Disturbing Evidence, which confirms that cops handed back silencer to the family

[David1819]

By whom? You don't need to answer that. 

Follow the money trail. 

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.

[Kaldin]

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.

[Steve_uk]

Follow the money trail. 

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?

[Steve_uk]

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.

[Steve_uk]

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

[Kaldin]

Follow the money trail. 

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.

[Kaldin]

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.

[David1819]

..and why was that David?

Going by memory.

Anthony Pargeter brought it up and hence the police asked Jeremy.

[Kaldin]

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.

[David1819]

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.

[Kaldin]

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".

[Kaldin]

"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?

[David1819]

Who said that?

David Boutflour.

[Steve_uk]

Going by memory.

Anthony Pargeter brought it up and hence the police asked Jeremy.

No: the gun was primed for murder.

[Steve_uk]

Follow the money trail. 

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.