here is the timeline again- that is from documented evidence
That's an interesting interpretation and one that is not entirely unreasonable. However, just to put things in perspective regarding the silencer:
7th August:
WHF Incident occurs.
9th August Also see 16th & 17th September near bottom
DS Neil Davison tests a silencer for finger prints. [Davidson was the exhibits officer. During COLP interviewing, Davidson informed a Superintendent McKay that he was not aware the family had found a silencer. He was also questioned by COLP about 'the second silencer'].
10th September:
Pargeter recounts to police about his earlier advice to David Boutflour, that David 'return' the silencer to police after having discovered some time after 10th August from David him self, that the silencer had been 'returned' to the family (presumably by police).
11th September:
Police telephone message detailed from David Boutflour, stating he has found silencer with blood on it (and) silencer was in cardboard box in downstairs office.
11th September:
Police action report details a DC Oakley as attending Ann Eaton’s house. It states that he picked up (exhibit) AE/1 and ‘a silencer,’ which he then referred to SOCO DCI Wright, based at Chelmsford Police Station. [It was asserted at trial in 1986 that the silencer was handed to an Essex Police Officer, DS Jones, on 12th August 1985 by Ann Eaton].
11th September:
DC 769 Oakey (different from above officer) visited WHF and collected telescopic sights DRB/2 and Eley Bullets DRB/3. Oakley made his statement about this on 25th October. [So EP sent two separate officers to WHF, one called Oakley and one called Oakey, on the same day 11th Sept., to collect different exhibits, all of which are alleged to have been found in gun cupboard over one month earlier on 10th Aug].
12th September:
David Boutflour in his statement says he "informed the police of the finding of the telescopic sight and sound moderator".
12th September:
Anne Eaton in her statement mentions (for the first time) that a silencer had been found (one month earlier) on August 10th by David Boutflour. [Ann Eaton’s reply during COLP questioning: “The only silencer found to my knowledge was the one found by my brother David. There never has been any other silencer found at White House Farm”].
16th September:
ACC Simpson issues the following statement to The Essex gazette, which was then retracted:
‘Although a silencer was found shortly after police broke into the house, a few hours after the killings on 7th August 1985, it was not until after enquiries were reopened that this was regarded as significant,’
17th September:
ACC Simpson issues the following statement to The Mirror, which was then retracted:
‘A heavily bloodstained silencer was found by the police hours after the gruesome massacre,’ in addition, ‘Police discovered a blood stained gun silencer at the farm on the day of the massacre.’
Press agents getting things wrong is not unusual. They rarely know the finer details of what transpired fully.
Are you sure there was a DC Oakley since no badge number was given? Someone could have mispelled the name and also got wrong what he went to collect. That is why a premium is put on the accounts of those actually said to have done something.
Davidson's testimony was that he personally didn't look in the gun closet and that no one brought him a suppressor to put on the list of items being taken. That doesn't necessarily mean no one found it, it means no one considered it relevant to take for analysis. When it was collected it was done so by others and he was informed to the extent of writing down it had been collected but the suppressor was handled by someone else including being taken to the lab by someone else. Significantly he indicates it was the only suppressor taken. some typing errors were revealed and most questions were answered. A court reviewed the issue of the suppressor designations changing.
None of this in the least established the blood was planted which is what the defense needs to establish in order to establish reasonable doubt. The distribution of blood in th esupressor not matching how back spatter would be distributed within the suppressor would be evidence suggesting it was planted. If the Sheila's wounds would not have been able to resul in drawback into the weapon that would be evidence suggesting it was planted. If the blood had a chemical not naturally occuring in the body that is added to blood samples that would suggest blood from a blood sample had been planted. None of this is the case. he most common planting of blood is to use a dropper or pour it from a vial But if that had been done the blood would not have been distributed in the manner found by the experts. The blood was sprayed inside the suppressor just as would be the case from back spatter and there were microscopic drops (a hallmark of high velocity spatter) found on the first 8 baffles. These drops were found by the defense not the prosecution and was determined by him to have been human blood of group A.
The defense expert found NOTHING to indicate it was planted and worse found it to be Sheila's blood type.
So either this was the perfect plant job and someone went well above what woudl have been necessary or it was truly back spatter. COurts and most rational people go by evidence not emotion. Those who want to believe in Jeremy are willing to say despite the lack of evidence that it was nontheless planted. Everyone who wants to follow the evidence or is obligated to do so by law becuase that its their duty are forced to face that the defense can't find anyone to discount this evidence.
The naked claim it was planted without any proof doesn't meet the defense burden that is requires in order to discount such evidence.
No matter how many times peopel here post on this subject the bottom line is going to be:
1) that legally the defense has failed to put forth any evidence to discount it
2) that Jeremy supporters are saying they choose to believe it was planted without any evidence of it at all
This is the standoff.
Supprters can't pretend there were no investigations into the matter, there were. The matter was investigated numerous times but no evidence of planting was developed through any of the inquiries.
The inquiries looked tat the very issues being complained about and indeed that is where much of the information came from about shoddly police records. Some shoddy police records do not challenge the reliable evidence about the chain of custody which was able to be established ot the satisfaction of the appeal court.
When there is investigation after investigation with no one admitting wrongdoing and nothing found it is the end of the line. Other police investigations did result in evidence of wrongdoing turning up thanks to people admitting it and other evidence being developed. That is not the case here though no evidence turned up to suggest the blood was planted. Nor has any rational reason been set forth why police would decide it was not good enough to attribute the deaths to Sheila if all the evidence proved such and instead to decide to frame Jeremy. Unsolved cases is where in the past police have done such in order to lose such cases.
Indeed police here beent over backwards for Jeremy at first even destroying evidence at his insistence. Pro-Jeremy police destroyed evidence that he wanted destroyed. Their half assed investigation was because they just bought that Sheila did it and didn't treat the scene as a potential homicide. They didn't even have a ballistics expert go to the scene to investigate. They decided there was no need for his expertise. It can't be said lapses like this were intended to hurt Jeremy.
More evidence turning up was a result of the poor job not turning up evidence right away and fact that it naturally takes time for all evidence to be examined and all reports to be completed. The autopsy results take time, the processing of any collected evidence especially blood. All these results have to be considered as a whole. It is quite clear the change in views happened when the results of the investigation as a whole were analyzed. That is natural. The biggest anamoly is to declare the case open and shut murder suicide before the evidence was processed.
