Studio Legale Internazionale

[miketesko]

Evidence has recently surfaced which confirms, that as of 8 August 1985, they had possession of a .22 air rifle upon which they had found fingerprints, and DI Cook had instructed DS Davidson to attend Chelmsford hospital mortuary to take the fingerprints from the bodies of Ralph, June and Sheila, for comparison with the aforementioned fingerprints found on the .22 air rifle...

The police during that early stage on the investigation (SC/688/85) obviously thought that the .22 air rifle had been used during the shootings, and by that stage, they would not have known whether or not, the .22 air rifle had fired any of the shots which wounded or killed any of the five victims, since, the autopsies for June and the two child victims had not yet been completed (the autopsies of Ralph and Sheila had been completed the previous day, 7 August 1985)...

Also linked to this matter, is the fact that the police took a paint sample, RC/1, from the aga, on 8 August 1985, because some paint had been found on the end of the guns barrel - whether or not the gun in question was the .22 air rifle, or the shotgun, remains to be seen, but this information or evidence was deliberately withheld from Bamber, his legal team, and the court which tried him for these murders...

What is interesting, is that during the COLP interviews of Essex police in 1991, DS Davidson (SOC) told COLP that the paint sample, RC/1, was taken on 8 August 1985, by DI Ronald Cook, because of the paint found on the end of a guns barrel and that the gun in question, had been found somewhere at the scene, downstairs...

When COLP interviewed DI Cook (SOC) about this matter, he denied that he had taken such a paint sample (RC/1) and the weapon which had the paint ingrained into its barrel, was not identified at that stage...

It is now absolutely clear, that the police have sought to deceive regarding these matters, and that the .22 air rifle, and the shotgun, were part of the original investigation (SC/688/85) but they were excluded from the second investigation (SC/786/85), and at that stage, the police made out a case for there only having been one weapon used in the shootings, namely, the .22 semi-automatic rifle...

It now looks increasingly likely that the police were satisfied during the early stage of the investigation (SC/688/85) that the end of the .22 air rifle had damaged the aga and that paint from the aga ended up ingrained into the end of the guns barrel. The police assumed that Ralph and Sheila had struggled in the region of the kitchen with the air rifle and that their fingerprints had been transferred onto the gun at that time, hence, why DI Cook instructed DS Davidson to go to the mortuary on 8 August 1985, to get fingerprints from Ralph, June and Sheila, so that they could be compared against the fingerprints found on the .22 air rifle by that stage...

Yet to be pondered, is who found the .22 rifle?

Where was it found?

What exhibit reference was the .22 rifle given?

How come no police officer has made a reference to this .22 air rifle in any witness statement or pocketbook entry?

Who fingerprinted the .22 air rifle?

What fingerprint references were given to these fingerprints which were found there?

What fingerprint references were given to the fingerprints taken from the bodies of Ralph, June and Sheila, on 8 August 1985?

What was the result of any comparison made between the fingerprints taken from Ralph, June and Sheila, on 8 August 1985, and the fingerprints found upon the air rifle by that stage?

Who took the decision to hand the .22 air rifle, and the shotgun, back to the family?

How come the family make no mention of the fact, that the police handed the shotgun and the air rifle back to them?

These are obviously matters which will have to be investigated in some detail, because the implications for this evidence to have been concealed from Bamber, his legal team and the court which tried Bamber for these murders, is too significant to ignore...

[miketesko]

It was part of the prosecution case that the silencer was fitted to the end of the .22 semi-automatic rifles barrel, in the kitchen, at the time Ralph Bamber struggled with his killer, and that the silencer had come into contact with the aga, and paint had become transferred into the end of the silencer - and that his killer had later removed the silencer from the end of the gun after he had shot and killed Sheila in the bedroom...

DI Cook (SOC) had taken a paint sample, RWC/1 from the aga, on 14 August 1985, which was scientifically matched to the paint found ingrained in the end of the silencer...

Obviously, the earlier paint sample, RC/1, and the paint found ingrained into the end of either the .22 air rifle, or the shotgun, which the police had taken an interest in, on 8 August 1985, would have had a significant bearing upon the prosecutions argument that the silencer made the marks on the aga during the alleged or purported struggle between Ralph and his killer...

It would appear that there was a deliberate attempt to conceal the earlier evidence of the .22 air rifle and the paint sample, RC/1, and the fact that the police were showing an interest in fingerprints found upon the .22 air rifle on and by 8 August 1985...

My query is this...

Why hide and conceal this evidence, if it was not relevant to the matter in hand?

Why did DI Cook (SOC) lie about taking the paint sample, RC/1, on 8 August 1985?

Why would DS Davidson (SOC) say that DI Cook had taken that paint sample, RC/1, on 8 August 1985, if he had not done?

Linked to this matter, is the fact that DI Cook (SOC) appears to have squeezed an entry into his pocketbook, on 14 August 1985, to the effect that he took a paint sample from the aga, on that date, marked RWC/1...

Anyone who sees the relevant pocketbook entry (DI Cook) will be left in no doubt at all, that the reference to the taking of the paint sample, RWC/1, at the scene, on 14 August 1985, has been inserted later, rather than recorded at the material time...