David posted the following nonsense claim
"The circumstances and evidence to undermine the sound moderator seem overwhelming."
Did he followup with anything accurate or intelligent? Of course not.
He starts out saying "Boutflour is alleged to find the sound moderator on the 10th of August. This is handed into the lab on the 13th by DI Cook. Multiple copies of the submissions have been made and altered."
He implies that there is something wrong with multiple copies of the submission being drafted when in fact it was required to be submitted in triplicate so they had to hand write 3 copies of the Holab form. He claims it was altered though all that happened is on one of the 3 forms Cook made a clerical error. Cook labeled the moderator lab item 22 and wrote that on the first 2 copies. He screwed up and wrote lab item 23 on the third form. To COLP he admitted he screwed up the third copy and that there was only 1 moderator. If there were two moderators being submitted all three forms would contain both lab item 22 and lab item 23 not either or. All 3 copies were supposed to be identical he simply screwed up on one.
So far David's claims don't undermine a damn thing except in his imagination.
He next states that "It is then alleged in a document typed in November 1985 that on that day human blood was discovered inside the moderator. If so why did this initial discovery of human blood on the 13th not trigger an arrest for Jeremy? If the accounts written in retrospect are correct then they had the smoking gun evidence within a matter of days?"
First of all police weren't told about the findings until the 14th. Second all police were told was that there was red paint on the knurled portion and human blood on the outside and inside the moderator. The lab didn't know whose blood it was at that point. It was not until further testing was done that they determined it was Sheila's blood, that it got there by drawback and that experts who did such work explained the significance of such results to police. That happened in September. When was Jeremy arrested- in September after such evidence was available.
David suggests the only records are from November completely ignoring the contemporaneous lab examination records and instead lies trying to pretend that the only paperwork that exists is from November. He is as pathetic as mike. There not only is contemporaneous lab examination records but COLP stated there was documentary proof the police were notified of the results on August 14. This is corroborated by the police going to WHF on August 14 to take paint samples.
Next he writes:
"DI Cook in the COLP investigations then explains the lack of paperwork
As I intended carrying out the examination myself using their facilities then the items would never I leave my possession and therefore proof of continuity using those forms Was not required, as they were only intended for submission to the Huntingdon Laboratory. The continuity of these exhibits was solely my responsibility."
This is an honest and accurate explanation of why continuity forms when he brought the moderator to be fingerprinted were not required. There were plenty of other documents simply no continuity sheets showing the moderator taken to Sandridge. On page 26 (Bates Stamp 190) of his COLP interview Cook notes he entered the moderator on the evidence room reception sheets on August 13. Thus there were in fact records of it being in police custody in the evidence room August 13 after it returning for the lab. He didn't fill out continuity sheets to show he took it to Sandridge because he did all the work and had it in his possession. Continuity sheets are for when it leaves his possession. He did in fact fill out continuity sheets to convey it to the lab and also filled out HOLAB forms to the lab, the lab acknowledged receipt sending one of those Holab forms singed received back to HQ and alos they did fill out the examination record. Page 28 (Bates Stamp 192) specifically discusses the continuity sheets that exist showing it conveyed to the lab on August 13.
That no continuity sheets were filled out to take it to Sandridge but only documents showing it going to the lab is is not proof of anything wrong except in David's imagination. The same page mentions there was also a continuity sheet and Holab forms showing it was conveyed to the lab on August 30 by courier Wolton.
But next comes the real whopper:
"On the 29th of August 1985 DI Cook unscrews the silencer and takes out the baffle plates, he takes the photograph below."
This is a big fat lie. Cook didn't unscrew anything the photo was taken after the lab examined it. Mike hand wrote the date on the photocopy himself made up that it was taken apart by Cook and that cook photographed it after taking it apart himself. David is either as gullible as they come or knows this is complete nonsense but doesn't care.
Since mike made up the claims that renders this babble total nonsense:
"The significance of this is that DI Cook never reports finding any blood. The Crown claims that a considerable amount of blood and blood flakes is sprayed from baffle plates 1 to 6. If we are to believe the silencers authenticity we now must believe DI Cook just happened to miss seeing all this blood."
Cook didn't take it apart and never claimed he took it apart so why would Cook write that he saw blood after he took it apart? David suggests Cook stated he took it apart but failed to mention finding any blood though he never claimed such and the assertion he took it apart is complete fiction.
"In the transcripts of the recorded COLP interview DS Davidson who was involved in handling the evidence forms claims he has never seen a silencer and was never aware any relatives found silencer"
Davidson ACTUALLY said he wasn't aware that they found the silencer until much later. He didn't say that he was hearing from COLP for the first time that the family found the moderator.
David then says Davidson was unaware that Cook handled the moderator:
"Also in transcripts of the recorded COLP interview with DS Davidson he claims to have no idea of DI Cook having a sound moderator"
He uses this to try to pretend that Davidson was caught in a lie:
"only to say at a much later stage of the interview that DI Cook did tell him about the sound moderator. Its seem DS Davidson has either been caught out or has used information told to him in the earlier stages of the interview to cover his mistakes."
The truth is that Davidson wasn't involved with handling the moderator so didn't have much knowledge about it. All he knew is that Cook was taking care of the moderator and learned well later the family had found it. Given his lack of involvement it is understandable why 6 years later he would not remember much about it. He never knew much to begin with and 6 years has passed. Al Davidson told COLP is that he didn't find out about the moderator until much later and didn't find out the family had found it until much later. He never suggested he never heard of a moderator till COLP told him.
Next he posts this: "Then in September a second sound moderator is found - according to this police log"
The log doesn't say a second moderator was found. Boutflour told them about the moderator he found in August that he had the Eatons turn in. They picked up the scope and bullets that day but not the shotgun shells so he complained about them not taking everything. He recounted how he had found everything including the moderator. That call resulted in them appreciating for the first time who found the moderator and the scope etc. As a result they subsequently reclassified the items to the DB prefix.
Next he posts this: "PC Whiddon's statement further corroborates a second sound moderator is found. "
Whiddon didn't say anything about 2 moderators he said there was a single moderator. He discussed how he renumbered various items in statements to make the references match up to the actual exhibits.
The moderator SBJ/1 was reclassified DB/1 and later DRB/1
AE/1 the scope was reclassified DB/2 and later DRB/2
AE/2 the bullets and abu ammo carrier was reclassified DB/3 and later DRB/3
David is so inept he is claiming AE/1 and AE/2 are moderators. The exact quote he posts form Whiddon features Whiddon saying that Ann Eaton referred to the scope in her statement as AE/1 but it's actual designation was DRB/1 so he changed her statement to reflect that.
Next David writes: "Superintendent Mckay in the COLP interview with DS Davidson. Also mentions a second silencer" Mckay asks Davidson if he was aware of a second moderator and Davidson said no. Mckay didn't say there was a second moderator he asked a question simply. He asked because at one point Davidson wrote on a form item 23 but other times it said item 22. COLP found the genesis of this. The form Cook screwed up is the one Davidson copied off of when he filled out a form in September. So he copied Cook's error referring to it as item 23. COLP found no evidence at all of more than one moderator collected in 1985.
So all of David's crap fell apart totally under scrutiny.
Next david jumps to the crap that the CCRC rejected because it has no scientific basis in fact:
"Dr Fowler a US medical expert who has investigated three thousand gunshot homicides examines the evidence and concludes the silencer was not attached when Shelia's contact wounds to the neck were inflicted. (also confirmed by two peer reviewers) to this day Dr Fowler's conclusions remain unchallenged"
The claim that Fowler's claims remain unchallenged is complete nonsense. Fowler claimed that HE THINKS Vanezis observed a muzzle imprint around the nonfatal wound but failed to appreciate that is what it was. Vanezis disagrees so right there is a challenge to Fowler's claims. Experts found by the CCRC also challenged Fowler's claims. The photos do not show any muzzle imprints. Vanezis said he observed a bullet abrasion and dirt ring. Fowler said he thinks it was not a bullet abrasion but rather a muzzle imprint. He has no way to establish his opinion is accurate and Vanezis was wrong. So the courts correctly view his claims as unsubstantiated as does any rational person which safely leave David out.
Next david turns to the Sutherst BS:
"The CCRC hired Mr Laws who claimed Peter Sutherst evidence on the scratch marks are inconclusive enabling them to continue the assertion that the silencer was attached. Onto the subject of the scratch marks, Not only does Peter Sutherst conclude that there are no scratches present on the original crime scene. DS Davidson seems to remember there being red paint on barrel end of the weapon with no silencer :o He is then interupted and the subject is quickly changed."
Sutherst's claims were rejected because even by his own admission his tests were not scientifically valid. He admitted he lacked the ability to blow up photos sufficiently unless he had the negatives. Blowing up a copy of a photo and then further blowing up that copy of a copy and so on is not scientifically valid.
As for Davidson, he said he was eavesdropping when Cook was talking to Elliott about red paint on a weapon. Since at the time he didn't know there was a moderator he assumed they were talking about paint directly on a rifle barrel. He knew the murder weapon had no paint on it because he saw the rifle- he was the one who logged it in at WHF so he assumed it was some other rifle found downstairs. David ignores all this and pretends he said it was on the murder weapon directly.
Ever single claim by David has fallen apart under scrutiny they all are BS claims made by mike with were refuted a dozen times on blue by me alone who know how many times total by everyone who has posted on blue.
[Edited by Senior Editor]