Author Topic: How could the silencer evidence be so convincingly fabricated ?  (Read 1603 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline adam

I appreciate supporters, undecided's and former supporters have to say the silencer evidence was fabricated. This evidence indicates that the silencer was on the rifle during the massacre and means that Bamber is guilty. It is the most famous piece of forensic evidence in the library.

Similar to saying Bamber is innocent and then refusing to say how Sheila committed the massacre, people do not say how the silencer evidence was fabricated. Just claim it was.

Bamber, decades later has said it was the relatives who fabricated the silencer evidence. But has not elaborated on how they expertly put Sheila's blood, paint and Neville's white hair into the silencer. It is a deeply offensive and outrageous accusation which the relatives refuted and correctly said there was enough evidence without the silencer.

Mike agrees the relatives handed in a silencer with blood, paint and a grey hair on it. Then claims the police handed in a second silencer which incriminated Bamber using Sheila's blood which they had taken from the crime scene and kept in their fridge. The lab team not noticing they had two silencers. It would be a surprise if the police did this prior to the first results. The evidence on the silencer the relatives handed in seemed very promising.

The police testified they did not find the silencer. Which they were not looking for. Both the police and relatives testify that the relatives found the silencer at WHF. Basil Cock and BW were at the property with the relatives. So the silencer was definitely at WHF. If used in the massacre, it would have the recorded evidence on it.

I've already posted how it was impossible for the relatives or police to expertly fabricate the silencer to fool the lab. That is after total suspension of reality is applied by believing respected police or law abiding citizens would even think about doing this in the first place.

I look forward to people saying who and how the silencer evidence was so successfully fabricated, it is still accepted by the courts today. All people would then have to do, is prove it happened.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2016, 12:14:41 PM by adam »

Offline Angelo222

Re: How could the silencer evidence be so convincingly fabricated ?
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2016, 12:13:45 PM »
I appreciate supporters, undecided's and former supporters have to say the silencer evidence was fabricated. This evidence indicates that the silencer was on the rifle during the massacre and means that Bamber is guilty. It is the most famous piece of forensic evidence in the library.

Similar to saying Bamber is innocent and then refusing to say how Sheila committed the massacre, people do not say how the silencer evidence was fabricated. Just claim it was.

Bamber, decades later has said it was the relatives who fabricated the silencer evidence. But has not elaborated on how they expertly put Sheila's blood, paint and Neville's white hair into the silencer. It is a deeply offensive and outrageous accusation which the relatives refuted and correctly said there was enough evidence without the silencer.

Mike agrees the relatives handed in a silencer with blood, paint and a grey hair on it but claims the police then handed in a second silencer which incriminated Bamber using Sheila's blood which they had taken from the crime scene and kept in their fridge. The lab team not noticing they had two silencers. It would be a surprise if the police did this prior to the first results. The evidence on the silencer the relatives handed in seemed very promising.

The police testified they did not find the silencer. Which they were not looking for. Both the police and relatives testify that the relatives found the silencer at WHF. Basil Cock and BW were at the property with the relatives. So the silencer was definitely at WHF. If used in the massacre, it would have the recorded evidence on it.

I've already posted how it was impossible for the relatives or police to expertly fabricate the silencer to fool the lab. That is after total suspension of reality is applied by believing respected police or law abiding citizens would even think about doing this in the first place.

I look forward to people saying who and how the silencer evidence was so successfully fabricated, it is still accepted by the courts today. All people would then have to do, is prove it happened.

Over to Holly and David to answer that one.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

david1819

  • Guest
Re: How could the silencer evidence be so convincingly fabricated ?
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2016, 05:48:30 PM »
Over to Holly and David to answer that one.

I've already answered this question for Adam on Blue. He likes going round in circles 

Offline adam

Re: How could the silencer evidence be so convincingly fabricated ?
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2016, 06:14:03 PM »
I've already answered this question for Adam on Blue. He likes going round in circles

Can you re quote it for me please or copy it onto this thread.

Unless it's like you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' or 'detailed' account of how Sheila committed the massacre - invisible.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: How could the silencer evidence be so convincingly fabricated ?
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2016, 07:29:03 PM »
I've already answered this question for Adam on Blue. He likes going round in circles

Where did you answer it?  All I saw was this:

"It is part of a whole interview transcript about the allegations of corruptions. While going through the lab at different times the silencer for some unexplained reason had two different serial numbers 22 and 23 then back to 22 again.  ;D "

You constantly take errors that were proven to be errors and still try pretending that the errors were intentional deceptions to hide that they were juggling multiple moderators.  You resort to this multiple moderator nonsense because you have zilch to establish the moderator was doctored.

What you failed to take into account is that COLP found out it was simply an error and who made it.  When filling out the Holab forms in triplicate Cook screwed up and on one of them he wrote 23 by accident.  So 2 of the forms said 22 and the third said 23.  All 3 forms were filed the same day.  1 copy went to HQ, 1 was returned to SOC for their files and 1 was retained by the lab.   

If submitting 2 different moderators to the lab on this day then all 3 Holab forms would say item 22 and item 23 and have a different exhibit number as opposed to each only referring to a single moderator with the exhibit number SBJ/1. Moreover there would be a lab examination record for 2 moderators not one. Howard expressly stated under questioning that only 1 moderator was turned in to her for examination and she only examined one.

COLP determined that the Holab record containing the error went back to SOC.  They determined that Davidson subsequently lifted information from this erroneous record and this is how a document created by him ended up erroneously referring to it as item 23 instead of 22.  So we have two records that referred to it as item 23:

1) 1 of 3 copies of a document Cook created where all 3 copies were supposed to be identical had 1 difference and thus we know for sure that it was simply a clerical error that they were not identical

and

2)  a document created by Davidson which lifted the item 23 from the page Cook screwed up.

In your world this is evidence that undermines the moderator but in the real world it is simply a meaningless clerical error that caused another meaningless clerical error.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2016, 08:13:24 PM by scipio_usmc »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline adam

Re: How could the silencer evidence be so convincingly fabricated ?
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2016, 07:48:15 PM »
Hopefully David will re post how the relatives/police (or both) successfully fabricated the silencer evidence.

Otherwise he's falsely claiming he's already done this because he knows it was impossible for them to do.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 12:12:12 AM by adam »

Offline adam

Re: How could the silencer evidence be so convincingly fabricated ?
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2016, 12:31:36 PM »
It seems that David has never said how the silencer evidence was so successfully fabricated. He was just responding to Angelo222's post and trying to avoid answering.

As Angelo222 said 'over to you Holly'. Although Caroline has always said respected officer Stan Jones fabricated the silencer. Maybe an explanation of how this was done can be provided.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 01:01:34 PM by adam »