Det Sgt Stanley Brian Jones - Trial transcript

[John]

He used his own car, the Vauxhall Astra, to drive to the farm that morning when he was overtaken by the police.  The Citreon belonged to Nevill but as you rightly state it was later examined at Jeremy's house at Goldhanger when his part in the murders was suspected.

[John]

Looking at the other pictures of the Aga surround it is clear that it was repainted soon after the murders.  Could it have been these photos that photographic expect Peter Sutherst examined as he failed to identify any marks?

[John]

A nice representation of the routes Myster but the times for the police are a bit conservative and assume a speed of less than 30 mph.  I would think probably double that since it was an emergency?

[Myster]

Looking at the other pictures of the Aga surround it is clear that it was repainted soon after the murders.  Could it have been these photos that photographic expect Peter Sutherst examined as he failed to identify any marks?

I'm not at all sure that it was repainted... I would have thought Eatons may have kept it in its original state for a while at least, just in case any further forensic examination of the marks was needed. In this higher resolution photo of the same view, can you see what looks like a scratch (on the vertical part just to the right and below the metal flashlamp on the mantleshelf) which corresponds to the U-shaped scratch on the vertical surface in the close up photo? The paint may look as if it has been sanded in the second photo, but it could just be reflection from the flashgun (you can pick out a faint reflection of the yellow sticker on the vertical surface).

Sutherst probably had few more photos to examine that we are not privy to.

[Outlook]

There is some interesting contradictions here regarding the rabbit shooting.

In Stan Jones Trial Transcript page 5 there is a statement, slightly confused that JB denyed shooting at the rabbits.  JB also denys this in an unconvincing manner in his own interview statements.  However in Ann Eaton Statements she remembers JB telling Stan Jones that he shot at the rabbits and missed them on the night of the 6th August.  I attach relevant page (24) from Ms Eaton's statement.

JB seems confused about this.  It seemed to be an issue during the cross-examination of Stan Jones and Council certainly picked up on the matter.

[Outlook]

Looking at the other pictures of the Aga surround it is clear that it was repainted soon after the murders.  Could it have been these photos that photographic expect Peter Sutherst examined as he failed to identify any marks?

I'm not at all sure that it was repainted... I would have thought Eatons may have kept it in its original state for a while at least, just in case any further forensic examination of the marks was needed. In this higher resolution photo of the same view, can you see what looks like a scratch (on the vertical part just to the right and below the metal flashlamp on the mantleshelf) which corresponds to the U-shaped scratch on the vertical surface in the close up photo? The paint may look as if it has been sanded in the second photo, but it could just be reflection from the flashgun (you can pick out a faint reflection of the yellow sticker on the vertical surface).

Sutherst probably had few more photos to examine that we are not privy to.

Oh you mean the gold colored flashlamp?  I just see something.  I have always looked at the black lamp.

I suppose the "white dust" could be finger print powder not being cleaned off or being the underside of the mantle it could be cooking residue?

There are probably also other photos carefully saved on Mike's famous hard drive which will be released one day soon.

[Outlook]

Instead of just being a dodgy ex (?) burglar with a Napoleon complex, why isn't Bamber's besty rich and famous with his own afternoon chat show? He KNOWS where Maddy McCann's body is. He KNOWS where Keith Bennet's body is. He has in his possession two pieces of irrefutable evidence that will ensure Bamber's freedom (when the hour eventually cometh, not today though. Never today.) When he's got a minute, he's going to find a cure for cancer. What a guy.

What I love is he has invented a Supercomputer in his den which reveals the location of the bodies and he names the computer after a Nazi encoding machine.

You just could not make these things up?  or perhaps you could?   

[Myster]

.

There is some interesting contradictions here regarding the rabbit shooting.

In Stan Jones Trial Transcript page 5 there is a statement, slightly confused that JB denyed shooting at the rabbits.  JB also denys this in an unconvincing manner in his own interview statements.  However in Ann Eaton Statements she remembers JB telling Stan Jones that he shot at the rabbits and missed them on the night of the 6th August.  I attach relevant page (24) from Ms Eaton's statement.

JB seems confused about this.  It seemed to be an issue during the cross-examination of Stan Jones and Council certainly picked up on the matter.

Ann said he went out to shoot rather than shot at.

She might have thought he meant he "missed them" as in didn't see them because they had run off when he went out again after loading the rifle, rather than he "missed them" as in he fired a shot at them, but didn't kill any.

[John]

Yes, you are right Myster. There is just the slightest sign of the 'J' mark on the vertical surface just below and right of the brass lamp.

How can Peter Sutherst possibly say that there are no marks in the original police photos then when they are there for all to see?  Someone please explain this for me?

[Myster]

Yes, you are right Myster. There is just the slightest sign of the 'J' mark on the vertical surface just below and right of the brass lamp.

How can Peter Sutherst possibly say that there are no marks in the original police photos then when they are there for all to see?  Someone please explain this for me?

I think I'll have to sleep on that one... I'm not up to speed with what Peter Sutherst said off-hand.

[Outlook]

.

There is some interesting contradictions here regarding the rabbit shooting.

In Stan Jones Trial Transcript page 5 there is a statement, slightly confused that JB denyed shooting at the rabbits.  JB also denys this in an unconvincing manner in his own interview statements.  However in Ann Eaton Statements she remembers JB telling Stan Jones that he shot at the rabbits and missed them on the night of the 6th August.  I attach relevant page (24) from Ms Eaton's statement.

JB seems confused about this.  It seemed to be an issue during the cross-examination of Stan Jones and Council certainly picked up on the matter.

Ann said he went out to shoot rather than shot at.

She might have thought he meant he "missed them" as in didn't see them because they had run off when he went out again after loading the rifle, rather than he "missed them" as in he fired a shot at them, but didn't kill any.

I accept that too.  It is not really clear if he missed that rabbits as they had gone when he went out or he shot and missed them.  Ms Eaton seems to feel this was not clear.  I do not think it is a significant issue one way or the other but Stan Jones does return to it a few times.  Compared to the rest of the night I do not think two rabbits matter one way or another.  (Except to the rabbits of course).

[Outlook]

Yes, you are right Myster. There is just the slightest sign of the 'J' mark on the vertical surface just below and right of the brass lamp.

How can Peter Sutherst possibly say that there are no marks in the original police photos then when they are there for all to see?  Someone please explain this for me?

I think I'll have to sleep on that one... I'm not up to speed with what Peter Sutherst said off-hand.

The problem with all these old photos is that they suffer from dust and scratches on the negatives and the prints and again when they are scanned.  The scans I have seen of this area are covered in dust marks and yet everyone ignores them.  One the other hand modern digital photographs are capable of great enlargement but also of manipulation which make them untrustworthy.

[goatboy]

Interesting that during the trial DS Jones stated that it was the police who offered to dispose of the bloodstained clothing and carpets etc, it doesn't sound like Jeremy needed to persuade them. I bet he couldn't believe his luck.

Also imagine if the hair on the silencer hadn't been lost and had been positively identified as Neville's-that would put the conviction further beyond doubt. Though I suppose the blue forum would say the family planted it just like they planted Sheila's blood in the silencer (yes, they do genuinely seem to believe this!).

I agree about his questions to the police about the order of the deaths. An innocent man who loved his family would never have asked this question before he asked more searching questions about how it happened. Mind you, an innocent man in court when accused of lying would never, ever say "that is what you have to establish".

[Outlook]

Interesting that during the trial DS Jones stated that it was the police who offered to dispose of the bloodstained clothing and carpets etc, it doesn't sound like Jeremy needed to persuade them. I bet he couldn't believe his luck.

Also imagine if the hair on the silencer hadn't been lost and had been positively identified as Neville's-that would put the conviction further beyond doubt. Though I suppose the blue forum would say the family planted it just like they planted Sheila's blood in the silencer (yes, they do genuinely seem to believe this!).

I agree about his questions to the police about the order of the deaths. An innocent man who loved his family would never have asked this question before he asked more searching questions about how it happened. Mind you, an innocent man in court when accused of lying would never, ever say "that is what you have to establish".

Well some on "Blue" do make great play of the clothing Sheila was soaking in the kitchen.  Most women have had to do this at some time.  The normal method is to use hot salty water to soak the clothes but that was in the days before we had good washing machines and biological washing powders.  This practice is perhaps a mystery now to modern western women but a regular necessity to women in other countries.

However any sensible person realizes if this blood and salty water had been used to contaminate the silencer any forensic scientist can tell the difference between highly diluted menstrual blood in salty water and normal blood.  It certainly would not have been a bucket of blood in the kitchen.  More likely it was just very lightly stained water.  No woman produces that much blood over an entire cycle let alone the first day.

Also can any sane person believe that the bereaved family members sat down and thought "How convenient, we can use this stained water to contaminate the silencer to mimic the little known concept of "blowback" to frame Jeremy. Muh-hahaha!"

[puglove]

Interesting that during the trial DS Jones stated that it was the police who offered to dispose of the bloodstained clothing and carpets etc, it doesn't sound like Jeremy needed to persuade them. I bet he couldn't believe his luck.

Also imagine if the hair on the silencer hadn't been lost and had been positively identified as Neville's-that would put the conviction further beyond doubt. Though I suppose the blue forum would say the family planted it just like they planted Sheila's blood in the silencer (yes, they do genuinely seem to believe this!).

I agree about his questions to the police about the order of the deaths. An innocent man who loved his family would never have asked this question before he asked more searching questions about how it happened. Mind you, an innocent man in court when accused of lying would never, ever say "that is what you have to establish".

Well some on "Blue" do make great play of the clothing Sheila was soaking in the kitchen.  Most women have had to do this at some time.  The normal method is to use hot salty water to soak the clothes but that was in the days before we had good washing machines and biological washing powders.  This practice is perhaps a mystery now to modern western women but a regular necessity to women in other countries.

However any sensible person realizes if this blood and salty water had been used to contaminate the silencer any forensic scientist can tell the difference between highly diluted menstrual blood in salty water and normal blood.  It certainly would not have been a bucket of blood in the kitchen.  More likely it was just very lightly stained water.  No woman produces that much blood over an entire cycle let alone the first day.

Also can any sane person believe that the bereaved family members sat down and thought "How convenient, we can use this stained water to contaminate the silencer to mimic the little known concept of "blowback" to frame Jeremy. Muh-hahaha!"

Just how DO you produce a flake of dried blood from a bucket full of blood-stained water?    >@@(*&)