Was The Silencer Planted Evidence?

[Erik Narramore]

How would members of the family know about ballistic drawback?

This is one of the central problems of the theory that the silencer was planted by the family.  It has been discussed before, and when I can, I may pull out my own posts on the issue.  Here I will summarise a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp can make to this, and another central problem.

I am non-committal on the matter.  I think there is evidence that the blood distribution within the silencer is consistent with the blood having been planted, but that does not mean the evidence was planted.  Furthermore, I think if this evidence was planted, it should still be possible to prove it at some level, but at the moment, I regard the position as uncertain.

I am not sure that I would accept the idea of Anne Eaton as a conspirator.  If there was a conspiracy, I would assume it would involve Robert Boutflour, Jnr. and David Boutflour only - father and son, sworn to secrecy.  But I am not saying they did this, or anything.  I don't know!  I don't want myself or this Forum to be sued for libel.

The argument from guilters is that the family could not have planted the silencer because:

(i). they were not cognisant of the drawback phenomenon; and,
(ii). they would not have appreciated the evidential significance of the silencer itself;
(iii). they did not have access to Sheila's blood.

Let me add another strong pro-guilt point that I thought of when I was going over this in my head:

(iv). How does the family know what the police have or have not checked, seen and observed when looking in the gun cupboard and examining the various firearms and paraphernalia?  For all the family know, police officers may well have already examined the silencer in situ and decided it should bear no significance to the investigation.  The police may also have indexed and recorded their findings.

Even if you are pro-innocent and want to dismiss these points, let's agree on something: if the silencer was planted, whoever was responsible was taking a calculated risk.  But as David observes, criminals do take risks.

Now, here is a possible response that the pro-Jeremy camp could make to all this:

In regard to (i), the family were not experts in forensic ballistics, but they didn't need to be.  They were gun users and would have enough knowledge and intuitive understanding to appreciate the significance of the silencer.  They would also intuitively understand that any sort of blood found in the silencer - especially human blood of any type - would throw the investigation a wobbly and potentially cast suspicion on Jeremy.  Remember that the aim may have been not to incriminate Jeremy at all, but merely to cause issues and trouble for him, cast general doubt over his innocence (if not legal doubt, then at least a shade of factual doubt), and damage his credibility during a period when he was vulnerable.  That kind of evidence may also be useful in civil proceedings against Jeremy over the Bamber-Speakman estates, in the event that Jeremy is not charged, or he is acquitted following a criminal trial.   

Turning to (ii), there are two threads to the objection.  First, how did they know that the rifle could not have been used by Sheila to kill herself with the silencer attached to it?  Second, how did they know to put Sheila's blood in the silencer instead of, say, Nevill's or June's?  The reply to the first point is that they did not even need to think about it.  Their issue was that the silencer was missing and they then found it.  It was Stan Jones who came up with the idea that the rifle with a silencer attached was too long for Sheila.  The reply to the second point is that they didn't need to be concerned with whose blood it was, because:

- any sort of blood found in the silencer would cast suspicion on Jeremy;
- human blood of any type found in the silencer would probably lead to Jeremy being charged, but not necessarily convicted;
- human blood of the right type found in the silencer could be enough for a jury to convict him, but it depends on the other evidence, as it's mainly a circumstantial case.

Turning to (iii), the problem with this objection is that it assumes the identification of the blood matters.  You forget that, given science and technology of the time, the forensic case against Jeremy was probabilistic because the trial could not pinpoint that it was Sheila's blood.  Instead, what the prosecution were saying to the jury is:

(a). the blood is human blood;
(b). the human blood is of a type that is the same as Sheila's;
(c). the rifle was legally Nevill's, but in fact it was Jeremy's gun (there is no suggestion Jeremy was using the gun illegally during the normal course of things, as he could assert a statutory dispensation);
(d). Jeremy admits that he was the last person to handle the gun prior to the incident;
(e). Jeremy admits that he was aware of the incident involving Sheila via a phone call from Nevill, the veracity for which the court is entirely reliant on Jeremy himself;
(f). given facts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), the legal onus shifts to Jeremy to explain why there is blood in the silencer, and you, as the jury, must consider any explanation he offer, or no explanation, against all the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the evidence of Julie Mugford;
(g). Jeremy's explanation is that Sheila is the killer and she must have replaced the silencer in the gun cupboard before shooting herself;
(h). in all the circumstances, and weighing up the probabilities, Jeremy's explanation seems improbable;
(i). the criminal burden of proof is that you must be sure, but the improbability of Jeremy's explanation is such that his innocence is at the very margins of plausibility, hence the Crown submits that the jury can be sure of Jeremy's guilt.

You may agree with all this, but the key point is that the prosecution could not be sure it was Sheila's blood on the basis of a specific test for that purpose.  It is possible that in fact it was someone else's blood, of the same type or even a different type.  I think it follows that the family must have been aware of two things:

- blood could not be identified, it could only be typed;
- even human blood of an entirely different type would circumstantially throw doubt on Jeremy's innocent act.

There are two possibilities:

Possibility A: the conspirators may have just put any old blood in the silencer, on the basis that any human blood causes problems for Jeremy but could not be identified as blood of the family.  The coincidence of blood types benefited the prosecution case without casting suspicion on the family, but this was not planned.

Possibility B: the conspirators knew Sheila's blood type from family information and knew Ribetr Boutflour Jnr.'s blood type and also knew from general knowledge that blood could not be identified, it could only be typed, so they planted the 'right' blood in the silencer, anticipating that Jeremy could then be charged with the murders.

One further point to consider is that the family were blood tested by the police prior to the trial.  Nobody seems to have suggested that because Robert Boutflour, Jnr.'s blood type matched Sheila's, and therefore matched the weapon, that this means there was an attempt to frame Jeremy.

As for (iv), the family may have been told by the police in casual conversation that nothing had been found.  Or they may have just taken the chance, in the belief that if caught out, they could allege that the police had missed that particular silencer.  The family had firearms silencers of their own that resembled that one and could easily have added one of these to make it look like there were multiple silencers.  Indeed, this may well be what actually happened, given that we know the FSS examined at least two different silencers.

Please understand that I am not saying any of this is the case.  I only offer you possible replies to the objections raised.

I have my own private suspicions about it all, but it is for you to decide what you think.

[Erik Narramore]

The defence don't strictly need a document that explicitly states that the blood could have belonged to Robert Boutflour.  That was already known at trial, as the family all gave blood samples prior to the trial for this very reason, it was known that Robert and Sheila had the same blood group, and the blood was never matched to Sheila - it was only a grouping.  Furthermore, the DNA captured later (1990s) was not blood-based.

Given the circumstances in which the silencer was found and passed on, you would think all this is enough for reasonable doubt, but it appears 10 of the trial jury accepted a group match on the basis that:

(i). Robert Boutflour was the only other person with that group match; and,

(ii). while it could have been Robert's blood, they could not believe Robert (or any other relative) would frame Jeremy, which I suppose is the only obvious alternative if you don't accept that Jeremy did it.

I think a family framing is possible because the silencer evidence in regard to the blood and paint seems  consistent with it.

Briefly:

1. The blood distribution in the silencer and the absence of blood in the rifle may be consistent with what you would expect if the blood was planted.  (Expert opinion needed on this regarding blood spatter physics/forensics, with particular reference to tension dynamics).

2. No blood was found on the floor of the den, or in the back kitchen, or in the back corridor, or in the gun cupboard itself.

3. The silencer that was examined by the FSS for paint traces could not have made the scratches on the underside of the aga mantel while attached to the rifle and pivoted during a struggle.  The scratches are more consistent with what you would find if somebody deliberately made the scratches while holding the silencer only.

I believe point 1 could, with expert evidence, prove a framing.  You would need an expert report and maybe also somebody to dismantle the silencer and rifle, if they are still kept by Essex Police.  Point 2 is indicative but not actual proof because the silencer could have been returned by Jeremy without leaving blood anywhere.  It's not very likely, but it is possible due to the latitude in the timeframe that allows for blood to dry at room temperature over maybe an hour or so.

Point 3 is not definitive of a framing because the scratches could have been made by Sheila before the incident or even by Jeremy himself during the incident, but it does help Jeremy.

But would they really frame him?  I think technically it is possible, but would they do it?

If Jeremy is innocent, I think it's more likely that the blood grouping was either simply wrong and/or the tests were compromised or contaminated and/or the jury were misdirected.

I need to adhere to my own resolution and stop commenting on the Forum.

[Erik Narramore]

In order to develop a conspiracy, the relatives would not have needed to know about the length of the rifle with the silencer and the problem this caused the killer.

I see the argument as a contradiction.  If it's true that this needed to be known for somebody to introduce the silencer into evidence, then why did the silencer come into play at all, whether genuinely or otherwise?

In reality, they would not have needed to know the things you mention or even had an appreciation of the silencer's relevance.  What happened is that they found the silencer in the gun cupboard, and they say it was 'sticky' and had blood on it, and they realised it belonged to the rifle.

If they did plant the silencer, that would mean all they needed to figure out was that the detection of any blood at all in the silencer could potentially be incriminating, regardless of whose blood it was.

[Erik Narramore]

How much did Ann Eaton know about guns?  Did she ever use a rifle?  Could she take a silencer apart on her own?

We know exactly what contaminating the silencer with blood would involve, because we have the FSS findings.  It would require somebody to take the baffles out, drip blood on the outside of the baffles, let the blood dry, then re-thread the baffles into the silencer.  This would take at least a few minutes.  Where did she do this?

My view is that, if - if - the silencer was contaminated, it was Robert and David, without Ann's knowledge or involvement, it was done at Robert's house, and Robert used his own blood.  I don't believe they could have trusted Ann to keep quiet about it.  It was something they could never discuss again, even between themselves, and would have to take to their graves.

[Erik Narramore]

Peter Eaton was definitely a gun dealer, but I am not aware that Ann Eaton had any real experience with guns.  It would require somebody to know how to dismantle and re-assemble a silencer, and also to appreciate the particular evidential significance of the silencer in the first place.

Peter Eaton could do it.  I think Robert and David could.

It does occur to me that Peter and Ann may have collaborated, but a David/Robert collaboration makes more sense to me, simply because of the recorded blood group.

Although I don't believe it would have mattered whose blood was put in the silencer as long as it was human, I think Sheila's blood group was known to the relatives anyway, and Robert knew he was the same blood group. This was in the days before DNA was mainstream knowledge, and the implications of genetic testing would not have been appreciated by the relatives (or even the police and FSS).

Other facts favouring Robert/David are:

- Robert, in his own frank diurnal confessions, hated Jeremy.
- Robert spearheaded the pressure on the police.
- Robert is the one who reported the silencer to the police.
- Peter and Ann had custody of the silencer and handed it to the police, meaning that David and Robert were at one remove from the exhibit and would have felt less nervous about contaminating it.
- David, on his own evidence, was the first to examine the silencer.
- David states he tampered with the silencer by removing blood from it.
- Peter will have informed David about the significance of the silencer.
- Both Robert and David would know how to dismantle and re-assemble the silencer.
- Both Robert and David would have had an opportunity to contaminate the silencer without arousing the suspicions of Peter and Ann.  They knew what to do and it would have taken minutes.

I don't believe a conspiracy of this kind would have involved more than two people.

[Erik Narramore]

The guilt camp argue that relatives would have needed to know the following things in order to conspire to plant the silencer, but I disagree.  A conspiracy does not require perfect knowledge.

The list:

Sheila's arm length.

The rifle length with silencer.

Different positions Sheila could have shot herself.

What back splatter is.

Who received contact shots.

What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.

Where were the contact shots on everyone.

Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.

How to put diluted period blood into a silencer.

Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.

The chance of this getting a conviction.

The punishment if caught doing this.

Was there a kitchen fight.

How to effectively scratch the aga.

What the kitchen crime scene photos show.

Was a silencer found by Sheila's body or at the crime scene.

What blood group was Sheila.

How can they find Sheila's blood group to put in the silencer.

Were the police already gathering evidence against Bamber.

Agree in unison to do this. Then never retract a word of their WS.

[Erik Narramore]

They wouldn't need to know any of the things listed above, not even the blood group.

As a minimum, they would need to know:

(i). where Sheila was found (not the precise position of the body, just in which room);
(ii). which rifle was used as the murder weapon;
(iii). that there was no silencer attached to the rifle when found at the scene;
(iv). that the silencer they have found goes with the rifle; and,
(v). how to dismantle and reassemble that silencer.

These are all things easily within the knowledge of Ann, David, Robert and Peter.  I think that if - I stress, if - there was a conspiracy, then the conspirators were David and Robert.

I agree that it would be better for this theory if can be shown that they knew Sheila's blood group, and also if it can be shown that they knew at that early stage that some of the shots were contact or near-contact shots. I think they did known both these things anyway, but neither her blood group nor the close range of the shots are minimum knowledge that they needed to contaminate and plant the silencer.  They may have just intuited that blood would be inside the murder weapon from David's discovery of what appeared to be blood on the outer housing of the silencer, or they have even have decided that regardless of whether blood technically could be in the silencer, they would add it in as a means of incriminating Jeremy; and, it could be anybody's blood that they put inside the silencer, as long as it's human.  They would then report the silencer to the police and say that they found it in the gun cupboard and it was used in the killings, thus implicating Jeremy given that Sheila would not have returned the silencer to the gun cupboard before shooting herself.

The whole issue of whether Sheila could reach the trigger with the silencer attached is, in my view, a red herring from the perspective of conspiring relatives.  It may be a valid deduction for the police, but it amounts to reasoning backwards on the question of whether the conspiracy occurred.  What you are forgetting is the order in which the evidence came to light.  The silencer only came into the picture later, which means that in order to incriminate Jeremy, the police then had to find a way to fit the silencer into the evidence, given that the silencer was not at the scene in the first place.

The tests that the police had carried out on the silencer were for blood.  Given the quantity of blood found in the silencer, it just needed to be human blood for suspicion to fall on Jeremy.  It turned out it was human blood, so Jeremy is in the frame.  Unless he is to remain silent, Jeremy, as the only survivor of the immediate family, then has to explain why there is human blood in a silencer paired with the murder weapon and found some distance from the crime scene.  The problem, I believe, for the relatives and the authorities is that, in retrospect, the distribution of blood in the silencer seems consistent with it having been contaminated.

[Erik Narramore]

The room in which Sheila is found:

The room itself doesn't matter, just the fact that it was some way from the gun cupboard.  It maybe looks less convincing if the crime scene has Sheila found in the kitchen or the den, for instance, as you could then interpret that as a deranged and confused Sheila putting the silencer back before killing herself, perhaps after first changing her mind and making to the den to put the weapon back, then changing her mind again.  That seems less likely if she is in the bedroom, especially given that there was no blood evidence in the den - effectively ruling out Rivlin's explanation.  If Rivlin was right and, let's say, Sheila had second thoughts, and then changed her mind again while putting the rifle back, then where is the blood?

[Erik Narramore]

They would also not need to know about the ballistic phenomenon of drawback or how to recreate that effect.

I disagree.  I see the logic in it, but I've already covered the point exhaustively above.  There was no need for them to even know about back-spatter or even the range of the shots.  Your reasoning is perfectly logical, but the basic flaw in it is that you are reasoning backwards from a conclusion.  Remember the order in which the evidence was discovered, then think it through again.

I have no idea what the 'diluted period blood' is about.  Maybe we should skip over that.  My point about the blood is that, again, yes it is better if they know Sheila's blood group (and I think they did), but it wasn't necessary for them to know this to put in place an effective conspiracy given the state of forensic knowledge at that time, which they would have general knowledge of.

The reality is that they could just put any human blood in the silencer and it would incriminate Jeremy.  If the blood group had matched, say, one of the twins, then all the better.  At that point, Jeremy is in serious trouble.

The guilt camp think it was 'lucky' that it matched Sheila.  It was and it wasn't.  On one level, it helped the police retroactively fit the silencer into the crime scene, but a clever defence barrister could have asked why, if a twin (or whatever other victim) were shot at contact range, that victim's blood type is not part of the blood grouped?  If we accept drawback theory, then that makes no technically sense, though it does make sequential sense if you accept that Jeremy shot Sheila last (albeit he need not have).

[Erik Narramore]

It's not the specific room that Sheila is found in that matters in forming a family conspiracy to plant evidence, it's just the general location of the body in the house.  To illustrate: if Sheila had been found in the den, next to the gun cupboard, with the gun cupboard open, then would the police have cared about the silencer being found in the gun cupboard?  I highly doubt it.

The defence theory was weak, and the lack of evidence of blood transference in the den or near the gun cupboard gave it that tint of implausibility, and you can see why the jury couldn't accept it.  If, for instance, blood prints matching Sheila had been found on the floor of the den, you would accept Rivlin's argument, notwithstanding the actual location of Sheila's body.

The relatives will have realised that Sheila was found in the bedroom, which is upstairs not downstairs [thanks Adam], so she was unlikely to have returned the silencer herself.  It's stating the plainly obvious really, so it's not 'calculating'; and remember also that the relatives had inspected the house after the crime and knew and/or could make an educated guess about where blood was found and not found.  Peter and David would know (or would infer or guess) that there was no blood in the den because there was no blood there when they arrived and looked in the gun cupboard, and the carpet was still intact.

[Erik Narramore]

The blood didn't match Sheila.  It was just the same blood group.  It is important to correct that, because even today people who are supposed to be experts in the case still go round saying that the blood was Sheila's when this has never been proved. This is also relevant to the hypothesis we're discussing.  Yes, in the scenario of a conspiracy, it was luck that the blood group matched Sheila's, but Sheila's own blood group was common enough, so the luck is attributable to a highly-probable statistical co-incidence.

Furthermore, as I've explained, any group of human blood would do.  Let's say that the blood was grouped to the twins: then Jeremy is still incriminated.  In fact, his position is arguably even worse because his whole defence rests on the notion that Sheila is shot last.

[Erik Narramore]

The family conspirators also didn't need to 'strike it lucky' in any forensic respect. 

They didn't need to know about the shot ranges.  In the hypothetical scenario of a conspiracy, they are acting on a mixture of reason and intuition, with incomplete knowledge.  They just decide to put human blood in the silencer because they realise that could cause problems for Jeremy.  In any case, they could infer that Sheila was found shot in the head region.  Where else would she have been shot if she killed herself or Jeremy staged such?  In the foot?