement, probably made for him by Essex police, so it was a composite witness statement in effect, it states that he did not receive these items until 20th September 1985, but his own handwritten notes, initialled by him and dated, prove entirely differently...
Fletcher had control of all these exhibits from as early as 12th September 1985!
This was a wicked deception...
-
The reason why Essex police and the Lab' experts sought to conceal the truth about the earlier test firing of rifle (18), with and without use of the silencer ('DB/1') 23, using as yet unidentified control ammunition, on the 13th September 1985, should become self-evident considering that exactly 10 spent cartridge cases had been verified as having been compared against markings on control ammunition fired through the rifle (18) before the ballistic expert, Fletcher officially receive the gun, silencer and control ammunition from Essex police! In his witness statement, probably made for him by Essex police, so it was a composite witness statement in effect, it states that he did not receive these items until 20th September 1985, but his own handwritten notes, initialled by him and dated, prove entirely differently...
Fletcher had control of all these exhibits from as early as 12th September 1985!
This was a wicked deception...
It is a very disturbing matter - since, by all accounts, once Fletcher dismantled the silencer ('DRB/1') on the 12th September 1985 and he discovered the flake trapped between two baffle plates, he went on to test fire control rounds with the rifle (18), bullets which must have passed right through the silencer in question on the following day (13th September 1985), as if he intended to destroy any possible evidence that the blood group evidence which had been found inside that silencer ('DB/1') 23, had been tested to destruction...
-
What was the source of the control ammunition which Fletcher test fired in the rifle (18) which passed through the silencer ('DB/1') on the 13th September 1985?
Was it used in a substitution process so that the case for the shootings being a one gun crime could be presented to the court?
-
What was the source of the control ammunition which Fletcher test fired in the rifle (18) which passed through the silencer ('DB/1') on the 13th September 1985?
Was it used in a substitution process so that the case for the shootings being a one gun crime could be presented to the court?
There's going to have to be another police investigation into these matters now...
But which police force should be given the task?
You simply can't trust the police to carry out an impartial Inquiry upon and into its own kind...
-
There's going to have to be another police investigation into these matters now...
But which police force should be given the task?
You simply can't trust the police to carry out an impartial Inquiry upon and into its own kind...
To say that Jeremy Bamber has been framed by the police, his relatives and experts from Huntingdon Lab' would be an understatement...
-
I have other working notes, all dated, made in Fletcher's own handwriting which for the sake of completeness I shall post them up for reference purposes and to try and stimulate debate...
-
I have other working notes, all dated, made in Fletcher's own handwriting which for the sake of completeness I shall post them up for reference purposes and to try and stimulate debate...
I find myself having to report that some of the contents I have stumbled upon are very disturbing indeed!
An innocent mans liberty and reputation may have been compromised by certain findings of the prosecutions ballistic expert, during his testing and examination which he must have chosen to deliberately keep quite about...
Now, after over 32 years his voice and conclusions shall be concealed no longer!
-
I find myself having to report that some of the contents I have stumbled upon are very disturbing indeed!
An innocent mans liberty and reputation may have been compromised by certain findings of the prosecutions ballistic expert, during his testing and examination which he must have chosen to deliberately keep quite about...
Now, after over 32 years his voice and conclusions shall be concealed no longer!
Ok, ok, ok...
I shall cut to the chase, guess what the prosecutions ballistic expert concluded when examining the burn marks on the back of Neville Bambers neck?
Can one or more of you hazard a guess to make this even more interesting, please?
-
;D
Did you really think you would get away with that? you sneeky butthole.
Please show what I missed out on these quotes. You sneeky creep -
What compensation did Daniel and Nicholas get when Jeremy blew their brains out in an unprovoked attack?
'He has a whole life tariff because he wont accept responsibility, you cant be rehabilitated if you don't accept responsibility.'
'The rifle he used was fine for the job. Anyone could shoot five people, it's staging the suicide that's the tricky part.'
'30 Years have now passed and Jeremy's supporters have failed to free him.
'The forensics point to him in all directions despite the police errors and inconsistencies. Therefore you must find the only potential evidence that could free him (if it exists)'.
'Yes, Its all well and good saying he is innocent but at the end of the day one must prove the points I have made above.
Too long have Jeremy supporters just repeated the same inconsistencies and oddities around the case thinking that if they repeat it enough times he will be released but that is not feasible. For Jeremy to be released they must prove a conspiracy or moral motivated corruption has produced the evidence that convicted him in order to secure his release.'
'Jeremy said he didn't do it and he wrights nice things about his family on his blog - Therefore he cant have done it.
That's lookouts logic'.
'Just to remind you, Supporters are yet to complete step 1
Good luck '
There is only one plausible scenario for Jeremy to be innocent. That is once rumors spread of Jeremy's possible involvement round the police ranks they think they have made a huge mistake closing and dismantling the crime scene to soon, Feeling stupid and fooled they become more convinced he done it and that they will get the blame for helping a mass murderer walk free. So they plant and manufacture evidence and coerce Julie into testifying and all parties involved believe they are doing the right thing to bring Justice. Now 30 years later the police who manufactured the evidence still think he is guilty and think they done the right thing putting mass murderer behind bars
This scenario is possible but very very very unlikely. If its the case Jeremy is a victim of a chain of bizarre situations and circumstances where he cannot possibly prove his innocence.
This sinister smile is what Ozzy Osborne called "The Bambinator" I think Ozzy was spot on
He looks straight into the camera and smiles. Not something people tend to do while under arrest.
Quote from: lookout on April 29, 2015, 06:27:PM
He didn't have it on at the time,Patti. If he'd just come out of the shower downstairs,he'd have met Sheila's wrath immediately, not having the time to get properly dressed poor man.
lol
Then how did he have time to ring Jeremy then go upstairs to get shot four times in the main bedroom then run back downstairs to be shot in the kitchen after having a shower at 3 in the morning?
If they believe he is innocent its the only way
Jeremy supporters must use the above methods to prove innocence, However be advised Telephone and Computer hacking is illegal, So is trespassing to obtain this information so do so at your own risk
Let's face it, the only thing that will make hardcore supporters like lookout change their minds is if Jeremy admits to doing it.
-
Now, Now, please don't start falling out....
We are here to try and get to the truth the incontrovertible truth!
That is right Mike.
Hopefully David will give the 5 names now.
-
If 'I declared to the whole world' that the prosecutions ballistic expert (Malcolm Fletcher) concluded in his notes, dated, 27th September, 1985, that the measurements and dimensions of at least one of the burn marks present on the back of Neville Bambers neck were consistent with a guns barrel having been pressed there which had made that mark?
Yep, that's what's recorded in Fletcher's own handwritten notes, initialled and dated...
So, what do all of you amatuer sleuths make of that revelation, then?
-
If 'I declared to the whole world' that the prosecutions ballistic expert (Malcolm Fletcher) concluded in his notes, dated, 27th September, 1985, that the measurements and dimensions of at least one of the burn marks present on the back of Neville Bambers neck were consistent with a guns barrel having been pressed there which had made that mark?
Yep, that's what's recorded in Fletcher's own handwritten notes, initialled and dated...
So, what do all of you amatuer sleuths make of that revelation, then?
Why was this significant piece of evidence concealed or withheld at the time of the trial in 1986, and the 2002 appeal hearing?
-
At least one of the burn marks had measurements and characteristics of the end of a guns barrel, having been inflicted on the back of Neville Bambers neck, minus the silencer...
Ok...
So who died first, Neville Bamber, or Sheila Caffell?
-
At least one of the burn marks had measurements and characteristics of the end of a guns barrel, having been inflicted on the back of Neville Bambers neck, minus the silencer...
Ok...
So who died first, Neville Bamber, or Sheila Caffell?
More importantly, which guns barrel had the same dimensions as one of the burn marks on the back of Neville Bambers neck according to the ballistic expert who had access to all the firearms found or present at whf?
-
Shall we guess?
-
Shall we guess?
Ok, I'll go first - lets play the game the prosecution and its experts and the cops, and the relatives would want us to play...
I think it was the barrel of the 12 bore shotgun!
-
Ok, I'll go first - lets play the game the prosecution and its experts and the cops, and the relatives would want us to play...
I think it was the barrel of the 12 bore shotgun!
Can I have another go, please, please, please let me...
-
Can I have another go, please, please, please let me...
Ooooh, thanks I've never had so much luck in all of my life time...
Great, in that case then I think it was the brno rifles barrel belonging to Anthony Pargeter...
-
Ooooh, thanks I've never had so much luck in all of my life time...
Great, in that case then I think it was the brno rifles barrel belonging to Anthony Pargeter...
Can I have another go, go on please, please let me, please...
-
Can I have another go, go on please, please let me, please...
Mmmmmmn, I shall guess again anyway, since you lot appear to be ever so shy...
-
Mmmmmmn, I shall guess again anyway, since you lot appear to be ever so shy...
Er, er, er...
Hang on its time to take my medication, my carer is here...
-
Right, I think it must have been the barrel of the BSA .22 air rifle!
-
I was never any good at fishing!
Never got any bites no matter where I cast my rod...
-
I was never any good at fishing!
Never got any bites no matter where I cast my rod...
Ok, ok, ok...
that just leaves the end of the barrel of the anshuzt rifle, yeah?
-
Ok, fine nobody wants to communicate with me, no matter - well it seems somewhat obvious to me, as it must be obvious to a headless chicken that the mark that the prosecutions ballistics expert said was made by the end of a guns barrel, and not the end of a silencer can only have been a reference to the end of the anshuzt rifles barrel, because he has made out the case for these shootings to be a one gun crime!
'Innit'?
-
So, why didn't Fletcher make a witness statement stating this as being true, or at least of being a possibility?
-
So, why didn't Fletcher make a witness statement stating this as being true, or at least of being a possibility?
'Innit'?
-
Seems to me to be a case of Fletcher not being able to match any of those burn marks to the circumference of a silencer mark on the back of Neville Bambers neck, otherwise, 'Innit', he would have said so?
-
Seems to me to be a case of Fletcher not being able to match any of those burn marks to the circumference of a silencer mark on the back of Neville Bambers neck, otherwise, 'Innit', he would have said so?
So, according to the burn marks on the rear of Neville Bambers neck, these were not made by the end of a silencer being pressed into the back of Nevilles neck in the vicinity of the kitchen,'Innit'...
-
So, it becomes at least clear by reference to the burn marks on the back of neville Bambers neck, that the silencer was not attached to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle when his neck was burned by the barrel of one of the guns!
That gun has almost certainly got to have been a reference to the anshuzt rifles barrel ('Innit') if we are to believe what the prosecutions ballistic expert has gone on record as saying!
And so, the anshuzt rifles barrel, minus a silencer pressed into the back of Neville Bambers neck - was Sheila already shot and dead by that stage, or would a budding killer who had planned to blame his sister for the deaths of the others have killed her outright before the attack on Neville Bamber?
-
So, it becomes at least clear by reference to the burn marks on the back of neville Bambers neck, that the silencer was not attached to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle when his neck was burned by the barrel of one of the guns!
That gun has almost certainly got to have been a reference to the anshuzt rifles barrel ('Innit') if we are to believe what the prosecutions ballistic expert has gone on record as saying!
And so, the anshuzt rifles barrel, minus a silencer pressed into the back of Neville Bambers neck - was Sheila already shot and dead by that stage, or would a budding killer who had planned to blame his sister for the deaths of the others have killed her outright before the attack on Neville Bamber?
Surely, with Bamber as the prospective killer, he would not have shot and killed his sister (who he intended to blame) before he attacked and shot dead Neville Bamber?
Would he have?
So, on the footing that Jeremy might be the shooter who killed everyone (which I don't for one moment agree with), it would surely have been part of his plan to shoot dead and kill his sister last of all!
Why then in such circumstances would he need to attach the silencer onto the barrel of the gun to shoot dead his sister?
-
Surely, with Bamber as the prospective killer, he would not have shot and killed his sister (who he intended to blame) before he attacked and shot dead Neville Bamber?
Would he have?
So, on the footing that Jeremy might be the shooter who killed everyone (which I don't for one moment agree with), it would surely have been part of his plan to shoot dead and kill his sister last of all!
Why then in such circumstances would he need to attach the silencer onto the barrel of the gun to shoot dead his sister?
He probably did.
-
Jeremy Bamber killed no-one...
Without the discredited silencer, blood and paint evidence, which is / was pure fabrication, there was absolutely no shred of circumstantial evidence to convict anyone of the murders!
-
Jeremy Bamber killed no-one...
Without the discredited silencer, blood and paint evidence, which is / was pure fabrication, there was absolutely no shred of circumstantial evidence to convict anyone of the murders!
There was a clear attempt made by the relatives from the outset to imply that Jeremy had used the silencer when he shot and killed the family. Its all there in Robert Boutflours typed diary notes, Jeremy had used the silencer, and he had used one of Sheila's tampon to clean it afterwards...
I will eventually get around to posting up the evidence proving bias of the relatives, in trying to control the wealth involved in the Bamber parents estate, and Mabel Speakmans estate...
Peter Eaton was under investigation of stealing from N and J Bamber Ltd, but the relatives got away with it because of the influence of Robert Boutflour as a co- freemasonic friend of Peter Simpson! This mob always help each other, their sworn to do so, and make deals sealed with funny handshakes and frivolous dancing rituals...
Neville Bamber was a freemason, Robert Boutflour was one, Peter Simpson another, and the trial judge, Mr Justice Drake was also a freemason - Jeremy Bamber never stood a chance of ever getting a fair trial, his fate was sealed with funny handshakes and frivolous dancing between all parties at a moments notice...
-
There was a clear attempt made by the relatives from the outset to imply that Jeremy had used the silencer when he shot and killed the family. Its all there in Robert Boutflours typed diary notes, Jeremy had used the silencer, and he had used one of Sheila's tampon to clean it afterwards...
I will eventually get around to posting up the evidence proving bias of the relatives, in trying to control the wealth involved in the Bamber parents estate, and Mabel Speakmans estate...
Peter Eaton was under investigation of stealing from N and J Bamber Ltd, but the relatives got away with it because of the influence of Robert Boutflour as a co- freemasonic friend of Peter Simpson! This mob always help each other, their sworn to do so, and make deals sealed with funny handshakes and frivolous dancing rituals...
Neville Bamber was a freemason, Robert Boutflour was one, Peter Simpson another, and the trial judge, Mr Justice Drake was also a freemason - Jeremy Bamber never stood a chance of ever getting a fair trial, his fate was sealed with funny handshakes and frivolous dancing between all parties at a moments notice...
Harris, Gibbons and DCI Jones were all freemasons...
Some investigations where these characters became embroiled were sorted out with a nod, a wink, a funny handshake, and frivolous dancing using handkerchiefs..
-
Harris, Gibbons and DCI Jones were all freemasons...
Some investigations where these characters became embroiled were sorted out with a nod, a wink, a funny handshake, and frivolous dancing using handkerchiefs..
Was it just a coincidence that Stan Jones became a freemason at the beginning of September 1985, when the nature of the case changed focus?
DI Soanes (Special Branch) was also a freemason...
They were all involved in a circle of lies, a circle of corruption, a circle of death, a circle of forgery, and a circle of dishonesty...
-
Was it just a coincidence that Stan Jones became a freemason at the beginning of September 1985, when the nature of the case changed focus?
DI Soanes (Special Branch) was also a freemason...
They were all involved in a circle of lies, a circle of corruption, a circle of death, a circle of forgery, and a circle of dishonesty...
It wouldn't surprise me if the prosecutions ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher was also a freemason, as well as the blood expert, John Hayward, and the biologist, Brian Elliot...
-
There was a lot of effort on the part of the police that went into eventually prosecuting Jeremy Bamber as the killer - once Robert Boutflour contacted Peter Simpson around 6th September 1985, to give him an ultimatum!
'Go, get Jeremy, and prosecute him as the killer', was Boutflours argument, 'otherwise, all hell is going to break loose, and Essex police had better get ready to take a big fall'...
Robert Boutflour had got all the facts right, concerning how and when Sheila had been shot and killed and her body being present in different parts of the farmhouse, after firearm officers entered the farmhouse...
Do, or die, that was Robert Boutflours message to Peter Eaton..
-
anyway, what a turn up for the books, the prosecution's ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, concluding that one of the burn marks made on the back of Neville Bambers neck was made by the end of a guns barrel!
I wonder if that particular mark was made by the end of a .22 gun, or a 12 bore shotgun barrel?
Of course, Fletcher would know the answer to that this, must have been the dimensions of a .22 gun because he made out the case for it being a one gun crime, that the only gun used in the shootings was the .22 anshuzt rifle (minus the silencer)...
-
anyway, what a turn up for the books, the prosecution's ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, concluding that one of the burn marks made on the back of Neville Bambers neck was made by the end of a guns barrel!
I wonder if that particular mark was made by the end of a .22 gun, or a 12 bore shotgun barrel?
Of course, Fletcher would know the answer to that this, must have been the dimensions of a .22 gun because he made out the case for it being a one gun crime, that the only gun used in the shootings was the .22 anshuzt rifle (minus the silencer)...
Rather more alarmingly, what if the mark that was made by the end of a guns barrel, indicated that the gun in question had got its metal end cap attached at the time it made contact with the back of Nevill Bambers neck! That is why this needs to be looked into more thoroughly, because if the metal end cap was threaded onto the end of the guns barrel when it had made that burn mark on the back of Nevill Bambers neck, then of course the silencer evidence and everything that goes with it has to be thrown out of the window...
-
Rather more alarmingly, what if the mark that was made by the end of a guns barrel, indicated that the gun in question had got its metal end cap attached at the time it made contact with the back of Nevill Bambers neck! That is why this needs to be looked into more thoroughly, because if the metal end cap was threaded onto the end of the guns barrel when it had made that burn mark on the back of Nevill Bambers neck, then of course the silencer evidence and everything that goes with it has to be thrown out of the window...
Then again, what if the metal end cap that might have been attached to the end of the guns barrel which made the burn mark on the back of Nevill Bambers neck, might also have been of the same dimensions as the end of the guns barrel upon which DS Davidson had told the COLP investigators that red paint had been found (admitted to COLP in 1991 police interviews)...
Maybe that gun was Anthony Pargeters gun? But according to the cops and Pargeter himself, it wasn't and couldn't have been...
-
Then again, what if the metal end cap that might have been attached to the end of the guns barrel which made the burn mark on the back of Nevill Bambers neck, might also have been of the same dimensions as the end of the guns barrel upon which DS Davidson had told the COLP investigators that red paint had been found (admitted to COLP in 1991 police interviews)...
Maybe that gun was Anthony Pargeters gun? But according to the cops and Pargeter himself, it wasn't and couldn't have been...
Somebody is not telling the truth about the gun barrel with paint on it, somebody has not told the truth about the gun barrel that made at least one of the burn marks on the back of Nevill Bambers neck! Somebody has been doctoring the ballistics evidence! Somebody has been tampering with the exhibit references of different silencers and made it look like all these different exhibit references related to only one silencer! Sheila's body was found here, there, and almost everywhere, she was dead downstairs in the kitchen at 7.35am, she was dead upstairs on top of the bed at 8.44am, and she ended up dead on the bedroom floor in time for PC Bird to photograph her body there by 10.00 am...
-
Somebody is not telling the truth about the gun barrel with paint on it, somebody has not told the truth about the gun barrel that made at least one of the burn marks on the back of Nevill Bambers neck! Somebody has been doctoring the ballistics evidence! Somebody has been tampering with the exhibit references of different silencers and made it look like all these different exhibit references related to only one silencer! Sheila's body was found here, there, and almost everywhere, she was dead downstairs in the kitchen at 7.35am, she was dead upstairs on top of the bed at 8.44am, and she ended up dead on the bedroom floor in time for PC Bird to photograph her body there by 10.00 am...
And all of this makes Jeremy Bamber the killer!
-
And all of this makes Jeremy Bamber the killer!
Yep!
-
Yep!
There is clear evidence of wrong doing oñ the part of prosecution witnesses, left, right, and centre, who should all be locked away behind bars! Tampering with the bodies of the deceased, moving the gun, altering exhibit references to key exhibits, creating fake composite witness statements full of nonsense to portray Jeremy in a poor light, these convictions are unsafe, and that is an understatement!
-
There is clear evidence of wrong doing oñ the part of prosecution witnesses, left, right, and centre, who should all be locked away behind bars! Tampering with the bodies of the deceased, moving the gun, altering exhibit references to key exhibits, creating fake composite witness statements full of nonsense to portray Jeremy in a poor light, these convictions are unsafe, and that is an understatement!
Not to mention the miracle bullet, (PV/20) of which not all the pieces were recovered by the pathologist during autopsy and was a fragmented piece of bullet on the 7th August 1985, but by the 20th September 1985, this had manifested itself and had grown in to a WHOLE BULLET, without any interference by any Prosecution witnesses involvement in its transformation...
-
You DID say that - nothing out of context here!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6697.msg305181.html#msg305181
The use of "safely" nicely suggesting that view is unequivocal!
It occurs to me that much of what's being presented now -as evidence of innocence- is only a rehash of what was being presented when I first joined. Indeed, there's nothing new -proven or of consequence- to present.
Back in the day, I'm sure many were aghast that statements weren't necessarily written in the witness's exact words -until it was pointed out that such is some people's pattern of speech that it might be unintelligible or full of unnecessary blaspheming/expletives- they weren't told that precising has been a long accepted method of presenting words said by others. Also omitted was that the now precised witness statement is returned to the witness to corroborate and sign, the implication being that until the witness hears it read back in court they have no idea of any alterations. I'm sure many of us learned a lot. I had no idea that A witness statement is a composite of numerous statements given. Whilst it was initially suggested that this made the statement illegal, it's not something that I, or others who have had to present copious factual, as opposed to fictional, essays, would have a problem with. Facts, not frills, are what counts.....................
................Anyway, having cleared up that little problem, it's NOW being suggested that whilst it was previously believed WS's were illegal because they weren't exact replications of what had been said, it's now accepted that WS's are composites, but now we're given to understand it's the composites themselves which have been faked. Of course, this would seem to imply one of two things A) the witness isn't given access to what they've -allegedly- said, (thus they have to take their chance in court that whoever was responsible for transcribing their words, was well enough educated to accomplish it correctly) OR, having once obtained the witness's signature, the WS is transcribed in a way the police want it to read and the signature is cleverly reapplied in such a way as to make it appear original. IF this practice is accepted and ubiquitous throughout the entire police force, not ONE case, ever heard, has come to a legal and just conclusion.
Back to the case in hand. Can we really believe that Jeremy Bamber -the same guy who told counsel "that is for you to prove"- wasn't capable of denying having said things that police are alleging him to have said? Or are we being asked to believe he was so convinced he'd walk, that he didn't care about any alleged duplicity in the presentation of his statement?
-
I have split the above thread and all the posts arguing about old posts, who changed sides and why etc. are now in Off Topic under a new heading........ 'Who changed sides and who cares?' While it's fine to use old posts to make a point about the subject of the thread arguments about pesonal behavour and changing beliefs are off topic and are getting out of hand.
I decided rather than removing these posts altogether it made some sense to move them to a thread in Off Topic.
Cheers
-
I have split the above thread and all the posts arguing about old posts, who changed sides and why etc. are now in Off Topic under a new heading........ 'Who changed sides and who cares?' While it's fine to use old posts to make a point about the subject of the thread arguments about pesonal behavour and changing beliefs are off topic and are getting out of hand.
I decided rather than removing these posts altogether it made some sense to move them to a thread in Off Topic.
Cheers
David uses old posts to goad and the reason he changed the subject, was that he claimed 3SB was Stan Jones's signature and rather than just admit he was wrong (when the real signature was posted), he decided to throw his toys out of the pram and go into full goading mode. His a child and NOT the font of all knowledge that he believes himself to be!
-
David uses old posts to goad and the reason he changed the subject, was that he claimed 3SB was Stan Jones's signature and rather than just admit he was wrong (when the real signature was posted), he decided to throw his toys out of the pram and go into full goading mode. His a child and NOT the font of all knowledge that he believes himself to be!
In Fairness, it is not the signature of Stan Jones, but it is his initials - Jones had the habit of writing, 'J', then, 'S', followed by the 'b' (Jones, Stanley, Brian)...
David was right, Stan Jones put his 'initials' on that 8th September 1985 composite witness statement...
-
In Fairness, it is not the signature of Stan Jones, but it is his initials - Jones had the habit of writing, 'J', then, 'S', followed by the 'b' (Jones, Stanley, Brian)...
David was right, Stan Jones put his 'initials' on that 8th September 1985 composite witness statement...
That isn't initials Mike - it'd 3 followed by an S or a 5 and then a B. Stand Jones's initial would SBJ. It doesn't fit because it is clearly something else. David wasn't right and nothing either of you have posted shows that those letters and numbers have ANY connect to Stan Jones whatsoever.
-
David uses old posts to goad and the reason he changed the subject, was that he claimed 3SB was Stan Jones's signature and rather than just admit he was wrong (when the real signature was posted), he decided to throw his toys out of the pram and go into full goading mode. His a child and NOT the font of all knowledge that he believes himself to be!
I understand what you are saying however the thread was way off subject and lost in personal accusations. I had a choice to remove them all to Hidden Threads but as I said I decided to leave them up away from this thread otherwise I would have removed a load of posts which I didn't consider was particularly necessary. I need to go through the posts again as there are a few which need removing to HT.
David s not the only one who uses old posts to goad and is not always the instigator.
-
In Fairness, it is not the signature of Stan Jones, but it is his initials - Jones had the habit of writing, 'J', then, 'S', followed by the 'b' (Jones, Stanley, Brian)...
David was right, Stan Jones put his 'initials' on that 8th September 1985 composite witness statement...
Having a name which begins with a J, I have NEVER resorted to using a 3 to define it.
-
Lookout asks me a question - What if I don't believe there to have been a conspiracy ?
I answer - Then you can safely believe Jeremy is Guilty
I don't think anyone would disagree with my answer (except lookout). However by not showing the actual post and lookouts question not in quotation marks it puts a rather misleading light on my answer.
There is good reason why Adam does not show the actual posts. ;D
-
Lookout asks me a question - What if I don't believe there to have been a conspiracy ?
I answer - Then you can safely believe Jeremy is Guilty
I don't think anyone would disagree with my answer (except lookout). However by not showing the actual post and lookouts question not in quotation marks it puts a rather misleading light on my answer.
There is good reason why Adam does not show the actual posts. ;D
We've seen the actual post and it makes no difference but what Adam is doing is no different to what you do. Adam is giving you a dose of you own medicine and good on him! You deserve it!
-
David uses old posts to goad and the reason he changed the subject, was that he claimed 3SB was Stan Jones's signature and rather than just admit he was wrong (when the real signature was posted), he decided to throw his toys out of the pram and go into full goading mode. His a child and NOT the font of all knowledge that he believes himself to be!
That's incorrect. The subject turned to the police searching the gun cupboard because of a theory I came up with to explain the existence of the statement that this entire thread is based upon. Subsequently you and your sidekick then started finding excuses for the police not recovering the moderator. So instead of waisting my time explaining things to you that you already understand yourselves I simply posted your own posts to point out that it's pointless debating with you as you already know the facts of the matter.
Make sense?
-
That's incorrect. The subject turned to the police searching the gun cupboard because of a theory I came up with to explain the existence of the statement that this entire thread is based upon. Subsequently you and your sidekick then started finding excuses for the police not recovering the moderator. So instead of waisting my time explaining things to you that you already understand yourselves I simply posted your own posts to point out that it's pointless debating with you as you already know the facts of the matter.
Make sense?
Well, the truth of the matter is that Stan Jones did recover a silencer on that first morning of the police investigation, but he did not recover it from the gun cupboard in the den, he took it from the downstairs bathroom where Anthony Pargeters Brno rifle and parker hale silencer and two ammunition magazines for the gun (1 10 shot and a five shot). Stan Jones definitely took the silencer away on that occasion and left it in DCI Jones office at Witham police station - PC Whiddon knows this to be true because he went to collect it because although it was fitted to Anthony Pargetters Brno Rifle, Whiddon wanted to see if it fitted the end of the Anshuzt rifles barrel (it did because it had a universal thread). Ron Cook was in charge of the scene at the time Stan Jones took 'SBJ/1', which was why when on the 13th August 1985 when Stan Jones handed him the silencer without any explanation that Cook assumed it was the one Stan Jones had taken from the scene on the first morning - hence why Cook attached an exhibit label and marked it 'SJ/1' when he took it to the lab' that same date...
Cook did not know that Stan Jones had returned the silencer back at the scene on the 9th August 1985, or that David Boutflour had retrieved it from the gun cupboard on the following day..
-
Well, the truth of the matter is that Stan Jones did recover a silencer on that first morning of the police investigation, but he did not recover it from the gun cupboard in the den, he took it from the downstairs bathroom where Anthony Pargeters Brno rifle and parker hale silencer and two ammunition magazines for the gun (1 10 shot and a five shot). Stan Jones definitely took the silencer away on that occasion and left it in DCI Jones office at Witham police station - PC Whiddon knows this to be true because he went to collect it because although it was fitted to Anthony Pargetters Brno Rifle, Whiddon wanted to see if it fitted the end of the Anshuzt rifles barrel (it did because it had a universal thread). Ron Cook was in charge of the scene at the time Stan Jones took 'SBJ/1', which was why when on the 13th August 1985 when Stan Jones handed him the silencer without any explanation that Cook assumed it was the one Stan Jones had taken from the scene on the first morning - hence why Cook attached an exhibit label and marked it 'SJ/1' when he took it to the lab' that same date...
Cook did not know that Stan Jones had returned the silencer back at the scene on the 9th August 1985, or that David Boutflour had retrieved it from the gun cupboard on the following day..
What has also been confirmed, is that Stan Jones took two photographs of the downstairs bathroom showing Anthony Pargeters Brno Rifle and silencer insitu - but for one reason or another these two photographs are documented as having been 'DESTROYED'...
I wonder why?
-
..
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
Now, I keep on insisting that Cops took the silencer ('SBJ/1') from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation - They took it attached to Anthony Pargeters Brno bolt action rifle, There is a police document in my possession dated, 9th August 1985, which describes a rifle in the possession of Essex police as 'A BOLT ACTION .22 Ansholts Rifle', along with its serial No. 137410 , the anshuzt rifle was a .22 semi-automatic weapon...
-
Now, I keep on insisting that Cops took the silencer ('SBJ/1') from the scene on the first morning of the police investigation - They took it attached to Anthony Pargeters Brno bolt action rifle, There is a police document in my possession dated, 9th August 1985, which describes a rifle in the possession of Essex police as 'A BOLT ACTION .22 Ansholts Rifle', along with its serial No. 137410 , the anshuzt rifle was a .22 semi-automatic weapon...
Stan Jones attended the Lab' at Huntingdon on the dates his initials appear on key General Examination Records of Spent cartridges (13th and 18th September, 1985)...
-
. . . on the first morning of the police investigation . . . 9th August 1985, which describes a rifle . . .
So how does this document suggest that the rifle was seized on the morning of 7th August 1985?
-
So how does this document suggest that the rifle was seized on the morning of 7th August 1985?
I should think it would be obvious, but for the sake of trying to be accurate and specific -
On what date, and where from, did Stan Jones recover his four 'SBJ' exhibits?
Secondly, in the fingerprint report form, it clearly states that:-
Divisional Officer in the Case: D. I.Miller, D.I. Cook
Lucus: white house farm
F. P. Officer in Case: DS Davidson
Date Of Crime: 7th August 1985
Time and Date of Arrival: 9am, 7th August 1985
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Officers took control of the various Crime scenes at the farmhouse at around 9.00am...
The silencer, in question, which was certainly attached to Anthony Pargeters Bruno .22 bolt action rifle at that time, was seized by 'Them'' at this time, and later Stan Jones was requested to return to the scene to collect 'it'.
Next, The aforementioned silencer and Brno rifle was just one of a collection of items that were fingerprinted by DS Davidson, under the same receipt and or disposal reference of 5620, which were all items seized on the first day of the police investigation (7th August 1985)...
Lastly, Stan Jones has never explained in a witness statement when he recovered items SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1...
He attended the scene shortly after 11.30am on the first morning of the police investigation, but miraculously told the COLP investigators that he could not remember why he had returned to the scene at that time, or the reason why he returned on that occasion, or what he did when returning there...
Stan Jones knew why he returned to the scene, he knew what he did, and he knew he seized or took the four exhibits mentioned...
-
David still hasn't said who these 5 people are who simultaneously had access to Sheila's blood & wanted to disinherit Bamber. I have asked several times since 12.41 this afternoon.
Here.
Why is such an important part of the case not in your "Library"? You shouldnt have to keep asking me for case evidence.
-
Here.
Why is such an important part of the case not in your "Library"? You shouldnt have to keep asking me for case evidence.
Better very late than never.
Shouldn't you be apologising to the forum for changing stance just so you can goad ?
How did RB, AE, PE & DB have access to Sheila's blood ?
Did SJ have access to Sheila's blood. Just because it was in a police fridge somewhere in Essex doesn't mean he could get to it ?
Why would SJ want Bamber disinherited ?
-
Here.
Why is such an important part of the case not in your "Library"? You shouldnt have to keep asking me for case evidence.
This is what I was referring to in reply 47 of Mike's 'unseen' thread.
David has provided a document with 5 names on. I beleive it is a genuine document.
However he knows just putting up a document of 5 names in no way shows how they simultaneously had access to Sheila's blood & wanted Bamber disinherited.
The easy option is to say who approached who, but David has always refused to make this committment.
-
How did RB, AE, PE & DB have access to Sheila's blood ?
This I have already answered enought times.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8033.msg394832.html#msg394832 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8033.msg394832.html#msg394832)
I am begining to think you are suffering from Alzheimer's.
-
This I have already answered enought times.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8033.msg394832.html#msg394832 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8033.msg394832.html#msg394832)
I am begining to think you are suffering from Alzheimer's.
David!! Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that somehow they managed to insert blood (and a jam-like blob?), heavily diluted by greater parts of water, into the silencer? There was never a bucket full of blood. There was a bucket containing water into which two pairs of blood-stained knickers had been placed.
-
This I have already answered enought times.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8033.msg394832.html#msg394832 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8033.msg394832.html#msg394832)
I am begining to think you are suffering from Alzheimer's.
I remembered you used to be a hardcore guilter. Something you had forgotten about.
I hadn't forgotten about you're clothes in a bucket suggestion. But never thought you would be daft enough to bring it up again.
Why don't you just say you believe the relatives approached EP with the silencer fabrication idea. Or EP fabricated the silencer then asked the relatives to lie in their WS's & pretend they found it ? It has to be one or the other.
-
I remembered you used to be a hardcore guilter. Something you had forgotten about.
I hadn't forgotten about you're clothes in a bucket suggestion. But never thought you would be daft enough to bring it up again.
Why don't you just say you believe the relatives approached EP with the silencer fabrication idea. Or EP fabricated the silencer then asked the relatives to lie in their WS's & pretend they found it ? It has to be one or the other.
Look, a silencer 'was handed over by two different relatives', by Peter Eaton to Stan Jones on the 12th August 1985, and by Ann Eaton to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985...
It's about time that Essex police and the relatives concerned admitted to what they did and are responsible for doing...
Please, are we all seeking the truth in this matter, or is everyone just seeking to justify that Jeremy Bamber was the actual killer?
C'mon, be realistic...
-
What evidence is there to support the silencer was not used ?
The silencer had human blood in. Which was from Sheila's contact shot. It also had the aga paint on which got there from the kitchen fight.
The only way this evidence be on the silencer is with Bamber as the killer. Or in you're view, the police & relatives working together to fabricate the silencer.
It wasn't necessarily Sheila Caffells blood, because the blood expert, John Hayward, also made a report, dated, 3rd October, 1985, in which it states that the blood could have originated from either Sheila Caffell, or Robert Boutflour!
-
I hadn't forgotten about you're clothes in a bucket suggestion. But never thought you would be daft enough to bring it up again.
So you do know they had Sheila's blood in their possession along with the sound moderator. So why ask?
Plus I am assuming you already know that mentrual blood is not the same as blood from a cut? It contains flakes from blood clots, womb linen and anticoagulant enzymes that prevent it from drying quickly.
Google image search "menstrual blood" it looks very much like AE described it on the Sound moderator "A BLOB OF JAM"! :o
-
So you do know they had Sheila's blood in their possession along with the sound moderator. So why ask?
Plus I am assuming you already know that mentrual blood is not the same as blood from a cut? It contains flakes from blood clots, womb linen and anticoagulant enzymes that prevent it from drying quickly.
Google image search "menstrual blood" it looks very much like AE described it on the Sound moderator "A BLOB OF JAM"! :o
Was it David Boutflour who said it looked like a blob of jam?
Nevertheless, four days after the tragedy and it has a consistency of jam...
You scrape the jam like substance off the end of the silencer, and save it for a month, and 'hey presto' it dries into a flake...
-
So you do know they had Sheila's blood in their possession along with the sound moderator. So why ask?
Plus I am assuming you already know that mentrual blood is not the same as blood from a cut? It contains flakes from blood clots, womb linen and anticoagulant enzymes that prevent it from drying quickly.
Google image search "menstrual blood" it looks very much like AE described it on the Sound moderator "A BLOB OF JAM"! :o
David no one supports you're view that the relatives went into a bucket of water and attempted to transfer diluted blood from soaking wet underwear onto a silencer.
The relatives either asked the police to fabricate the silencer for them. Or the police fabricated the silencer and asked the relatives to create false WS's & say they found the silencer.
Please finally make a choice.
-
So you do know they had Sheila's blood in their possession along with the sound moderator. So why ask?
Plus I am assuming you already know that mentrual blood is not the same as blood from a cut? It contains flakes from blood clots, womb linen and anticoagulant enzymes that prevent it from drying quickly.
Google image search "menstrual blood" it looks very much like AE described it on the Sound moderator "A BLOB OF JAM"! :o
David!! Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that somehow they managed to insert blood (and a jam-like blob?), heavily diluted by greater parts of water, into the silencer? There was never a bucket full of blood. There was a bucket containing water into which two pairs of blood-stained knickers had been placed.
Your post is both patronizing and condescending. I rather think the majority of us here have regularly shed enough of it to know what it looks like without being reminded of it by someone who's never experienced it.
-
Was it David Boutflour who said it looked like a blob of jam?
Nevertheless, four days after the tragedy and it has a consistency of jam...
You scrape the jam like substance off the end of the silencer, and save it for a month, and 'hey presto' it dries into a flake...
It was AE who'd said that I think------------a " blob of blood " is usually a clot. Blood is liquid and spreads,so won't adhere to anything like a clot will.
-
It seems David is suggesting the relatives fabricated the silencer without police assistance.
Quite apart from the preposturous suggestion that the relatives went into a bucket of water to put blood onto a silencer, the relatives also needed to know -
Contact shots during the massacre.
Liklihood of back splatter with that rifle.
Blood already on rifle nozzle.
Photos of aga.
Lenght of rifle with silencer.
Lenght of Sheila's arms.
Other evidence showing guilt/innocence.
Police checks already carried out on silencers.
Where to get Sheila's blood.
How to insert Sheila's blood.
If unable to get Sheila's blood, what was her blood type.
Would someone else's blood be enough.
How to effectivly scrape the aga to replicate a scrape during a random fight.
Possibility of a successful silencer frame securing a conviction.
Punishment if convicted of a attempting to frame a man of murdering 5 people.
----------------
It's obviously impossible for the relatives to single handedly fabricate the silencer. To frame an innocent man.
I have no idea why David won't say who approached who. It's obvious the police & relatives had to work together.
-
David no one supports you're view that the relatives went into a bucket of water and attempted to transfer diluted blood from soaking wet underwear onto a silencer.
The relatives either asked the police to fabricate the silencer for them. Or the police fabricated the silencer and asked the relatives to create false WS's & say they found the silencer.
Please finally make a choice.
The notion that the silencer was contaminated with blood from the underwear is absurd! I toyed with the idea but dismissed it as desperate. If the silencer was faked, it had to be the police.
-
The notion that the silencer was contaminated with blood from the underwear is absurd! I toyed with the idea but dismissed it as desperate. If the silencer was faked, it had to be the police.
Aah, this brings into question, then of the third blood sample taken from Sheila Caffell during autopsy, when in the case of the other victims, only one or two samples were taken!
The COLP investigation could not find out what happened to the third sample of blood taken from Sheila Caffells body on the 7th August 1985, and Essex police volunteered no information regarding what they had done with it, or what had happened to that third sample of Sheila Caffells blood..
-
The notion that the silencer was contaminated with blood from the underwear is absurd! I toyed with the idea but dismissed it as desperate. If the silencer was faked, it had to be the police.
Of course you did :P
-
Of course you did :P
Why are you talking to me xxx xxxx? Do you seriously think you are the first to suggest the source of blood came from the underwear? Many have suggested it but it's a ludicrous notion. However, it's even more ludicrous when you ask Jeremy about it. I'll let you do that and see if you get the same reply ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Why are you talking to me you worm? Do you seriously think you are the first to suggest the source of blood came from the underwear?
Since I got the idea from something mike uploaded a while ago. Absolutely not. The Author is correct in that it is only something a woman think of. It is certainly not something I would think of out of nowhere.
And if you remember I pointed out the address of the author to you. According to you they only lived a five minute drive away from you. Did you ever get round to finding out who the author is?
-
The notion that the silencer was contaminated with blood from the underwear is absurd! I toyed with the idea but dismissed it as desperate. If the silencer was faked, it had to be the police.
David prefers to suggest the relatives -
Dipped their hands into a bucket of cold water.
Pulled out some soaking wet underwear which may have had some diluted blood on.
Waited until this underwear dried.
Expertly transferred any miniscule dried blood embedded into underwear into the silencer baffles.
Oh, and then scratched the aga.
-
David prefers to suggest the relatives -
Dipped their hands into a bucket of cold water.
Pulled out some soaking wet underwear which may have had some diluted blood on.
Waited until this underwear dried.
Expertly transferred any miniscule dried blood embedded into underwear into the silencer baffles.
Oh, and then scratched the aga.
As mentioned, David is also suggesting the relatives guessed the following & hoped for the best -
Contact shots during the massacre.
Liklihood of back splatter with that rifle.
Blood already on rifle nozzle.
Photos of aga.
Lenght of rifle with silencer.
Lenght of Sheila's arms.
Other evidence showing guilt/innocence.
Police checks already carried out on silencers.
Where to get Sheila's blood.
How to insert Sheila's blood.
If unable to get Sheila's blood, what was her blood type.
Would someone else's blood be enough.
How to effectivly scrape the aga to replicate a scrape during a random fight.
Possibility of a successful silencer frame securing a conviction.
Punishment if convicted of a attempting to frame a man of murdering 5 people.
-
According to JB,he saw documentation which had stated that a silencer had been found under a bed on 7th of August and returned to the cupboard for safe-keeping by SJ. JB actually saw the said statement.
This is mentioned in CAL's book.
JB was never able to prove what he saw written because EP dismissed it as " nonsense ".
In my estimation,it would have been the truth ! That which is withheld.
-
The notion that the silencer was contaminated with blood from the underwear is absurd! I toyed with the idea but dismissed it as desperate. If the silencer was faked, it had to be the police.
I agree up to a point Caroline, but you have to remember that the silencer was found by the family.
They reported the blood, and damage on the silencer, the police found blood on the baffles.
Why would the police fake the silencer? Could it have been Jone's dislike of Bamber. Who put the paint on to it?
-
I agree up to a point Caroline, but you have to remember that the silencer was found by the family.
They reported the blood, and damage on the silencer, the police found blood on the baffles.
Why would the police fake the silencer? Could it have been Jone's dislike of Bamber. Who put the paint on to it?
Google image search "menstrual blood" it looks very much like AE described it on the Sound moderator "A BLOB OF JAM"! :o
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50511)
-
As mentioned, David is also suggesting the relatives guessed the following & hoped for the best -
Contact shots during the massacre.
Liklihood of back splatter with that rifle.
Blood already on rifle nozzle.
Photos of aga.
Lenght of rifle with silencer.
Lenght of Sheila's arms.
Other evidence showing guilt/innocence.
Police checks already carried out on silencers.
Where to get Sheila's blood.
How to insert Sheila's blood.
If unable to get Sheila's blood, what was her blood type.
Would someone else's blood be enough.
How to effectivly scrape the aga to replicate a scrape during a random fight.
Possibility of a successful silencer frame securing a conviction.
Punishment if convicted of a attempting to frame a man of murdering 5 people.
"A straw man is a logical fallacy which occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version, and rebuts said version — rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning is usually done with a certain goal in mind, including:
1.Avoiding real debate against an opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in fair debate
2.Making the opponent's position appear ridiculous as a way of poisoning the well"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man)
-
Yet none of Sheila's DNA was found ? Or any other materials associated with menstrual blood.
-
Google image search "menstrual blood" it looks very much like AE described it on the Sound moderator "A BLOB OF JAM"! :o
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50511)
You have posted that the blood would have dried black over a time David, besides there would still have been residue on the gnarled end.
-
How can anyone explain the SBJ/1,DB/1 and DRB/1 ? Why ? One exhibit made to look like 3. No wonder the jury were baffled.
-
"A straw man is a logical fallacy which occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version, and rebuts said version — rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning is usually done with a certain goal in mind, including:
1.Avoiding real debate against an opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in fair debate
2.Making the opponent's position appear ridiculous as a way of poisoning the well"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man)
You can't answer any of my points. So come up with some straw man bullshit to try to deflect from this.
No one believes you changed stance because you realised the silencer could be fabricated. And no one agrees that the relatives transferred Sheila's blood into silencer baffles from diluted blood from wet underwear in a bucket.
-
I don't know why David doesn't just say whether the police approached the relatives or the relatives approached the police. The bucket of water theory is dead in the water.
He claims he changed stance from a hardcore guilter because he realised the silencer could be fabricated. This is a non evidence reason as there is no proof it happened. David then makes it worse for himself as he won't even say who approached who with the silencer.
-
The first thing that everyone should have looked at was the altered positioning of the deceased which it was said by DCS Gradwell to be "very,very serious " because it had amounted to destroyed evidence.
There shouldn't have been a case to answer to !! Beyond that,it was a complete fit-up by EP.
-
Yet none of Sheila's DNA was found ? Or any other materials associated with menstrual blood.
They recoverd a partial DNA profile that contained 17 bands that match Sheila.
Still It is rather odd. That is all they could find. Blood and DNA remains preseved for a long time. Some of the artwork in anchient egypitain tombs are done using blood, they remain to this day.
the point at which half the bonds in a DNA molecule backbone would be broken — is 521 years. That means that, under ideal conditions, DNA would last about 6.8 million years, after which all the bonds would be broken
It is an accepted fact that all the blood in the moderator was tested to destruction. However they must have cleaned it out thoroughly from there only to be so little DNA left.
-
There was probably only a minute trace because wasn't it Webster who'd said there was none of Sheila's DNA ? That the major component had come from June ?
-
You can't answer any of my points. So come up with some straw man bullshit to try to deflect from this.
No one believes you changed stance because you realised the silencer could be fabricated. And no one agrees that the relatives transferred Sheila's blood into silencer baffles from diluted blood from wet underwear in a bucket.
I've answered all your points before. But like allways you keep posting them over and over and over again. Why should I waste my time repeating myself because you either decide to repeat stuff deliberately to be annoying or you have the memory of a goldfish. I suspect it's a combination of both rather than one or the other.
-
You can't answer any of my points. So come up with some straw man bullshit to try to deflect from this.
No one believes you changed stance because you realised the silencer could be fabricated. And no one agrees that the relatives transferred Sheila's blood into silencer baffles from diluted blood from wet underwear in a bucket.
I believe he changed his stance bcause he realised the silencer could be fabricated.
I agree that the relatives could have transferred the blood into the silencer, so stop saying that no one agrees Adam.
-
I believe he changed his stance bcause he realised the silencer could be fabricated.
I agree that the relatives could have transferred the blood into the silencer, so stop saying that no one agrees Adam.
The majority of the forum believe the silencer was fabricated.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7747.msg365525.html#msg365525 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7747.msg365525.html#msg365525)
I don't know who Adam thinks he is fooling by saying 'No one agrees'
-
I don't believe that the silencer belonging to the Bamber anshuzt rifle was used, on the other hand threre is a strong case for supposing that Anthony Pargeters silencer and gun was used in the shootings...
-
Okay then, who believes that Bamber donned a wetsuit, cycled 3 miles , gained entry to the farm then
cycled back home? I don't.
-
Okay then, who believes that Bamber donned a wetsuit, cycled 3 miles , gained entry to the farm then
cycled back home? I don't.
Buddy, he didn't...
-
No,JB didn't do that either. He wasn't into triathlons.
-
Buddy, he didn't...
No I don't think so Mike. Imagine cycling 6 miles in a wetsuit, committing 5 murders, and battering a person. You would have been sweating buckets.
-
Okay then, who believes that Bamber donned a wetsuit, cycled 3 miles , gained entry to the farm then
cycled back home? I don't.
He might have put a disguise in the cycle-bag/basket. Peddling in a wet/dry suit at any time of day would have been difficult.
-
No,JB didn't do that either. He wasn't into triathlons.
Such a short distance hardly amounts to a triathlon.
-
Such a short distance hardly amounts to a triathlon.
You don't say ::)
-
Such a short distance hardly amounts to a triathlon.
I don't want to demean any poster, but I ask you cycling 6 miles in a wetsuit seems highly unlikely.
-
I don't want to demean any poster, but I ask you cycling 6 miles in a wetsuit seems highly unlikely.
Did RWB say it as a statement of fact, OR did he offer it as a possibility?
-
I don't want to demean any poster, but I ask you cycling 6 miles in a wetsuit seems highly unlikely.
A heavily bloodstained wet suit at that!
-
I believe he changed his stance bcause he realised the silencer could be fabricated.
I agree that the relatives could have transferred the blood into the silencer, so stop saying that no one agrees Adam.
Can you tell me how the relatives had information on the following -
Contact shots during the massacre.
Liklihood of back splatter with that rifle.
Blood already on rifle nozzle.
Photos of aga.
Lenght of rifle with silencer.
Lenght of Sheila's arms.
Other evidence showing guilt/innocence.
Police checks already carried out on silencers.
Where to get Sheila's blood.
How to insert Sheila's blood.
If unable to get Sheila's blood, what was her blood type.
Would someone else's blood be enough.
How to effectivly scrape the aga to replicate a scrape during a random fight.
Possibility of a successful silencer frame securing a conviction.
Punishment if convicted of a attempting to frame a man of murdering 5 people.
--------------
And then tell the forum how it's possible to go into a bucket of water & transfer diluted wet blood embedded into underwear into silencer baffles.
-
A heavily bloodstained wet suit at that!
Why would it be? He wasn't at the business end of the rifle.
-
A heavily bloodstained wet suit at that!
Oh, I forgot to mention, Jeremy had a shower before he left the scene, obviously mindful that he didn't want to leave absolutely no trace of his presence inside the farmhouse during the shootings, his escape afterwards via a ground floor window, and of course any trace of any victims blood on the bicycle belonging to his mother, June Bamber - oh, and then I woke up, it was only a dream (or part of a prosecution witnesses statement)...
-
The majority of the forum believe the silencer was fabricated.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7747.msg365525.html#msg365525 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7747.msg365525.html#msg365525)
I don't know who Adam thinks he is fooling by saying 'No one agrees'
What guilters believe the silencer was fabricated ? Apart from Caroline.
At least Caroline has given a scenario. That the police fabricated the silencer and then asked the relatives to lie in their WS's.
You just give an impossible scenario about water, buckets, underwear & mad relatives.
-
Can you tell me how the relatives had on the following -
Contact shots during the massacre.
Liklihood of back splatter with that rifle.
Blood already on rifle nozzle.
Photos of aga.
Lenght of rifle with silencer.
Lenght of Sheila's arms.
Other evidence showing guilt/innocence.
Police checks already carried out on silencers.
Where to get Sheila's blood.
How to insert Sheila's blood.
If unable to get Sheila's blood, what was her blood type.
Would someone else's blood be enough.
How to effectivly scrape the aga to replicate a scrape during a random fight.
Possibility of a successful silencer frame securing a conviction.
Punishment if convicted of a attempting to frame a man of murdering 5 people.
--------------
And then tell the forum how it's possible to go into a bucket of water & transfer diluted wet blood embedded into underwear into silencer baffles.
Tch. Nothing like making a book of your points.
-
Why would it be? He wasn't at the business end of the rifle.
There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that there was anyone other than the five victims inside whf when the shootings took place - if I am wrong please alert me to this evidence and I will do my utmost to try and descredit it..
-
Oh, I forgot to mention, Jeremy had a shower before he left the scene, obviously mindful that he didn't want to leave absolutely no trace of his presence inside the farmhouse during the shootings, his escape afterwards via a ground floor window, and of course any trace of any victims blood on the bicycle belonging to his mother, June Bamber - oh, and then I woke up, it was only a dream (or part of a prosecution witnesses statement)...
It would have been very suspicious if there'd been no trace of him when he freely admitted to having been there. As for his getaway, he'd been on the delivery end of the rifle, NOT the receiving end. No reason for him to be bloodstained if he'd taken a disguise with him and removed it before he left. He could have hidden them. No one went through his wardrobe in the beginning because he wasn't a suspect.
-
There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that there was anyone other than the five victims inside whf when the shootings took place - if I am wrong please alert me to this evidence and I will do my utmost to try and descredit it..
Hang on, what about the scruffy bloke that is often described as leaving the farm on the bight of the murders, or the block in the caravan who was supposed to be seeing Sheila?
There was one other - Jeremy but they weren't looking for evidence of another after he (temporarily) convinced them of a phone call.
-
The jury is still out on Sheila's feet - lovie! ::)
Seem the Jury are still deadlocked in deliberations. :-\
9 Jurors realise the photo is Sheila's foot but Stevie Wonder and the Chuckle Brothers are having doubts. ;D
-
Seem the Jury are still deadlocked in deliberations. :-\
9 Jurors realise the photo is Sheila's foot but Stevie Wonder and the Chuckle Brothers are having doubts. ;D
Which 9?
-
Hang on, what about the scruffy bloke that is often described as leaving the farm on the bight of the murders, or the block in the caravan who was supposed to be seeing Sheila?
There was one other - Jeremy but they weren't looking for evidence of another after he (temporarily) convinced them of a phone call.
Jeremy wasn't at the farmhouse or inside it when the family (excluding Sheila) got shot! He was outside along Pages \Lane when the raid team entered the kitchen and found two bodies! Now, obviously, it would be futile to try and suggest that the second body was that of June Bamber because that would be even harder to persuade anyone that she had been the female downstairs in the kitchen between 7.35am and 8.10am. We all know it must have been Sheila, it was Sheila! Some time after 8.30am, Sheila's body ended up on the far side of the bed just like Dr Craig said she was! Jones and Clark, well these two merry chaps then saw the bodies of June and Sheila laid on top of the bed, with Sheila only having been shot once by that stage. There was a rifle on the bed in between both females and Sheila had a bible resting on her chest! Then by 10.00am, the second team of SOC are photographing Sheila's body on the bedroom floor on one side of the bed, and Junes body on the floor on the other side of the bed! The gun is now in Sheila's possession, and the bible which had previously been resting on Sheila's chest was now on the floor to the right of her upper and outer right arm...
Jeremy had no way of influencing any of these events, the police were in control of the farmhouse after 7.35am, not Jeremy!
He didn't pass a lie detector test because he was lying, try telling that to the examiner who tested him!!
-
Ron Cook told the COLP Investigators, that if he had seen a silencer in the gun cupboard located under the stairs in a room known as the den, he would have taken it for takings sake because the thread on the end of the Anshuzt barrel was clean and blood free, and that it gave an impression that something might attach itself there, such as a silencer (and the rifles metal end cap). One thing appears clear and that is that Cook did not arrive at the farmhouse until 9.20am that morning! Him and his team of SOCO's did not get handed the scene from senior officers until 10 O'clock. By the time Cook got to see the end of the anshuzt rifles barrel, a great deal of activity involving its movement and positioning had already occurred! For example, Cook didn't see the anshuzt rifle at the box room window, where Julia Jeapes and PC Brown had seen it earlier that same morning! Cook didn't see the rifle laying alongside Sheila's body at 8.44am, when the police surgeon, Dr Craig, saw Sheila's body on the far side of the bed at that time! Cook didn't see Sheila's body at about 9.00am when as PS Adams said, he had no recollection of seeing a gun with Sheila's body at that time! Cook was not there when Stan Jones and Mick Clark saw Sheila and Junes bodies laid on top of the bed, with the rifle at that stage resting on the bed in between both bodies! And Cook did not see the bodies being lifted from the bed and placed on the floor, nor could he be expected to know of the whereabouts of the rifle whilst this exercise was going on (informatives)!
But one thing he must have known about, involved Stan Jones return to the scene shortly after 11.30am on that first morning, to collect exhibits SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ/1. No doubt on the 13th August 1985, when he was given the silencer by Stan Jones, that Cooks mind went into automatic mode, and he must have assumed that the silencer Stan Jones had given him that particular morning, was the very same silencer that he knew Stan Jones had taken from the scene on the first morning of the investigation - hence why Cook attached his own exhibit label and marked it 'SJ/1' he thinking that Stan Jones was the finder of it...
-
Julia Jeapes' was a trained firearm instructor who was part of the containment team which surrounded the farmhouse after her arrival at the scene at about 7.00am with a second group of technical support officers! She was deployed in an observation and containment role! In her possession she had a police weapon fitted with a telescopic site! She was in position checking the windows of the farmhouse from a safe distance using her scope just prior to the selected six man raid team commenced it's approach to enter the house via the rear court yard door which they intended to smash open using a sledgehammer they carried! In her witness statement she describes being in position and observing the raid party making their way toward the courtyard door. She reported what she believed was a rifle leaning against a first floor window situated on the red brick part of the farmhouse. No-one had seen that rifle there previously, and so it poses the question, how soon prior to Julia Jeapes' seeing 'it' there, had someone placed it there? She saw the rifle there at 'this' first floor window at about 7.15am, or shortly afterwards! In any event, as a trained firearms instructor it is important to remember that she was capable of knowing the different between a shotgun, and or, a rifle!
The term used in her witness statement was that what she could see, was a rifle!
The first floor window in question, has since been identified as the 'box room' window, situated on the courtyard side of the farmhouse, a room which is situated between the parents main bedroom and the bedroom where the two child victims slept on that last occasion! The 'box room' has two connecting doors, one which connects the parents main bedroom to 'it', and the other which gives access to the bedroom where the children were sleeping!
More significantly, 'that' rifle was resting there, at the 'box room' window, when the raid team smashed the courtyard door off its hinges and entered the premises at around 7.35am!
-
Julia Jeapes' was a trained firearm instructor who was part of the containment team which surrounded the farmhouse after her arrival at the scene at about 7.00am with a second group of technical support officers! She was deployed in an observation and containment role! In her possession she had a police weapon fitted with a telescopic site! She was in position checking the windows of the farmhouse from a safe distance using her scope just prior to the selected six man raid team commenced it's approach to enter the house via the rear court yard door which they intended to smash open using a sledgehammer they carried! In her witness statement she describes being in position and observing the raid party making their way toward the courtyard door. She reported what she believed was a rifle leaning against a first floor window situated on the red brick part of the farmhouse. No-one had seen that rifle there previously, and so it poses the question, how soon prior to Julia Jeapes' seeing 'it' there, had someone placed it there? She saw the rifle there at 'this' first floor window at about 7.15am, or shortly afterwards! In any event, as a trained firearms instructor it is important to remember that she was capable of knowing the different between a shotgun, and or, a rifle!
The term used in her witness statement was that what she could see, was a rifle!
The first floor window in question, has since been identified as the 'box room' window, situated on the courtyard side of the farmhouse, a room which is situated between the parents main bedroom and the bedroom where the two child victims slept on that last occasion! The 'box room' has two connecting doors, one which connects the parents main bedroom to 'it', and the other which gives access to the bedroom where the children were sleeping!
More significantly, 'that' rifle was resting there, at the 'box room' window, when the raid team smashed the courtyard door off its hinges and entered the premises at around 7.35am!
Thanks Mike,
and PC Brown's account?
-
More significantly, 'that' rifle was resting there, at the 'box room' window, when the raid team smashed the courtyard door off its hinges and entered the premises at around 7.35am!
All the more reason, therefore, to ponder the reported discovery of two dead bodies found immediately upon entry to the premises as referred to in timed police radio messages (7.35am, 7.37am, 7.38am, and 7.42am) ' the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female' and 'one dead male, one dead female'..
Now, if one of the two dead bodies found upon entry to the premises was a female, that female body could only have been the body of Sheila Caffell, it couldn't have been the body of June Bamber, which never left the main bedroom upstairs where she was shot dead! How had Sheila's body been found by the raid team when they entered the premises? If the rifle that supposedly had shot her dead, was the rifle that Julia Jeapes' reported seeing at the first floor box room window, how had Sheila's body ended up downstairs presumed shot dead by 7.35am, onward?
-
Seems to me that someone has been looking at the forum. Local paper has reported that JB has launched a third bid for another appeal.
Lawyers working on behalf of Bamber have contacted the head special crime and counter terrorism division at the Crown Prosecution Service. Sue Hemming {whoever she is} asking for documents to be disclosed which could prove Bambers innocence.
Bamber believes that evidence was taken from two sound moderators rather than one.
Once the CPS formally disclose these documents it is an admission that Essex Police took two silencers to the lab for examination both had blood staining on them and both were ruled as irrelevant to the inquiry.
Sue Hemming has to concede to the Criminal Cases Reviews Commission the CPS can no longer sustain my conviction and my case must be fast tracked to the Court Of Appeal now the second silencer should have been known by the jury.
-
Seems to me that someone has been looking at the forum. Local paper has reported that JB has launched a third bid for another appeal.
Lawyers working on behalf of Bamber have contacted the head special crime and counter terrorism division at the Crown Prosecution Service. Sue Hemming {whoever she is} asking for documents to be disclosed which could prove Bambers innocence.
Bamber believes that evidence was taken from two sound moderators rather than one.
Once the CPS formally disclose these documents it is an admission that Essex Police took two silencers to the lab for examination both had blood staining on them and both were ruled as irrelevant to the inquiry.
Sue Hemming has to concede to the Criminal Cases Reviews Commission the CPS can no longer sustain my conviction and my case must be fast tracked to the Court Of Appeal now the second silencer should have been known by the jury.
Buddy, here is a response of an Email I sent to Essex police in 2004 stating that I knew that there had been two silencers involved in the case of prosecuting Jeremy Bamber as the killer of the five victims:-
-
Seems to me that someone has been looking at the forum. Local paper has reported that JB has launched a third bid for another appeal.
Lawyers working on behalf of Bamber have contacted the head special crime and counter terrorism division at the Crown Prosecution Service. Sue Hemming {whoever she is} asking for documents to be disclosed which could prove Bambers innocence.
Bamber believes that evidence was taken from two sound moderators rather than one.
Once the CPS formally disclose these documents it is an admission that Essex Police took two silencers to the lab for examination both had blood staining on them and both were ruled as irrelevant to the inquiry.
Sue Hemming has to concede to the Criminal Cases Reviews Commission the CPS can no longer sustain my conviction and my case must be fast tracked to the Court Of Appeal now the second silencer should have been known by the jury.
Sue Hemming is a barrister and also head of counter terrorism.Sue is a fantastic hard-working person and remains to be a tough nut to crack re. the CPS. She was responsible for bringing charges against wrongdoers during the Hillsborough tragedy.
I read about her last week and if anyone can sort the wheat from the chaff in the Bamber case she can.
-
Sue Hemming is a barrister and also head of counter terrorism.Sue is a fantastic hard-working person and remains to be a tough nut to crack re. the CPS. She was responsible for bringing charges against wrongdoers during the Hillsborough tragedy.
I read about her last week and if anyone can sort the wheat from the chaff in the Bamber case she can.
Thanks for that Lookout. I am a bit of a ignoramous.
-
Thanks for that Lookout. I am a bit of a ignoramous.
Most certainly you are not, buddy.
-
Buddy, here is a response of an Email I sent to Essex police in 2004 stating that I knew that there had been two silencers involved in the case of prosecuting Jeremy Bamber as the killer of the five victims:-
Is this still under PII?
-
Is this still under PII?
Not my response, but the fact that the cops had two silencers, blood inside one, and paint on the other, which they merged into the same silencer for the purpose of the trial is as I understand it, subject of pii..
-
Poor poor Jeremy has repeatedly been saying what his father used to say------" it'll all come out in the wash ". By the time this case is over it'll resemble a Chinese laundry.
-
Not my response, but the fact that the cops had two silencers, blood inside one, and paint on the other, which they merged into the same silencer for the purpose of the trial is as I understand it, subject of pii..
Disgraceful.
-
Poor poor Jeremy has repeatedly been saying what his father used to say------" it'll all come out in the wash ". By the time this case is over it'll resemble a Chinese laundry.
...
-
..
-
Evidence withheld under pii can still be disclosed if it's disclosure would tend to prove someone's innocence, or which casts considerable doubt on the credibility of evidence relied upon by the Crown to secure a conviction in the first instance, if the material that is sought is in the interests of justice, ect, etc, etc...
So, there's still a chance that Essex police might co-operations and disclose all the evidence regarding the existence of the second silencer and its implications...
-
Apparently it was the present legal team who are working for Jeremy who contacted Sue Hemming to put more weight behind their request of disclosed evidence from EP. I somehow don't think she'll waste much time in her quest. It would be foolish of EP to refuse.
-
Not my response, but the fact that the cops had two silencers, blood inside one, and paint on the other, which they merged into the same silencer for the purpose of the trial is as I understand it, subject of pii..
Do you believe the relatives handed in one silencer with blood inside, in August. Then handed in another silencer with paint inside in September ?
That is risky of the relatives.
-
If the relatives haven't done anything then there's no need for them to feel at risk is there ??
-
Do you believe the relatives handed in one silencer with blood inside, in August. Then handed in another silencer with paint inside in September ?
That is risky of the relatives.
Yes, they did, it's well documented that on 12th August 1985, that Peter Eaton handed over to Stan Jones the first silencer, which Essex police subsequently sent to the Lab' on the 30th August 1985, under an exhibit reference of 'DB/1' - it was whilst this silencer was at the Lab' that on 12th September 1985 that the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher dismantled the silencer and he found the critical flek of dried blood inside it, which he transferred to the blood expert that very same date, who analysed it on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, producing the blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP2-1 which turned out to be the same blood groups belonging to Sheila Caffell!
Whilst all of this had been going on, Ann Eaton and the other relatives still had access to, and control of the second silencer ('DRB/1') until the 11th September 1985, when Ann Eaton handed 'it' over to DC Oakey (HQ SOCO), on the very same day that her brother contacted Essex police by telephone to tell them that he had found the silencer to the gun! Well, if you think about it, and there had only been one silencer, not two, why would David Boutflour be telling them that he had found the silencer to the gun, on the 11th September 1985, when the police had already had possession of the first silencer from as long ago as the evening of the 12th August 1985? Surely, the cops would have known who had found the first silencer by the 11th September 1985, and so too would David Boutflour know that he wouldn't need to remind Essex police about it!
Anyway...
Once Ann Eaton handed over the second silencer to DC Oakey on the 11th September 1985, Essex police retained possession of 'it until the 20th September 1985, at which point they sent it to the Lab' to be checked amongst other things for 'blood'..
It should also be pointed out, that on the 13th September 1985, that the second silencer ('DRB/1') was fingerprinted by DS Eastwood and a DS Davison (I had previously made an error in reporting that the second officer involved in fingerprinting the second silencer was DS Davidson)! No doubt documents will exist created by Eastwood and Davison concerning their involvement with, and the fingerprinting of, the second silencer prior to it being submitted to the Lab' on the 20th September 1985!
What is now known is that the blood evidence was found inside the first silencer (DB/1) on the 12th September 1985 at the Lab', whilst the second silencer (DRB/1) was still back in Essex police possession! It remains impossible, therefore for Sheila Caffell's blood to have been found inside the silencer (DRB/1) that was exhibited during the trial with a court exhibit no.9 associated with it, and to it!
What we now know about the second silencer (DRB/1) is that although it was submitted to the Lab' by Essex police on the 20th September 1985, it did not get examined until the 25th September 1985, at which stage red paint was noted as having been crushed into the knurled pattern around the circumference of the silencers end cap! This paint was subsequently matched with a paint sample bearing the exhibit reference 'RWC/1' on the 2nd October 1985.
Two different silencers, one sent to the Lab' on the 30th August 1985, the other not sent to the Lab' until the 20th September 1985! The former handed to Stan Jones by Peter Eaton on the 12th August 1985, the latter one not handed over to DC Oakey by Ann Eaton until the 11th September 1985! The first silencer containing Sheila Caffell's blood, the second silencer containing the crushed red paint from the kitchen aga surround!
And then, by the time the trial came around in October 1986, the unique blood evidence belonging to Sheila, and the red paint from the kitchen aga, were merged as having been found inside and on the outside of the second silencer 'DRB/1', (rather than the first 'DB/1'). It may go unnoticed as to why the second silencer and not the first silencer was chosen to convey the blood and the paint evidence in court? Well, the simple truth is that the first silencer (DB/1) belonged to Anthony Pargeters rifle, and the second silencer (DRB/1) belonged to the Bamber rifle!
It appears there was a confrontation between the relatives at the time of Jeremy's first arrest in September 1985, that the silencer (DB/1) police had got, which they had sent to the Lab' on 30th August 1985, belonged to Anthony Pargeters gun! By this time Essex police had already been to see Anthony Pargeter and looked at his gun in his presence as if they were looking to see if there was any damage upon it? However, although his rifle had been returned to him at an earlier stage, his silencer was missing and it was the fact that Peter Eaton had handed his silencer over to Stan Jones on the 12th August 1985, which became a bone of contention between Anthony Pargeter and the other relatives, which threatened to spill over into who might be entitled to become a beneficiary of the Bamber parents estate(s)! In the end, it got resolved by the relatives agreeing to contact the police to say that there had been a mix up with the silencers, the one which Peter Eaton had given to Stan Jones on the 12th August 1985, was the one belonging to Anthony Pargeter, and that the silencer belonging to the Bamber rifle they still had possession of! The relatives arranged to do this by the 11th September 1985, whilst Jeremy was in custody being interviewed!
There is no doubt in my mind at all, that before Ann Eaton handed over the second silencer to the police on the 11th September 1985, and before her brother contacted the police by telephone on the same day to tell them that he had found the silencer (DRB/1), that between them they had seen the red paint ingrained into the circumference of the second silencers metal end cap - this may have got there on the morning of the tragedy when with it fitted to the barrel of Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle it had been used during a struggle between Sheila and a firearms officer, which ended up with her being shot across the neck downstairs in the kitchen...
It seems somewhat likely the reason why the police radio message log contents reports two dead bodies in the kitchen, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, from as early as 7.35am, and with only a further three bodies upstairs by 8.10am! Also, why although a rifle was captured in one of the crime scene photographs (no.4, I think) there was specific instructions that no officer should make mention of its existence there, either in their notes, their reports, or their witness statements - seems somewhat obvious to me that that rifle was the gun which must have inflicted the first shot across Sheila Caffell's neck during a struggle in the kitchen at just before 7.35am..
However..
What the relatives didn't know was that the first silencer (DB/1) had already been at the Lab' since the 30th August 1985, and they were not informed in time about the blood grouping results from the blood found inside the first silencer, prior to them handing in the second silencer (DRB/1), not surprisingly, since the ballistic expert hadn't dismantled that first silencer at the Lab' until the 12th September 1985, the day after Ann Eaton handed in the second silencer! Additionally, further problems started to mount up for the police, the experts, and the relatives once the blood group results were obtained at the Lab' on the 12th, 13th, 18th and the 19th September 1985! This was because although the blood group results were obtained on those key dates, no-one contacted Essex police to tell them the good news! And, the Lab' didn't anticipate the submission of the second silencer (DRB/1) to the Lab' on the 20th September 1985..
Matters took a turn for the worst, when on the 25th September 1985, red paint from the kitchen aga surround was found to be crushed into the knurl around the circumference of the second silencers metal end cap!
Two silencers then, and of course, two rifles...
The rifle in the kitchen photograph, that no-one was supposed to make any mention of, and the anshuzt rifle which at 7.15am, or there abouts was resting against the inside of a first floor box room window, as spotted by WPC Jeapes' and PC Brown...
Two guns, two silencers - the biggest problem the cops had, once the anshuzt rifle was brought to Sheila's body after it had been moved onto the bedroom floor, from a top her parents bed, was the fact that when the second shot went off as a result of recoil when police were moving the rifle around on Sheila's body trying to get the muzzle of the guns barrel to align with the solitary bullet entry wound on Sheila's neck whilst at the same time trying to see whether or not her fingers could activate the trigger mechanism, was that once the second shot had been fired, the cops found themselves trapped between a rock and hard ground because two different guns had been used to shoot her dead!
The cops shot Sheila Caffell, that is what all this jiggery pokey is all about, they shot her twice, once with a rifle that had a silencer attached to its barrel! This gun was almost certainly Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle with his silencer fitted to it, his gun was used to shoot Sheila in the neck and polax her as if dead, sending her tumbling onto the kitchen floor, believed to have died!
Later on, upstairs blunder upon blunder came into play...
The police surgeon pronouncing Sheila dead at 8.44am, her body on the far side of the bed! He made a fatal mistake, because as it turned out she was not dead, and did not die until he had left the scene!
An even bigger blunder when the anshuzt rifle was brought to Sheila's body which by that stage had been placed on the bedroom floor, without it being checked to see if it was still loaded, placed on her body in a live state...
-
I have come across a disturbing composite witness statement made by DS Jones, which confirms that he recovered a silencer at the scene on the 7th August 1985, and that he handed this to DCI Jones at Witham police station, it says, 'as instructed'..
The police took the silencer back to the scene on the 9th August 1985 and placed it in the gun cupboard where David Boutflour recovered in on the following day (10th August 1985).
This is a significant discovery, since it can now be proven that nobody concealed the silencer in the gun cupbaird after Sheila died, it was nothing but a red herrin' designed to help convict Jeremy of killing his sister, and staging her death scene, because with her unique blood being present in the silencer, it must have been fitted to the barrel of the gun at the time she was shot and had died. Therefore, she could not have hidden the silencer in the gun cupbioard downstairs after she was already dead, it had to be someone else!
The prosecution used the find of the silencer in that gun cupboard by David Boutflouyr on the 10th August 1985, to persuade the jury that Jeremy was the killer, and that Sheila could not have taken her own life...
I discovered the new material witness statement which had been copied onto the reverse of another statement made by DS Jones in my possession..
care to post it on the forum ,so we can all have a look,or is it like the picture of the police holding a bedsheet on the roof saying so and so was here,or could it be the the police posing with a naked sheila on the bed.all of the above we have NOT SEEN,but mike says it exist so we have to take his word for it, show us the photos
-
care to post it on the forum ,so we can all have a look,or is it like the picture of the police holding a bedsheet on the roof saying so and so was here,or could it be the the police posing with a naked sheila on the bed.all of the above we have NOT SEEN,but mike says it exist so we have to take his word for it, show us the photos
It's already been posted Sami
-
Here it is Sami.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50307;image)
I must refresh my memory because I think I posted on this thread ages ago.
-
Here it is Sami.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9010.0;attach=50307;image)
I must refresh my memory because I think I posted on this thread ages ago.
Yes, interesting use of the word 'aforementioned' ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
As I have posted before, this is a forgery.
-
As I have posted before, this is a forgery.
Thanks NGB - I concur!
-
As I have posted before, this is a forgery.
Who do you think made it?
I doubt it was Mike. Otherwise we’d have police statements with confessions of how they shot Sheila.
-
Who do you think made it?
I doubt it was Mike. Otherwise we’d have police statements with confessions of how they shot Sheila.
I do not know. However, this sort of nonsense is not helpful to JB.
-
I do not know. However, this sort of nonsense is not helpful to JB.
Is it possible do you think that the paper itself is genuine with DS Jones giving a false statement?
-
Is it possible do you think that the paper itself is genuine with DS Jones giving a false statement?
No.
-
No.
Giovanni Di-Stefano?
-
Who drew the cartoon figure at the bottom right? Who then tried to scrub it out?
-
Giovanni Di-Stefano?
No.
-
No.
Why cant GDS be behind it?
-
Why cant GDS be behind it?
Because he isn't
-
Why cant GDS be behind it?
Why would he have done that? It is so obviously a forgery. I can't prove he did not do it, but I doubt if he did. It could never have stood up to any forensic examination.
-
Why would he have done that? It is so obviously a forgery. I can't prove he did not do it, but I doubt if he did. It could never have stood up to any forensic examination.
We have debated it before and I think there is a BIG clue to where it cam from apart from it being written in the wrong font.
-
Why would he have done that?
He was convicted in 1987 of creating and using forged documents. Then again in 2012.
-
Gawd, isn't there anyone you can trust??
-
Gawd, isn't there anyone you can trust??
Certainly NOT him, he's the one responsible for the Sheila still bleeding photo. Although in this instance, I don't think he's responsible for this particular statement.
-
Certainly NOT him, he's the one responsible for the Sheila still bleeding photo. Although in this instance, I don't think he's responsible for this particular statement.
This is why I go by my own instincts most of the time.
-
This is why I go by my own instincts most of the time.
I think we all do - most of the information available is (I believe) genuine, however, some seems to have been created in order to manipulate.
-
Re the silencer, my question would be this:
If Jeremy did indeed remove the silencer because he realised that Sheila couldn't shoot herself with it attached to the gun, why would he put it back in the cupboard? Of course, if he shot Sheila with it on, he might have realised that her blood might be found in it, so it would be best to hide it, but in a gun cupboard where anyone could find it? He would surely have known that blood could have been found in it quite easily.
Not only that, but even if he thought it would be a good idea to pretend the silencer hadn't been used at all, why would he put it in the cupboard with visible paint and/or blood on it?
Why not just take it with him and hide it somewhere? If anyone asked where it was, he could just say he didn't know.
-
If he'd allegedly walked over the fields/muddy flats after the murders, he'd have winged the silencer out to sea.
-
Re the silencer, my question would be this:
If Jeremy did indeed remove the silencer because he realised that Sheila couldn't shoot herself with it attached to the gun, why would he put it back in the cupboard? Of course, if he shot Sheila with it on, he might have realised that her blood might be found in it, so it would be best to hide it, but in a gun cupboard where anyone could find it? He would surely have known that blood could have been found in it quite easily.
Not only that, but even if he thought it would be a good idea to pretend the silencer hadn't been used at all, why would he put it in the cupboard with visible paint and/or blood on it?
Why not just take it with him and hide it somewhere? If anyone asked where it was, he could just say he didn't know.
I suppose he became overconfident after the successful murder of five people. Alternatively he might have panicked after having to shoot Sheila twice and being in a hurry to return to Goldhanger to form his alibi. Did he cut up the tampon in the lounge and attempt to clean it, was his rationale to hide a leaf in a forest or was it all just a game to him as I suspect? He did try to get Ann Eaton onside pre-murders with a few favours and suggestions, which makes me think he was expecting some confrontational response from that quarter.
-
I suppose he became overconfident after the successful murder of five people. Alternatively he might have panicked after having to shoot Sheila twice and being in a hurry to return to Goldhanger to form his alibi. Did he cut up the tampon in the lounge and attempt to clean it, was his rationale to hide a leaf in a forest or was it all just a game to him as I suspect? He did try to get Ann Eaton onside pre-murders with a few favours and suggestions, which makes me think he was expecting some confrontational response from that quarter.
He must have known he didn't have an alibi which would stand up anyway. He could have phoned the police at any time.
If he took the time to carefully place the Bible on Sheila's chest, he wasn't panicking, and he wasn't worrying about time.
That silencer in the cupboard bothers me. It would have been a lot easier to take it with him than to try to clean it. In any case, he didn't clean it very well if he did try. If he tried to clean the inside, how could he have missed the outside where there was clearly red paint?
Also, if he tried to clean the inside, then he knew there would be blood in it, and it would be very stupid to think he could get it all out. If he didn't realise there would be blood on it, he would have simply taken it off the gun and left it near Sheila's body.
-
He must have known he didn't have an alibi which would stand up anyway. He could have phoned the police at any time.
If he took the time to carefully place the Bible on Sheila's chest, he wasn't panicking, and he wasn't worrying about time.
That silencer in the cupboard bothers me. It would have been a lot easier to take it with him than to try to clean it. In any case, he didn't clean it very well if he did try. If he tried to clean the inside, how could he have missed the outside where there was clearly red paint?
Also, if he tried to clean the inside, then he knew there would be blood in it, and it would be very stupid to think he could get it all out. If he didn't realise there would be blood on it, he would have simply taken it off the gun and left it near Sheila's body.
The silencer was inside the cupboard all night long, playing no role in the deaths. It stayed there until it was found the weekend following the murders. Blood was soon planted inside it to incriminate JB.
-
He must have known he didn't have an alibi which would stand up anyway. He could have phoned the police at any time.
If he took the time to carefully place the Bible on Sheila's chest, he wasn't panicking, and he wasn't worrying about time.
That silencer in the cupboard bothers me. It would have been a lot easier to take it with him than to try to clean it. In any case, he didn't clean it very well if he did try. If he tried to clean the inside, how could he have missed the outside where there was clearly red paint?
Also, if he tried to clean the inside, then he knew there would be blood in it, and it would be very stupid to think he could get it all out. If he didn't realise there would be blood on it, he would have simply taken it off the gun and left it near Sheila's body.
He was hoping that the short interval of time which elapsed before the final murder and the telephone call to Julie would stand him in good stead for the alibi. He tossed the bible onto Sheila's chest mockingly and contemptuously. Had the silencer been found in an adjacent field or on the estuary bed that would have been a giveaway.
-
The silencer was inside the cupboard all night long, playing no role in the deaths. It stayed there until it was found the weekend following the murders. Blood was soon planted inside it to incriminate JB.
By whom? You don't need to answer that. ;D
Let's see now, let's say someone wants to frame Jeremy for the crime. They'd have to be pretty imaginitive to come up with the idea of putting blood in a silencer - not just Sheila's blood but other blood too. I really don't know that would have occurred to anyone.
-
He was hoping that the short interval of time which elapsed before the final murder and the telephone call to Julie would stand him in good stead for the alibi. He tossed the bible onto Sheila's chest mockingly and contemptuously. Had the silencer been found in an adjacent field or on the estuary bed that would have been a giveaway.
Oh no. He wouldn't have tossed the Bible on her in that manner. He was trying to make it look like Sheila had done it, and he wouldn't have been stupid enough to just toss a Bible at her.
I don't understand this "alibi". Nobody knew what time they died anyway. Did he really think they could pinpoint it to the nearest minute? I doubt it. He knew he had no alibi.
-
He would have had plenty of time to get rid of the silencer. He was banking on the police thinking Sheila had done it, right? He could have hidden it later where nobody would ever find it.
-
He would have had plenty of time to get rid of the silencer. He was banking on the police thinking Sheila had done it, right? He could have hidden it later where nobody would ever find it.
Or placed it next to her body. Making it look like she had taken it off.
-
By whom? You don't need to answer that. ;D
Follow the money trail. ;D
Let's see now, let's say someone wants to frame Jeremy for the crime. They'd have to be pretty imaginitive to come up with the idea of putting blood in a silencer - not just Sheila's blood but other blood too. I really don't know that would have occurred to anyone.
No they don't need to be that imaginative. Jeremy told the police while giving a statement on the 7th or 8th of August that the rifle had no scope or silencer attached to the gun when he last left it at the farm before going home. The relatives or at least one of them admit in court they overheard him say that. Hence they knew how to seemingly contradict his story.
There was only one persons blood person inside the silencer. Despite two of the deceased having contact wounds.
-
Or placed it next to her body. Making it look like she had taken it off.
That would be the most obvious thing to do. The only thing is - he might have realised that her blood might be in it, so that would scupper everything. However, if he did realise that, he would also realise that a quick clean with a tampon wouldn't remove the blood. Also, if he did clean it, a cursory glance would have told him that there was paint or blood on the outside and he would have cleaned that off. Indeed, he would expect there to be blood on the outside if he'd beaten Nevill with the silencer on.
No, the silencer business makes no sense to me at all. We do know now from the DNA testing prior to the 2002 appeal that there was no evidence that Sheila's blood was ever in the silencer.
-
Follow the money trail. ;D
No they don't need to be that imaginative. Jeremy told the police while giving a statement on the 7th or 8th of August that the rifle had no scope or silencer attached to the gun when he last left it at the farm before going home. The relatives or at least one of them admit in court they overheard him say that. Hence they knew how to seemingly contradict his story.
There was only one persons blood person inside the silencer. Despite two of the deceased having contact wounds.
..and why was that David?
-
That would be the most obvious thing to do. The only thing is - he might have realised that her blood might be in it, so that would scupper everything. However, if he did realise that, he would also realise that a quick clean with a tampon wouldn't remove the blood. Also, if he did clean it, a cursory glance would have told him that there was paint or blood on the outside and he would have cleaned that off. Indeed, he would expect there to be blood on the outside if he'd beaten Nevill with the silencer on.
No, the silencer business makes no sense to me at all. We do know now from the DNA testing prior to the 2002 appeal that there was no evidence that Sheila's blood was ever in the silencer.
Sheila's blood may have been in the silencer. June's DNA was in the silencer.
-
Oh no. He wouldn't have tossed the Bible on her in that manner. He was trying to make it look like Sheila had done it, and he wouldn't have been stupid enough to just toss a Bible at her.
I don't understand this "alibi". Nobody knew what time they died anyway. Did he really think they could pinpoint it to the nearest minute? I doubt it. He knew he had no alibi.
Here I will quote one of Adam's threads, if I may. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4960.0.html
-
Follow the money trail. ;D
No they don't need to be that imaginative. Jeremy told the police while giving a statement on the 7th or 8th of August that the rifle had no scope or silencer attached to the gun when he last left it at the farm before going home. The relatives or at least one of them admit in court they overheard him say that. Hence they knew how to seemingly contradict his story.
There was only one persons blood person inside the silencer. Despite two of the deceased having contact wounds.
Under what circumstances did a relative overhear him say that? Not during the statement I presume - they wouldn't be there for that. Even if they did overhear that, it would take some imagination to plant blood in the silencer in order to imply that it had been on the gun at the time of the shooting.
There was DNA from more than one person in the silencer.
-
Sheila's blood may have been in the silencer. June's DNA was in the silencer.
Sheila's DNA might have been in the silencer, but nobody could find it.
-
..and why was that David?
Going by memory.
Anthony Pargeter brought it up and hence the police asked Jeremy.
-
Here I will quote one of Adam's threads, if I may. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4960.0.html
But it's not a real alibi is it? If he did phone his own house from the farm because he was under the impression that phone calls could be traced, he would have done so after the whole thing was finished and the scene was set. Therefore, there was no need for him to panic about the time at all. He could take his time and make sure that nothing was missed.
-
Under what circumstances did a relative overhear him say that? Not during the statement I presume - they wouldn't be there for that. Even if they did overhear that, it would take some imagination to plant blood in the silencer in order to imply that it had been on the gun at the time of the shooting.
There was DNA from more than one person in the silencer.
"Q: Now whilst you had been at Jeremy's house at Goldhanger on the day after the killings, and you overheard him talking to the police, do you recall anything being said by anybody about the silencer or a silencer or telescopic sight in relation to the gun?
A: Yes, I recall Jeremy having said that the silencer and the telescopic sight of the undermentioned gun had been removed for the purpose of -----"
June Bamber's DNA was found on a baffle plate on the opposite end of the silencer that tested negative for blood in 1985. Hence it got there via contamination.
-
I'm really not sure about this idea that the silencer was not used at all, and that blood was planted in it. If I do dismiss that idea, then the next question is - would Sheila really have put the silencer on the gun? Well she might if she decided to shoot them without alerting any one of them by the noise of the gun. That would mean that she was very calm when she decided to do it, and that doesn't really tie in with the idea of her going "berserk".
-
"Q: Now whilst you had been at Jeremy's house at Goldhanger on the day after the killings, and you overheard him talking to the police, do you recall anything being said by anybody about the silencer or a silencer or telescopic sight in relation to the gun?
A: Yes, I recall Jeremy having said that the silencer and the telescopic sight of the undermentioned gun had been removed for the purpose of -----"
June Bamber's DNA was found on a baffle plate on the opposite end of the silencer that tested negative for blood in 1985. Hence it got there via contamination.
Who said that?
-
Who said that?
David Boutflour.
-
Going by memory.
Anthony Pargeter brought it up and hence the police asked Jeremy.
No: the gun was primed for murder.
-
Follow the money trail. ;D
No they don't need to be that imaginative. Jeremy told the police while giving a statement on the 7th or 8th of August that the rifle had no scope or silencer attached to the gun when he last left it at the farm before going home. The relatives or at least one of them admit in court they overheard him say that. Hence they knew how to seemingly contradict his story.
There was only one persons blood person inside the silencer. Despite two of the deceased having contact wounds.
Ah yes the money trail: £436,000 at 1985 prices and a two-bedroom flat in Moreshead Mansions, Maida Vale.
-
Then there's this issue of all those relatives being at the farm a few days later. Why oh why would Jeremy allow that if he had something to hide?
-
David Boutflour.
OK, so he knew the silencer wasn't on the gun. Would anyone really say - hey, let's get the silencer and put some blood in it to make the police think it was on the gun, and then hide it in the cupboard?
-
Then there's this issue of all those relatives being at the farm a few days later. Why oh why would Jeremy allow that if he had something to hide?
Because he had inherited enough already by the act of committing five murders and had to make a fresh start. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4908.0.html
-
He simply had to get away..http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3958.0.html
-
Because he had inherited enough already by the act of committing five murders and had to make a fresh start. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4908.0.html
So he hid the silencer in the cupboard, and then allowed his relatives in to poke around?
-
OK, so he knew the silencer wasn't on the gun. Would anyone really say - hey, let's get the silencer and put some blood in it to make the police think it was on the gun, and then hide it in the cupboard?
This was in one of their statements.
"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."
-
This was in one of their statements.
"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."
Hmm, that's just speculation. I do think it's possible that Sheila could have taken the silencer off and put it away. She didn't necessarily have to be upstairs when she decided to shoot herself.
-
So he hid the silencer in the cupboard, and then allowed his relatives in to poke around?
He was in a rush to get back to Bourtree Cottage and retrieve the tape from his answerphone, to prove that a call had been made from White House Farm. He was the instigator of the call, not Nevill.
-
Hmm, that's just speculation. I do think it's possible that Sheila could have taken the silencer off and put it away. She didn't necessarily have to be upstairs when she decided to shoot herself.
She would never have lain beside June. But the easiest option for Jeremy was to lead her into the master bedroom.
-
Hmm, that's just speculation. I do think it's possible that Sheila could have taken the silencer off and put it away. She didn't necessarily have to be upstairs when she decided to shoot herself.
Nobody put it away. The cupboard where it was found is where it was usually kept.
-
He was in a rush to get back to Bourtree Cottage and retrieve the tape from his answerphone, to prove that a call had been made from White House Farm. He was the instigator of the call, not Nevill.
I mean a few days later, not that same night. He had ample time to worry about the silencer, and yet he let all his relatives go to the farm and poke around?
-
I mean a few days later, not that same night. He had ample time to worry about the silencer, and yet he let all his relatives go to the farm and poke around?
By that stage he was firmly ensconced in the Maida Vale flat, putting Daniel and Nicholas's toys in a bin liner and ripping up Sheila's modelling portfolio apart from the photograph of her with the gun.
-
Nobody put it away. The cupboard where it was found is where it was usually kept.
Yes, I know. So Sheila would have had to go the cupboard, get the silencer out, put it on the gun, shoot everyone, and then put it back in the cupboard before she shot herself. That is generally considered a highly unlikely scenario, partly because people think she wouldn't try to shoot herself upstairs, realise that she couldn't reach with the silencer on, go downstairs to put it away, and then go back upstairs to shoot herself.
However, it's possible that she was not upstairs when she decided to shoot herself.
-
By that stage he was firmly ensconced in the Maida Vale flat, putting Daniel and Nicholas's toys in a bin liner and ripping up Sheila's modelling portfolio apart from the photograph of her with the gun.
Even so, letting the relatives have access to the farmhouse was very stupid if he's guilty.
-
I think David is insinuating that the silencer did not form part of the crime.
-
Even so, letting the relatives have access to the farmhouse was very stupid if he's guilty.
He never regarded it as his home. He was away 30 weeks a year from an early age and when he left school he went on two foreign trips, then moved into Bourtree Cottage.
-
I think David is insinuating that the silencer did not form part of the crime.
Yes, I see what you mean. Well it's possible, but I still think that planting evidence in that manner is very unlikely.
-
Yes, I know. So Sheila would have had to go the cupboard, get the silencer out, put it on the gun, shoot everyone, and then put it back in the cupboard before she shot herself. That is generally considered a highly unlikely scenario, partly because people think she wouldn't try to shoot herself upstairs, realise that she couldn't reach with the silencer on, go downstairs to put it away, and then go back upstairs to shoot herself.
However, it's possible that she was not upstairs when she decided to shoot herself.
She would also have to remove the silencer from the gun before shooting Nicholas Caffell and before prodding Nevills back after heating the barrel.
-
He never regarded it as his home. He was away 30 weeks a year from an early age and when he left school he went on two foreign trips, then moved into Bourtree Cottage.
He just shot his whole family there! As next of kin, wouldn't he have the sole right to be there? I suppose the question is - did the relatives have the right to go there without his permission? If not, then I really don't understand why he would let them go there to poke around.
-
She would also have to remove the silencer from the gun before shooting Nicholas Caffell and before prodding Nevills back after heating the barrel.
No because the first shot Jeremy pumped into Nicholas stopped the blood flow. Nevill could have been prodded with the poker.
-
She would also have to remove the silencer from the gun before shooting Nicholas Caffell and before prodding Nevills back after heating the barrel.
Is there evidence that the silencer was not on the gun when Nicholas was shot then?
I know about this mysterious burn on Nevill's back, but I don't know any details.
-
He just shot his whole family there! As next of kin, wouldn't he have the sole right to be there? I suppose the question is - did the relatives have the right to go there without his permission? If not, then I really don't understand why he would let them go there to poke around.
The farm was owned by the Henry Smith charity and Nevill and June were tenants. Jeremy was no longer living there so police handed the keys back to Ann Eaton.
-
The farm was owned by the Henry Smith charity and Nevill and June were tenants. Jeremy was no longer living there so police handed the keys back to Ann Eaton.
Hmmm. Did they have the right to do that without asking Jeremy? I know it was rented, but the stuff in it would belong to him.
-
Hmmm. Did they have the right to do that without asking Jeremy? I know it was rented, but the stuff in it would belong to him.
Yes and how he and Brett Collins knew that when they began to evacuate the contents therefrom.
-
Yes and how he and Brett Collins knew that when they began to evacuate the contents therefrom.
Right, so why would the police just give the keys to his cousin without asking him?
-
Right, so why would the police just give the keys to his cousin without asking him?
I suppose because they were proper farmers, not impostors.
-
Nah, that doesn't make sense.
Anyway, I must log off for now - work tomorrow. It's been interesting.
-
Right, so why would the police just give the keys to his cousin without asking him?
They didn't
-
Yes and how he and Brett Collins knew that when they began to evacuate the contents therefrom.
Seems to me that it was the relatives who were raping the contents of the farmhouse (from 10th August 1985 onward) about one month before Brett Collins / Jeremy Bamber took similar action. If I recollect correctly, it was as early as 11th August 1985, or thereabouts, that Jeremy had a confrontation with his relatives regarding items of property they had been taking or removing from whf. I have a clear recollection of Jeremy speaking to me (HMP Full Sutton) regarding some sort of conflict or confrontation, between Jeremy and his relatives prior to the evening of the 12th August (1985) when Peter Eaton handed over a silencer to DS Jones at the Eaton residence...
The absolute truth of the matter, is / was that prior to the evening of 12th August 1985, when Peter Eaton handed over the first silencer handled by relatives, and that retrospectively before that point and the earlier occasion (evening of 9th August 1985), when police handed the keys to the farmhouse to them (at the scene)...
So, what we end up with are two occasions, one being 'the evening of 9th August 1985, when police handed the keys of the farmhouse back to the relatives ( Ann Eaton) and secondly, an occasion when DS Jones took possession of that particular silencer from Peter Eaton on the evening of the 12th August 1985. Sandwiched in between both of these events, was /is the fact that a number of significant events had already happened with respect to that silencer being 'found' inside a gun cupboard in the downstairs office by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985, and the occasion when DS Jones collected that particular silencer from Peter Eaton, who handed it back to the police on the evening of 12th August 1985..
You may enquire as to what (if any) events which occurred could have any impact upon the credibility that this part of the relatives / police account, and the integrity of the various scientific experts who are responsible for supporting the fact that Sheila had indeed been shot once downstairs in the kitchen (in accordance with the
content of police message logs which place the presence of 'two dead bodies' having been originally present downstairs in the kitchen (from 7.37am, onward), with only a further three bodies of victims found upstairs by 8.10am..
First of all, let's get something absolutely clear - there existed 'two silencers' two identical looking Parker Hale silencers which were normally kept at / inside the farmhouse and which were completely different to one another (design wise) internally..
-
First of all, let's get something absolutely clear - there existed 'two silencers' two identical looking Parker Hale silencers which were normally kept at / inside the farmhouse and which were completely different to one another (design wise) 1997 internally..
One silencer belonging to Anthony Pargeter, and the other being the silencer purchased by Neville Bamber in 1984..
-
They didn't
So they did ask him if that was OK?
If so, why would he agree?
-
So they did ask him if that was OK?
If so, why would he agree?
Yes he agreed - why wouldn't he?
-
Yes he agreed - why wouldn't he?
Because there might be things he'd overlooked. Remember things didn't go to plan. There was the silencer for a start - it was allegedly in a cupboard for anyone to find. Also, why on earth would he want his relatives poking around in a house full of stuff which belonged to him?
-
Because there might be things he'd overlooked. Remember things didn't go to plan. There was the silencer for a start - it was allegedly in a cupboard for anyone to find. Also, why on earth would he want his relatives poking around in a house full of stuff which belonged to him?
Given the placement of the silencer when it was found, it doesn't look as if it was just 'put' in the cupboard. To place it there required some effort. He may have thought it wouldn't be found. He may have thought that if it was found, because of it's placement, it wouldn't be seen as having been part of a crime. He MAY -temporarily- have had some thoughts about retrieving it later to dispose of, but as so often happens after great efforts, he may have become drained of "try" and convinced himself that it wouldn't be found.
-
Given the placement of the silencer when it was found, it doesn't look as if it was just 'put' in the cupboard. To place it there required some effort. He may have thought it wouldn't be found. He may have thought that if it was found, because of it's placement, it wouldn't be seen as having been part of a crime. He MAY -temporarily- have had some thoughts about retrieving it later to dispose of, but as so often happens after great efforts, he may have become drained of "try" and convinced himself that it wouldn't be found.
I don't believe any of that. I don't think he would let them go through the house if there was anything at all to find. I just don't get why he would allow them to go into the house at all. They got the safe open and everything. They also removed guns.
If he was not guilty, I might think that he was sick of the thought of going in there and didn't care what the relatives did, but I don't get why he would let them in if he was guilty.
-
I don't believe any of that. I don't think he would let them go through the house if there was anything at all to find. I just don't get why he would allow them to go into the house at all. They got the safe open and everything. They also removed guns.
If he was not guilty, I might think that he was sick of the thought of going in there and didn't care what the relatives did, but I don't get why he would let them in if he was guilty.
So you don't think it might have gone through his head that any attempt he might make to keep them out may look like he had something to hide?
-
So you don't think it might have gone through his head that any attempt he might make to keep them out may look like he had something to hide?
No. They weren't next of kin or anything. He could have just said he would sort things when he got back.
They already had suspicions pretty much the next day. Did he know that?
-
No. They weren't next of kin or anything. He could have just said he would sort things when he got back.
They already had suspicions pretty much the next day. Did he know that?
He COULD have said anything. He wasn't responsible for what they might think but we mustn't assume their suspicions came from nowhere. They were probably a culmination of years of suspicion. Whilst Nevill and June, as his parents, may have found reasons to defend his absences/lack of interest, the wider family had no such allegiances.
-
He COULD have said anything. He wasn't responsible for what they might think but we mustn't assume their suspicions came from nowhere. They were probably a culmination of years of suspicion. Whilst Nevill and June, as his parents, may have found reasons to defend his absences/lack of interest, the wider family had no such allegiances.
The point is that if he had any inkling that they had suspicions, why on earth would he give them access to the farm?
-
The point is that if he had any inkling that they had suspicions, why on earth would he give them access to the farm?
Probably because, at that point, he believed he was between a rock and a hard place. Surely, an innocent man would have no reason to keep them out? Reverse psychology.
-
Probably because, at that point, he believed he was between a rock and a hard place. Surely, an innocent man would have no reason to keep them out? Reverse psychology.
An innocent man could have plenty of reasons. He wanted to see what had happened for himself, he wanted it to be a shrine with nothing touched. He could have given any number of reasons.
-
An innocent man could have plenty of reasons. He wanted to see what had happened for himself, he wanted it to be a shrine with nothing touched. He could have given any number of reasons.
But he didn't, and history can't be rewritten by making excuses for him.
-
But he didn't, and history can't be rewritten by making excuses for him.
And I wonder why he didn't ...
-
If only Jeremy had had an honest friend at the time to have given him guidance under the dreadful circumstances he was about to face. I've met families like his !!
Nevill would have been aware but because he kept a lot to himself as many do none of the immediate family would have known or realised that there were people about who were ready to do you down at the first opportunity. He was a magistrate and had seen it all.
-
If only Jeremy had had an honest friend at the time to have given him guidance under the dreadful circumstances he was about to face. I've met families like his !!
Nevill would have been aware but because he kept a lot to himself as many do none of the immediate family would have known or realised that there were people about who were ready to do you down at the first opportunity. He was a magistrate and had seen it all.
Impressions of his character suggest that Jeremy didn't have friends back then. He's allegedly had some very good ones since he's been inside but appears to have dumped them when they were of no further use to him.
-
Impressions of his character suggest that Jeremy didn't have friends back then. He's allegedly had some very good ones since he's been inside but appears to have dumped them when they were of no further use to him.
Gosh, how do you know all this ?
-
Gosh, how do you know all this ?
She made it up.
-
She made it up.
David!!! How mean of you to take away Lookout's crown. When it comes to making things up she can teach us all a thing or two.
-
David!!! How mean of you to take away Lookout's crown. When it comes to making things up she can teach us all a thing or two.
No other explanation then ??
-
No other explanation then ??
What's yours for your gut feeling?
-
What's yours for your gut feeling?
You can't escape that easily.
-
You can't escape that easily.
Mmm I can, though. I just won't play ;D
-
Mmm I can, though. I just won't play ;D
I know that and neither will I.
-
I know that and neither will I.
Is that a threat or a promise?
-
Is that a threat or a promise?
Take your pick.
-
Take your pick.
Works either way.
-
She made it up.
not like the crap you make up on a regular basis ;D
-
Probably because, at that point, he believed he was between a rock and a hard place. Surely, an innocent man would have no reason to keep them out? Reverse psychology.
Supposition again
-
Supposition again
love your bit at the bottom.he was so proud of her model status that he tried to sell indecent photos of her to the sun newspaper weeks after her death.very proud man is jb ;)
-
love your bit at the bottom.he was so proud of her model status that he tried to sell indecent photos of her to the sun newspaper weeks after her death.very proud man is jb ;)
Good point Sami, one that gets overlooked, Bamber loved no one only himself. In fact his Buddy Brett confirms that they never had a brotherly love.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8969.0;attach=50194
-
Didn't succeed though did he ? There's a big difference in tried and success. Unlike JM and her tacky pics when everyone was still in mourning. Quick change on her part wasn't it ? Must have been the £25,000 plus what she got for not wearing any underwear!!
-
Didn't succeed though did he ? There's a big difference in tried and success. Unlike JM and her tacky pics when everyone was still in mourning. Quick change on her part wasn't it ? Must have been the £25,000 plus what she got for not wearing any underwear!!
Do you really believe the fact that he didn't succeed exonerates him. Had he been a real man he'd have given them to Colin but his aim was to make money out of them. He certainly wasn't offering them to the Sun out of the goodness of his heart. You're way too blinded by your hatred of Julie to see what sort of scumbag action Jeremy was planning for his dead sister's pictures.
-
Do you really believe the fact that he didn't succeed exonerates him. Had he been a real man he'd have given them to Colin but his aim was to make money out of them. He certainly wasn't offering them to the Sun out of the goodness of his heart. You're way too blinded by your hatred of Julie to see what sort of scumbag action Jeremy was planning for his dead sister's pictures.
And you're blinded by your hatred of Jeremy----
-
Good point Sami, one that gets overlooked, Bamber loved no one only himself. In fact his Buddy Brett confirms that they never had a brotherly love.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8969.0;attach=50194
thank you real justice,another point is if colin did say those words than he was totally taken in by jb,s manipulative personality,.lets not forget one juror was in tears at the guilty verdict.
-
And another juror was asleep.
-
And you're blinded by your hatred of Jeremy----
No, I just had my eyes opened to the truth. I'd be ashamed to condone someone who was trying to sell private pictures of his dead sister to the highest bidder yet you seem to think that because he didn't manage it, it makes it alright. It doesn't!................AND I don't hold with what Julie did, either.
-
thank you real justice,another point is if colin did say those words than he was totally taken in by jb,s manipulative personality,.lets not forget one juror was in tears at the guilty verdict.
Yes it must have been hard for them Sami, listening to how he showed no mercy for his greed.
-
No, I just had my eyes opened to the truth. I'd be ashamed to condone someone who was trying to sell private pictures of his dead sister to the highest bidder yet you seem to think that because he didn't manage it, it makes it alright. It doesn't!................AND I don't hold with what Julie did, either.
Because he tried doesn't mean that he did ! Your arguments stand for nothing after the event.
-
This case isn't as cut and dried as you'd hoped it would have been. This is why you're nit-picking.
-
Because he tried doesn't mean that he did ! Your arguments stand for nothing after the event.
Oh! Do you believe he wasn't serious, Lookout? Do you really believe he'd have turned down hundreds of thousands to preserve his dead sister's memory? In which case, why would he even make it known that they were available?
-
Oh! Do you believe he wasn't serious, Lookout? Do you really believe he'd have turned down hundreds of thousands to preserve his dead sister's memory? In which case, why would he even make it known that they were available?
He had no thought for anyone only himself Jane, his mind was solely on money. Even wanting to know the order of deaths in case it went against him.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=417.0;attach=1264
-
Didn't succeed though did he ? There's a big difference in tried and success. Unlike JM and her tacky pics when everyone was still in mourning. Quick change on her part wasn't it ? Must have been the £25,000 plus what she got for not wearing any underwear!!
No he didn't succeed - disgusting that he tried. It was a such a tasteless and disgusting act that even The Sun didn't publish!
-
No he didn't succeed - disgusting that he tried. It was a such a tasteless and disgusting act that even The Sun didn't publish!
He had no thought for anyone only himself Jane, his mind was solely on money. Even wanting to know the order of deaths in case it went against him.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=417.0;attach=1264
I don't believe Lookout has any answer that will make sense. All she can do is condone him because he didn't sell them. That the Sun refused to buy them seems not to be on her radar.
-
He had no thought for anyone only himself Jane, his mind was solely on money. Even wanting to know the order of deaths in case it went against him.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=417.0;attach=1264
RWB wasn't so far behind in finding out the orders of the deaths. It wouldn't surprise me if indeed they had been recorded and switched about.
-
RWB wasn't so far behind in finding out the orders of the deaths. It wouldn't surprise me if indeed they had been recorded and switched about.
Would it have mattered to him at this stage though Lookout? Bamber wasn’t under suspicion when he asked this.
Can you post statement of this Lookout, saves me having to find it.
-
RWB wasn't so far behind in finding out the orders of the deaths. It wouldn't surprise me if indeed they had been recorded and switched about.
Yeah, yeah. We know. Anyone and everyone but Jeremy. Always blaming others.
-
The point is that nearly the whole lot of them were after the money at some stage, so Jeremy being after the money doesn't necessarily make him guilty.
-
He had no thought for anyone only himself Jane, his mind was solely on money. Even wanting to know the order of deaths in case it went against him.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=417.0;attach=1264
He must have forgot the order he killed them in.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-tears-of-joy_1f602.png)
-
The point is that nearly the whole lot of them were after the money at some stage, so Jeremy being after the money doesn't necessarily make him guilty.
It doesn't. But it gives us very clear insights to his character.
-
It doesn't. But it gives us very clear insights to his character.
Does it? In that case, they were all the same, but do you think they were capable of murder too? Many people are opportunists - if there's money around, they'll take it.
-
It doesn't. But it gives us very clear insights to his character.
And Motive
-
The point is that nearly the whole lot of them were after the money at some stage, so Jeremy being after the money doesn't necessarily make him guilty.
whole lot ,such as ,name a few
-
Does it? In that case, they were all the same, but do you think they were capable of murder too? Many people are opportunists - if there's money around, they'll take it.
That's fine. No different from other families where property, land and money are concerned. The only difference being "they" didn't commit murder.
-
whole lot ,such as ,name a few
The relatives.
-
And Motive
Oh yes. We mustn't forget the all important Motive
-
The point is that nearly the whole lot of them were after the money at some stage, so Jeremy being after the money doesn't necessarily make him guilty.
Were they? Or did they simply not want a murderer to inherit?
-
Were they? Or did they simply not want a murderer to inherit?
Haha! Right, so they gave it to charity then did they?
Come off it. Nevill's nephew and niece had to go to court to get their share, although it was finally settled out of court.
-
Haha! Right, so they gave it to charity then did they?
Come off it. Nevill's nephew and niece had to go to court to get their share, although it was finally settled out of court.
Have to agree Kaldin, the whole episode turned into money, but I don’t think many other families would have been any different considering what took place.
-
Haha! Right, so they gave it to charity then did they?
Come off it. Nevill's nephew and niece had to go to court to get their share, although it was finally settled out of court.
None of it would have happened if Bamber hadn't killed the family! Would you have given it to Charity?
-
None of it would have happened if Bamber hadn't killed the family! Would you have given it to Charity?
RB even took it upon himself to involve himself in Mabel Speakman's change of Will. She didn't have to change it, but of course he wanted Pamela to get all her money, not just half of it.
I wouldn't have been finding out who inherits so soon after the deaths - would you?
Of course they wanted the dosh - get real.
-
RB even took it upon himself to involve himself in Mabel Speakman's change of Will. She didn't have to change it, but of course he wanted Pamela to get all her money, not just half of it.
I wouldn't have been finding out who inherits so soon after the deaths - would you?
Of course they wanted the dosh - get real.
But at least they didn't kill to get it
-
The relatives.
the relatives were doing just fine,and not hardup for money,the biggest reason being they had no dreams or plans for a playboy lifestyle unlike jb
-
RB even took it upon himself to involve himself in Mabel Speakman's change of Will. She didn't have to change it, but of course he wanted Pamela to get all her money, not just half of it.
I wouldn't have been finding out who inherits so soon after the deaths - would you?
Of course they wanted the dosh - get real.
Not as much as Bamber did - what they did after is a direct result of what he did before.
-
the relatives were doing just fine,and not hardup for money,the biggest reason being they had no dreams or plans for a playboy lifestyle unlike jb
Did you not know that Nevill owned some land which Ann Eaton wanted? Jeremy would have inherited that. Did you not know that RB and PB didn't own their farm? Jeremy would have got half of that as well if Mabel Speakman hadn't changed her Will.
-
RB even took it upon himself to involve himself in Mabel Speakman's change of Will. She didn't have to change it, but of course he wanted Pamela to get all her money, not just half of it.
I wouldn't have been finding out who inherits so soon after the deaths - would you?
Of course they wanted the dosh - get real.
yes i would ,i would want to know asap if the murderer was going to gain from the deaths.its human nature
-
yes i would ,i would want to know asap if the murderer was going to gain from the deaths.its human nature
They wanted to know how much they would get if Jeremy was convicted. There's a big difference.
-
Did you not know that Nevill owned some land which Ann Eaton wanted? Jeremy would have inherited that. Did you not know that RB and PB didn't own their farm? Jeremy would have got half of that as well if Mabel Speakman hadn't changed her Will.
yes i did ,but do you know they didnt do the killings, jb did
-
They wanted to know how much they would get if Jeremy was convicted. There's a big difference.
they were making sure that crime does not pay
-
yes i did ,but do you know they didnt do the killings, jb did
Irrelevant.
-
the relatives were doing just fine,and not hardup for money,the biggest reason being they had no dreams or plans for a playboy lifestyle unlike jb
Jeremy was set to inherit the land that the Eatons were farming on. Jeremy was going to sell this land to pay the inheritance tax bill. So they were not doing fine at all. The only thing that would save them from bankruptcy would be Jeremy being disinherited.
-
they were making sure that crime does not pay
By making a nice tidy sum themselves. Mabel Speakman's money was nothing to do with the Bambers, but they made sure that went to them as well.
-
Jeremy was set to inherit the land that the Eatons were farming on. Jeremy was going to sell this land to pay the inheritance tax bill. So they were not doing fine at all. The only thing that would save them from bankruptcy would be Jeremy being disinherited.
have you seen the official will,or you just chatting shit as usual
-
have you seen the official will,or you just chatting shit as usual
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592)
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,788.msg20592.html#msg20592)
thats what you call proof,who wrote it you or mike
-
If going after the money was merely to prevent Jeremy profiting from a crime, how come the Pargeters sued the other lot for their share, and how come the Boutflours didn't offer the Pargeters a fair share?
-
Irrelevant.
Not to this case it isn't.
-
If going after the money was merely to prevent Jeremy profiting from a crime, how come the Pargeters sued the other lot for their share, and how come the Boutflours didn't offer the Pargeters a fair share?
write to them and ask them why,jb will give you their address
-
Well the CPS aren't biting-----not owning up to the fact that there were two silencers in play. This is after fresh scientific evidence proved that two silencers, both with blood and paint, along with a detailed report.
Without the CPS admission about this information it can't be forwarded to the CCRC.
-
Well the CPS aren't biting-----not owning up to the fact that there were two silencers in play. This is after fresh scientific evidence proved that two silencers, both with blood and paint, along with a detailed report.
Without the CPS admission about this information it can't be forwarded to the CCRC.
Have yo seen the evidence Lookout?
-
Have yo seen the evidence Lookout?
Why is it that I must have seen all this evidence ? It's under the noses of JB's legal team not mine.I just relay what's been forwarded to certain departments written by those who have the authority and experience to do so. If you don't believe them then it's not my fault, but your own pig-headedness.
-
Why is it that I must have seen all this evidence ? It's under the noses of JB's legal team not mine.I just relay what's been forwarded to certain departments written by those who have the authority and experience to do so. If you don't believe them then it's not my fault, but your own pig-headedness.
No, I need to see things for myself. You mind blindly believe any old tosh - I don't!
-
No, I need to see things for myself. You mind blindly believe any old tosh - I don't!
This isn't any old "tosh". It's in the Judicial Review against the Crown Prosecution Service----6/12/2019.
It's because you're so blinkered that you don't bother reading anything that's up to date which concerns JB's innocence as you're only interested in his guilt and keeping him where he is.
-
This isn't any old "tosh". It's in the Judicial Review against the Crown Prosecution Service----6/12/2019.
It's because you're so blinkered that you don't bother reading anything that's up to date which concerns JB's innocence as you're only interested in his guilt and keeping him where he is.
It's because you're so blinkered that you don't bother reading anything that's up to date which concerns JB's guilt as you're only interested in his supposed innocence and getting him out at any cost.
-
It's because you're so blinkered that you don't bother reading anything that's up to date which concerns JB's guilt as you're only interested in his supposed innocence and getting him out at any cost.
I could count on one hand how much is written about his guilt. There isn't even a busy guilty forum anywhere on the internet because I've looked.
Where's the up to date info on his guilt.Has anything new been found/discovered ?
-
I could count on one hand how much is written about his guilt. There isn't even a busy guilty forum anywhere on the internet because I've looked.
Where's the up to date info on his guilt.Has anything new been found/discovered ?
Why would there be a guilty forum? I'd argue that nothing has been found to show innocence.
-
I could count on one hand how much is written about his guilt. There isn't even a busy guilty forum anywhere on the internet because I've looked.
Where's the up to date info on his guilt.Has anything new been found/discovered ?
jb hasnt explained the last info that got him a life sentence,poor feller hardly needs any new evidence
-
jb hasnt explained the last info that got him a life sentence,poor feller hardly needs any new evidence
How can anyone explain about something they didn't do ?
-
How can anyone explain about something they didn't do ?
good question