THE SILENCER SAGA

[killingeve]

ANSWER THE WHOLE QUESTION.
Why and how were the socks collected on11/09/85 in the Main bedroom? When they were sent to the laboratory is incidental. One of the two different statements says that is when they were collected and passed to Davidson. Both statements cannot be true. This is direct evidence of the police manipulating evidence.

I DONT DANCE TO YOUR TUNE but for the record you want to believe there's some conspiracy to be had with the blue socks when in reality none exists.

Some ambiguious/sloppy paperwork does not amount to a conspiracy.  The socks were photographed at the soc on 7th Aug and adjudicated on at trial by way of photos and blood test results.

They were removed from the main bedroom along with various other exhibits prior to the police releasing the property back to the family.  When the case was thought to be murder/suicide only a select few exhibits were forwarded to FSS namely the rifle, silencer, SC's nightdress and two carpet samples from the main bedroom.  When the case turned to murder many exhibits were forwarded including the socks.  There was no need for the police/fss to start analysing soil samples, gloves in outbuildings, Mr Bamber's car, Bambers bathrobe, blue socks etc when the case was treated as murder/suicide. The socks were tested and the blood found to match June's groupings all of which was adjudicated on at trial.

[killingeve]

" distressing for the surviving family to witness " Why, when AE hadn't appeared distressed while rinsing out bloodied clothes from a bucket ? Making up beds that two children were murdered in ?
Actually going into the place at all before the deceased were even buried ? Distressed my eye !

Surely even you can see the difference between the buckets of stained clothing that had nothing to do with the murders and items that became bloodstained during the murders?

All bloodstaining was removed by the police prior to the keys being handed over to the family.

I believe Bamber also went into the farmhouse prior to the murder so what's your point?

[Bubo bubo]

I DONT DANCE TO YOUR TUNE but for the record you want to believe there's some conspiracy to be had with the blue socks when in reality none exists.

Some ambiguious/sloppy paperwork does not amount to a conspiracy.  The socks were photographed at the soc on 7th Aug and adjudicated on at trial by way of photos and blood test results.

They were removed from the main bedroom along with various other exhibits prior to the police releasing the property back to the family.  When the case was thought to be murder/suicide only a select few exhibits were forwarded to FSS namely the rifle, silencer, SC's nightdress and two carpet samples from the main bedroom.  When the case turned to murder many exhibits were forwarded including the socks.  There was no need for the police/fss to start analysing soil samples, gloves in outbuildings, Mr Bamber's car, Bambers bathrobe, blue socks etc when the case was treated as murder/suicide. The socks were tested and the blood found to match June's groupings all of which was adjudicated on at trial.

The issue is not the socks. They are illustrative of the subterfuge that was used. The issue is that they made two different witness statements on the same day with different contents. Why two statements ? why different contents? How were another pair of blue socks found when DB went to collect the soil sample. You can dance around this all you like. They hid the finding of the SM DB1.

[killingeve]

The issue is not the socks. They are illustrative of the subterfuge that was used. The issue is that they made two different witness statements on the same day with different contents. Why two statements ? why different contents? How were another pair of blue socks found when DB went to collect the soil sample. You can dance around this all you like. They hid the finding of the SM DB1.

That's your theory for which you have not a scrap of evidence hence you seize on sloppy/ambigious paperwork to make a mountain out of a molehill. 

[mike tesko]

Documentry evidence exists 'which confirms that there were two key Silencers' used to get 'Jeremy Bamber convicted' ...

First thing you have to take into account, is that there exist a variety of different exhibit references pertaining to a silencer [ 'SBJ/1', 'DB/1' and 'DRB/1'] which is a simplified version of the fabricated script, but if the truth be known, at one time or another (after 11th September 1985), one of the two Silencers were being referred to by exhibit references, 'AE/1' and subsequently, 'CAE/1'...

[mike tesko]

Documentry evidence exists 'which confirms that there were two key Silencers' used to get 'Jeremy Bamber convicted' ...

Pause, for a moment, and consider, 'HOW' could a single silencer, be awarded two different item no's ('22 and 23') in the lab' register?

[Bubo bubo]

That's your theory for which you have not a scrap of evidence hence you seize on sloppy/ambigious paperwork to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Now you are reaching for the guilters get out clause, Human Error. Why did DB construct two different witness statements on the same day with different contents? He must have had a very poor short term memory? What other items did he collect on the day from the farmhouse? What were his DB1 to DB5 before he found the socks. Are you really asking members to believe that a pair of blood stained blue socks remained in situ for 33 days.

I do have evidence. I have one statement on this site which says he found only DB6 on the 11/09/85. You are now saying they were collected on the day to save the family from distress. I have a taped transcript of his COLP interview in which a second statement is described with the same date but different contents. I have his pocket book containing evidence that he collected a soil sample on the same day that he found the socks twice.

I thought you more wise than to try to undermine real evidence which shows witness statement manipulation. The evidence also shows that he could not have collected the socks 33 days after the event.

In order to dismiss this you have to produce a cogent statement which accounts for all these discrepancies and which most would support.

[mike tesko]

Pause, for a moment, and consider, 'HOW' could a single silencer, be awarded two different item no's ('22 and 23') in the lab' register?, an possi ly be  reference to the one ixenfjtify of

The official police /  official CPS version of the events, was that (is this) that only 9ne silencer sS deco dred from

[killingeve]

Now you are reaching for the guilters get out clause, Human Error. Why did DB construct two different witness statements on the same day with different contents? He must have had a very poor short term memory? What other items did he collect on the day from the farmhouse? What were his DB1 to DB5 before he found the socks. Are you really asking members to believe that a pair of blood stained blue socks remained in situ for 33 days.

I do have evidence. I have one statement on this site which says he found only DB6 on the 11/09/85. You are now saying they were collected on the day to save the family from distress. I have a taped transcript of his COLP interview in which a second statement is described with the same date but different contents. I have his pocket book containing evidence that he collected a soil sample on the same day that he found the socks twice.

I thought you more wise than to try to undermine real evidence which shows witness statement manipulation. The evidence also shows that he could not have collected the socks 33 days after the event.

In order to dismiss this you have to produce a cogent statement which accounts for all these discrepancies and which most would support.

Life's too short.  I could spend my entire life as a keyboard warrior attempting to show others the errors of their ways whether it be the Bamber case or the anti-vac brigade, to what end?

Ask yourself this: even if the socks hold the sort of significance you believe them to hold how could this assist Bamber with the CCRC/CoA?

[killingeve]

Documentry evidence exists 'which confirms that there were two key Silencers' used to get 'Jeremy Bamber convicted' ...

First thing you have to take into account, is that there exist a variety of different exhibit references pertaining to a silencer [ 'SBJ/1', 'DB/1' and 'DRB/1'] which is a simplified version of the fabricated script, but if the truth be known, at one time or another (after 11th September 1985), one of the two Silencers were being referred to by exhibit references, 'AE/1' and subsequently, 'CAE/1'...

Even if the above holds the sort of significance you believe it to hold how could this assist Bamber with the CCRC/CoA?

[killingeve]

The official police /  official CPS version of the events, was that (is this) that only 9ne silencer sS deco dred from

Even if the above holds the sort of significance you believe it to hold how could this assist Bamber with the CCRC/CoA?

[killingeve]

Pause, for a moment, and consider, 'HOW' could a single silencer, be awarded two different item no's ('22 and 23') in the lab' register?

Maybe you need to do the same: pause, for a moment, and consider, 'HOW' could the above assist Bamber with the CCRC/CoA?

[Bubo bubo]

Life's too short.  I could spend my entire life as a keyboard warrior attempting to show others the errors of their ways whether it be the Bamber case or the anti-vac brigade, to what end?

Ask yourself this: even if the socks hold the sort of significance you believe them to hold how could this assist Bamber with the CCRC/CoA?

I am no legal expert. The Crowns case was built around two pillars. SC's blood in the Bamber owned SM and the testimony of JM.
If it is proved that another silencer belonging to another family member was present and that this fact was hidden from the Jury the logic, as I see it, is that the conviction has to be set aside. What emanates from this is questionable. Retrial, acquittal.

[mike tesko]

Maybe you need to do the same: pause, for a moment, and consider, 'HOW' could the above assist Bamber with the CCRC/CoA?

The `CCRC' is 'not fit for purpose', and the 'COA' [system] depends upon whether or not, any appellant gets their appeal heard and judged by 'A LORD CHIEF JUSTICE' in court no. 4' [ Oh] and let me confirm, that I have been fortunate enough to have the experience of my case being heard by a lord Chief justice, They (it) agreed that the sentence given to me (all those years ago - the early 1970's) was interpreted wrongly! As a result of that judge, I was 'falsely imprisoned' for almost 'one and a half years' [or there abouts)] and I have yet to be financially compensated for me having been falsely incarcerated. So, please, do not fool yourself into believing that 'I do not know what I am talking about', or that 'I need to pause for thought, I have already contemplated that exercise. We are talking about a compensation spanning all the way back to the early 1970's until the present day (March, 2022), so, this means that the level of compensation that I was was due to receive, has already after one year incurred interest! Furthermore, with the passing of time, let's say in years since them, any such award attracts compound interest. This compound interest, turns into a multiplicity of compound interest once the failure to lawfully pay the compensation level (immediately) once the delay transpires into a delay of 3years, or greater, the debt owed attracts a further imposition of compound interest!

It is (due to) my experience(s) that 'many Magistrates', 'many Crown Court Judges' that 'many High Court Judges' or 'those on the verge' of becoming the 'Lord Chief Justice' (in time) always look after those operating within and on behalf of the 'Criminal Justice System' [family]..

I do not need, 'to pause for thought' , since 'I have lived' and 'so far existed' despite [me] having been a victim of this /that regime throughout the past 53 years!

[Adam]

THE SILENCER SAGA PART 1

Like many Jeremy supporters I have spent hours pondering the Silencer evidence. When I first started my investigations I took a completely neutral stance. I started with the notion that both the police and Jeremy were telling the truth and that somehow quite by chance in a psychotic episode Sheila had framed Jeremy by her actions in creating the crime scene.

There are three possibilities for the blood inside the SM. It was caused by back spatter (many feel this though possible unlikely with the Anschutz for technical reasons). The other two are contamination either accidental or deliberate.

I considered the accidental contamination in some detail. My most favoured possibility was a nose bleed from an unknown event. Whilst fitting or removing the silencer with the butt on the ground, blood entered as it dripped from her nose. Many other suggestions have been proposed.

Deliberate contamination would require intimate knowledge and access to the silencer as well as blood which matched Sheila’s serologically.

When it was found is also a key issue to be considered. Various suggestions have been made in addition to the Crowns narrative.

Jeremy in his Tumbler article suggests that a silencer was found a month later than that stated (11/09/85) and that another silencer was found on the day.

The relatives say they found a silencer 11/08/85.

What is more, John Hayward received the silencer on (12/09/85) from MF and it was still being referred to as DB1. Despite its enumeration changing over time SJ1, DRB1. There is no chain of custody available to help unravel what actually happened to it. In such circumstances it is possible that it moved between the police and relatives without any paperwork

Examples of this may be as follows.

They collected JB’s SM on the day but upon examination they returned it to the cupboard in its box before returning the keys to the family on 09/07/85. They were sure it was not used.

The family presented the SM to the police as they claim but it was rejected and returned. Only later did they recreate the finding including paperwork when they wanted to frame JB.

We know the police were most interested in it from a finger print perspective. In addition to routine tests it was tested for prints by superglue fuming. We also know that RC dismantled it on 21/08/85 and no blood flake was recorded as being found.

However, I do believe that a silencer was used and most probably discarded sometime during the events. Some damage to the thread of a rifle suggests a possible cross threading. I find its number illuminating DB1 (David Bird?) and the next item DB2 Fire debris. Two key pieces of evidence from the kitchen which must have been in close proximity to share consecutive numbers.

All these facts/issues give rise to a whole host of potential scenarios and many, especially by MT, have been suggested. Back in May 2012 I believed that the silencer was genuine (accidentally contaminated) but was found after Julie had come forward. This would make it a ‘suspicious’ item from a legal angle. I wrote the following.

The silencer could be a complete fabrication but I think not. If the police wanted to get evidence against Jeremy in the first instance there were other easier means that they could have used. They could have found a blood stained casing lodged in a piece of clothing. In any case if Jeremy's info is right they would certainly have ensured that it was logged/booked in on the right date. It needed two blood types and the paint from the mantelpiece and it would have to have been done well after the event. Not impossible but difficult. The same goes for the family, for them it would be even harder and they could not be sure that the police would not see it as a "ringer".  I believe they were motivated in the first instance to get justice for their dead loved ones though that may have changed. They wanted closure that the police did not provide with their "theory".

So I think the silencer was genuine though today it is probably worthless as a piece of evidence after all the examinations. The problem was it was found too late but I believe the family pressured the police to use it. They were prepared to lie about all the issues around its discovery and its condition. Given that they probably knew that other evidence had been corrupted they could make Essex Police look like a "right Shower" and as it looked ok as a piece of evidence I'm sure the police decided to use it at trial as per perfect crime scenario.

For the record my views on silencer are:

1 It was found late
2 It was recreated because it had lost its potency through one reason or another.
3 It was enhanced in some way
4 It was manufactured to be a killer of an exhibit.
5 It was accidentally created in some way.

The reality is that it could be the work of just one individual, be it a policeman or a relative. It might just involve one of each. As long as they remain silent we may never know the whole truth about it. On the other hand, it could be genuine, though it is looking less so. More of the police pieces of the jigsaw are required.

It is clear I was far from certain at that time as to what the real truth of the silencer actually was.

My supposition was/is that the silencer was denuded of its visual and technical characteristics. Probably GH had removed most of if not all of the paint, if indeed there was any in the first instance. She had also tested the external and visible blood. It had been covered in fingerprinting dust and the superglue treatment would likely have impacted the appearance.

Could it be exhibited at trial in this state?

What struck me the most was the fact that after all this manipulation and treatment it could still yield a blood evidence result that could identify the basic ABO grouping. Not only that but in this case other elements such as enzymes had also been captured. I was and still am sceptical that this was possible.
 
I was pleased when posters on red discussed this aspect in detail. HG on red suggested repeating the conditions endured by the SM to see if a full blood reading could be obtained.

Number two above was looking a stronger candidate.

I decided to look at other aspects of the case since like so much of this case it appeared futile to pursue the SM story without access to more evidential documents.

Mike disagrees.