Studio Legale Internazionale

[miketesko]

According to entry 261 of the Dickinson Report, David Boutflour did not find the silencer in the gun cupboard at whf until 12 August 1985, whereas, Boutflour himself, and his sister, claim to have found it there, on 10 August 1985:-

Dickinson Report, A REVIEW OF THE BAMBER KILLINGS INVESTIGATION, entry 261: -

12 August 1985: During the day Ann Eaton and David Boutflour visited white house farm. Whilst examining the gun cupboard with a view to removing firearms, David Boutflour found the sound moderator from the .22 rifle, together with the telescopic sights and some ammunition lying in a cardboard box. He picked up the sound moderator and saw what he thought to be blood on it and some red paint. He discussed this with Ann Eaton and they agreed the police should be informed. He left the silencer with Ann who later took it to her home address. Each presumed the other woukld contact the police: In the event neither did but David Boutflour later tkld his father, Robert Boutflour, what had been found.

[miketesko]

To be pondered or questioned, is why and how come the relatives and the police between them, got the date when the sound moderator was found, completely wrong, and or at odds with one another?

How could the relatives be saying one thing (they found the silencer on 10 August 1985) and the Dickinson Report into the review of the Bamber killings investigation, be stating that they did not find it until 12 August 1985?

If the relatives found the sound moderator on 10 August 1985, why should Dickinson be producing his report, claiming it was not found until two days later?

Dickinson therefore, was responsible for moving the time of entry into the premises of the armed police officers, from 7:15am, to 7:45am, and also for moving the date when the silencer was found in the gun cupboard by the relatives, from 10 August 1985, to 12 August 1985 - but why?

Are both these actions which Dickinson was responsible for producing linked together in some way with the shootings, or in particular, the death of Sheila Caffell, in the main bedroom?

I believe the answer to this question is a resounding "YES"...

[miketesko]

I believe that there is a common link between the fact that Dickinson sought to mislead regarding the actual time the armed police entered whf, when he moved it from 7:30am, to 7:45am, and the fact that he moved the date of the actual find of the silencer in the gun cupboard by the relatives from 10 August 1985, to 12 August 1985, because by displacing the actual time of entry into the premises, it allowed Essex police to eradicate the content of the police radio and communication logs where there is clear reference to the effect that two bodies had been found in the kitchen upon entry into the premises, and that the police surgeon and the Coroners officer, had both been contacted regarding TWO BODIES by 7:42am. Similarly, the date when the silencer was found by the relatives in the gun cupboard was displaced two days because Essex police did not want to draw attention to the fact that the relatives had had the silencer in their possession for three whole days (10th, 11th and 12 August 1985) and therefore they had the opportunity to deliberately contaminate it, with blood and paint. Dickinson knew how crucial the sound moderator was to the prosecutions case, and he therefore displaced the date of its find in his report to avoid suspicion being drawn or directed upon its integrity. The blood and paint on and inside the silencer, is what helped to convince the jury that Sheila could not possibly have killed herself, but rather that someone else shot and killed her, and that after she was dead, the killer must have unscrewed the silencer from the end of the guns barrel, and taken it all the way downstairs to conceal it inside the gun cupboard...

Without the silencer it would not have been at all possible to prove or establish that Sheila did not and had not taken her own life at all...

Dickinson sought to remove any doubt or suspicion about the silencers integrity by claiming wrongly in his report that it had been found on the same day the relatives handed it over to the police, namely, 12 August 1985, when it had not been, but rather it had been found at least two days beforehand, on 10 August 1985...

The matter is further complicated by a Diary entry made by Robert Boutflour, in which he records that his son David found the sound moderator in the gun cupboard on 11 August 1985...

We therefore have three separate dates when the main exhibit in the case was supposedly found inside the gun cupboard:-

(1) 10 August 1985 - David Boutflour and Ann Eatons version
(2) 11 August 1985 - Robert Boutflours version
(3) 12 August 1985 - Dickinson Report version

In my view these discrepancies are serious and undermine the integrity of the silencer evidence, since it establishes a desire to lie and mislead about the time and date when it was found or recovered from the scene...

The same silencer could not have been found for the first time, on all three of the aforementioned occasions, in the same gun cupboard, and consequently the silencer evidence should have been excluded and little if any relevance should have been attached to it...

[miketesko]

It is also now known that two lots of animal blood bearing the crucial AK1 blood enzyme were found upon the silencer when it was first submitted to the Lab' on 13 August 1985, but that this crucial evidence was suppressed, because to introduce it, would have seriously undermined the prosecutions argument that blood found on and inside the silencer was unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell. For example, the AK1 part of the result from the examination of the blood found in the silencer could have been animal blood, and therefore, it should not have been relied upon as being exclusive to Sheila:-

Result of Blood sample from Silencer:- A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1

Animal blood AK1

Revised blood result minus animal blood:- A, EAP BA, HP 2-1

The revised result means that it was not exclusive or unique to Sheila Caffell, and that it could have been an intimate mixture of the parents blood, in keeping with defense arguments at the time of the trial...

Concealment of the animal blood (AK1) found on the silencer was therefore crucial evidence which would almost certainly have affected the verdict of the jury...