DS Stan Jones' submissions to the Bamber Inquiry

[Erik Narramore]

Mike,

Are you sure those notes are from DS Jones' interview with COLP?  I will of course defer to your greater knowledge of the documentation, but I always thought they were from his interview by the Dickinson Inquiry in 1986.

The reason I mention this is that, as you will know but others here may not, Stan Jones did give a statement to COLP in 1991.  That was a statement dated 29th. August 1991.

Note also that there is missing from your attachments a follow-on page in the [1986?] notes of interview that is very significant and puts the matter in its proper context, because it records the meeting later that same evening at 9 p.m at the White House when DS Jones hands over the keys to the relatives.

DS Jones' statement to COLP in 1991 directly contradicts what he told the Dickinson Inquiry in 1986.

What he told the Dickinson Inquiry in 1986:
Myself and DCI Jones met with Jeremy on the 9th. August 1985 at 7.30 p.m.  Mugford, Eaton (Ann) and Christopher Nevill also present.  Discussion with Jeremy included mention of the silencer.  I think I had discussed the silencer previously [not specific about with whom].  Drawn no significance from it.  At 9 p.m., I handed over the keys to the relatives.

What he told COLP (the Bamber Inquiry) in 1991:
No silencer found on the morning of the 7th. that I know of.  It wasn't discussed or even thought of as everybody assumed it was murder-suicide.

Note that there is no mention in the 1991 statement of whether the silencer was discussed in meetings with Anthony Pargeter and Ann Eaton on the 8th. or with Jeremy on the 9th., though he mentions both these meetings in his 1991 statement.  I believe that we can take it as implied by DS Jones that the silencer wasn't discussed, since otherwise he would have mentioned it in his 1991 statement as that is what he was being questioned about. This of course contradicts what he said in 1986.

My view:

(i). I have no doubt that DS Jones' 1986 version of events is more likely to be the correct version. When questioned by the Dickinson Inquiry, DS Jones' memory was fresher and he is referring specifically to 'the silencer' (definite article), which can only mean the certificated Parker-Hale silencer.  However, it is not clear whether DS Jones means to imply that a silencer had already been found, or only that a silencer was noticed to be missing.  Either of those things would be of immense significance, but it is not clear which he and DCI Jones meant.

(ii). The 1986 document refers to discussions about the silencer prior to the 9th. involving DS Jones, but it is not clear whether this was with Jeremy or DCI Jones or someone else.

(iii). The 1991 statement directly contradicts the 1986 interview.  There can be only one explanation for this.  In 1991, DS Jones was being interviewed specifically about the silencer.  He has clearly for some reason decided to change his account and omit reference to any discussions or suspicions about it.

Quote from: David1819 on March 22, 2022, 04:07:PM
Anthony Pargheter brought up the silencer on the first day. The police then asked Jeremy about it in his witness statement. Ann Eaton overheard this and was then able to later contradict JBs statement by making it seem the silencer was on the gun.

DS Jones was present at a meeting on 8th. August between DCI Jones, Ann Eaton, David Boutflour and Anthony Pargeter.  I'm therefore wondering if Stan Jones' reference in his 1986 interview to "previous discussions" about the silencer is to that meeting the day before.

However, while I consider Stan Jones' 1991 statement to be unreliable (for the reasons given above), at the same time I note that in that statement he mentions both meetings on the 8th. and 9th. and I cannot think of a reason why he would not mention that the silencer was discussed on the 8th.

NOTE:

I've just realised, there's another way of putting the opening idea in the next part of this post (below).

I said that I don't believe Essex Police found a silencer that morning, by which I mean they didn't find a silencer that was covered up.

What I meant to say is:

They DID find a silencer, but at the time they saw no significance to it.

Thus, the cover-up in this respect, and the reason for Stan Jones misleading COLP, was that the original finding of the silencer on the 7th. implied that the family must have contaminated it after they found it mere few days later.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I personally think the discrepancy between Stan Jones' 1986 and 1991 statements could be of significance.  Stan Jones clearly misled the Bamber Inquiry.  The question is whether this was due to mistake or on purpose.

I don't believe Essex Police did find a silencer on the 7th. August 1985.  I think what actually could have happened is as follows (some of this is purely speculation as to the actions of individuals):

(i). Firearms officers at the scene may well have noticed the absence of a silencer with the rifle and commented on it.

(ii). There was a search of the gun cupboard that morning and later.  It seems likely to me that the silencer was found at this point but disregarded as it didn't seem of significance - hence the great defensiveness of some Essex police officers later on over the issue.

(iii). Independently of (i) and (ii), Anthony Pargeter was suspicious of Jeremy from the start and queried about the silencer and rifle scope.  He was a more regular gun user than some of the other family, so certain points will have 'clicked' in his head quite quickly.

(iv). The reality for Essex Police now is that part of Nevill Bamber's certificated arsenal is missing.  Normally this would warrant a police inquiry in its own right.  When there's a homicide case involving the rifle that went with the silencer, this should have given officers pause for thought.

(v). As a result of these 'rumblings', DCI Jones and DS Jones mentioned the silencer to Jeremy, but neither saw it as of particular significance.  Nothing further happened.  Despite DS Jones' voiced misgivings, the murder-suicide narrative was maintained.

Note: Nature of questions depends on if they know whether silencer found.  If know, then asking Jeremy why silencer was off rifle.  If don't know, asking where is silencer.  (If they know about it, wouldn't they seize it?).

(vi). The relatives then found the silencer on their search of the White House.  I doubt David Boutflour recognised the significance of it, and this explains why he tampered with it.  Peter Eaton, a gun dealer, understood its significance straight-away, perhaps having discussed it with Anthony Pargeter previously.

(vii). At this point, I believe there is a real possibility - I won't put it stronger than that on an open forum - that there was contamination of the silencer during its chain-of-custody.

(viii). The finding of blood in the silencer was of major embarrassment to Essex Police, as the artefact had been recovered from the crime scene in a location that the police did search on the 7th. August.  Not only that, if it transpired that officers had indeed found the silencer on the 7th. and seen no significance to it, that would bolster the argument for contamination.

(ix). We now fast forward to the Dickinson Inquiry and the interview of DS Jones, which probably took place in November 1986.  Stan Jones is asked about the silencer.  It needs to be understood that the Dickinson Inquiry was into the police failure to identify Jeremy Bamber as a suspect in August.  It wasn't an inquiry into complaints from Jeremy Bamber, so Stan Jones will have seen no reason other than to give the answers he did about the silencer.

(x). Now we move forward five years to the Bamber Inquiry in 1991.  This is specifically a complaint from Jeremy Bamber and we can see clearly that Stan Jones is being asked by COLP officers to account for the silencer.  Nothing else is on the agenda for discussion.  Stan Jones fundamentally contradicts his statements to the Dickinson Inquiry.

Why did he mislead them?

Three possible explanations:

1. Mistake - perhaps due to the difficulty of memory, coupled with not having access to his notes.  (He may have been retired by this stage).

2. He misled them on purpose about a missing silencer.

3. He misled them on purpose about a hidden exhibit.

I believe option 2 is the most likely.  In a nutshell, the reason Stan Jones did not want to reveal there had been discussion about a missing silencer is because it would imply by a process of extension that the silencer had been intentionally contaminated.  This is logical because otherwise you would have to wonder how police officers could (a). miss the silencer on a search of the gun cupboard; and (b). on finding the silencer, not notice blood on it.

I am not suggesting Stan Jones himself could have been involved in contaminating the silencer, but he may have suspected the family of having planted the evidence and wanted to put the COLP officers off that line of inquiry.

[Erik Narramore]

[This question was addressed to the late Mike Teskowitz: Just to be clear, are you saying here that when Stan Jones was interviewed by COLP in 1991, they showed him the handwritten notes of his interview in 1986 by Dickinson Inquiry officers?  If so, then the contradictory statements look still more odd].

As an aside, in 2002 the CPS told Jeremy's solicitors of the time, Glaisyers, that this same Stanley Brian Jones had never been interviewed in connection with the case.  That was clearly a mistake or lie.  I wonder if there was a motive to cover up his evidence to the Dickinson Inquiry?  Anthony Pargeter's statement does indicate that Jeremy was asked about the silencer, but that could have been routine questioning by the officer to hand as a result of prompting from Mr Pargeter rather than a focus of the investigation at that stage.  It seems to me that nobody grasped the significance of the silencer until much later.

You seem to be saying a silencer was seized on the morning of the 7th., whereas I suspect it was merely that a silencer was found in the gun cupboard and disregarded as not being of significance.  DCI Jones and DS Jones then asked Jeremy about 'the' silencer (definite article) either because, like the firearms officers, they had not been told about the earlier find and assumed it was missing, or because they had been told of the earlier find and, on prompting from Mr Pargeter, were just asking a routine question about why the silencer and scope were off the gun.

Either way, if a silencer was found and left in the gun cupboard, the fact is significant because it implies contamination, otherwise the police have to explain why it wasn't seized, which they can't - hence Stan Jones' statement in 1991 in which he contradicts what he said to the Dickinson Inquiry in 1986!