The Blue Socks Mystery: A Look At Bubo Bubo's Theory

[Erik Narramore]

The Blue Forum member, 'Bubo bubo', seems to think that David Bird gave two statements on the 12th. September 1985.

I assume DB is a reference to David Bird?  I am slightly confused by what Bubo bubo days as there is only one statement of that date on record from David Bird.  Is he/she assuming from the surrounding facts that David Bird must have made another statement?

As an aside, the date that David Bird claims he found DB/6 (12/09/85) is also the date of David Boutflour's first statement to the police, in which he reports the family's search of the farmhouse.  That may or may not be of any significance.

[Erik Narramore]

I am not sure I agree with Bubo Bubo's conclusions (yet), but I think Bubo Bubo is right to be suspicious, for reasons that will become clear to anybody with the patience to read this.  Anyway, even if Bubo Bubo is wrong about all this, at least his posts and ideas are interesting.  It makes a change.

I will start by summarising the facts and Bubo's theory about the blue socks, then I will put some questions to him (mostly, these are for clarification purposes).

No doubt in the summary that follows, I will make some mistakes.  Bubo, I hope, will join the thread and add points, and I can then correct the summary.

A summary of the facts, and an attempted summary of Bubo's theory:

(i). DC David Bird ('DC Bird') was part of the Scenes of Crime ('SOC') team with Essex Police.  His specialism was crime scene photography and chemical fingerprinting, but as a Scenes of Crime officer ('SOCO') he also carried out general crime scene duties, such as collecting exhibits.

(ii). DC Bird provides seven pieces of evidence for us relevant to the Bamber killings:

- the crime scene photographs;
- his own witness statements dated 24/10/1985, 28/05/1986 and 03/10/1986;
- court testimony at the trial itself;
- transcript of COLP interview as part of Operation Bamber, which is dated 8th. October 1991;
- statement to Operation Stokenchurch, dated 19th. December 2001, in advance of the 2002 appeal.

(iii). There may be missing evidence from DC Bird.  As well as the controversy over the photographs, the facts imply that there may be an additional document (I'll call this the 'Concealed Document') of on or around the same date as the first witness statement (24/10/1985), and there may have been a previous COLP interview, as implied by sheet 973 of the transcript of that interview.

(iv). DC Bird confirms in his COLP interview that he helped bag the bodies up and collected exhibits from the Bamber crime scene (sheet 971 of the transcript - "Just the odd exhibits...")).  He also admits that he had exhibit sheets of his own to use.

(v). As well as his photography duties, DC Bird collected the following exhibits from the Bamber crime scene [note that, as later explained here, DC Bird seems confused about these exhibit numbers and what exhibits he collected at all]:

DB/1: Soil sample from track running from White House Farm to Hyde Farm

DB/2: Debris from fire waste pit

DB/3: Black gauntlets from the workshop

DB/4: Yellow gloves

DB/5: Single glove from farm workshop

DB/6: Blue socks

DB/7: Box of 9 tampons.

(vi). The order in which the exhibits were found is not necessarily reflected in the numerical order above.

(vii). When we say he 'collected the exhibits', or words to that effect, what we mean is that DC Bird bagged up the exhibit and handed it to the SOC exhibits officer.  CID would only go in after SOCOs had cleared the scene.

(viii).  All these exhibits and any other remarks about the crime scene and suspicions about the crime itself at that stage will have been written up on form CID6, which is completed by a SOCO.  According to sheet 975 of the COLP interview transcript, the CID6 for the Bamber crime scene was multiple pages long and includes an exhibit list that was given its own reference number: PY/1.

(ix). The CID6 contains reference numbers that indicate the order in which exhibits were submitted to the forensic laboratory.  These are taken from the HOLAB form, which is the form submitted to the laboratory with an exhibit.  DC Bird confirms at sheet 980 of the transcript that the HOLAB numbers may have been added to the CID6 by DC Hammersley.

(x). DC Bird admits at sheet 981 that he collected the blue socks and added these personally to exhibits annex PY/1D of the CID6 without a specific exhibit number, and either DC Bird or someone else gave it HOLAB number 6.12.

(xi). The COLP officers at sheet 981 point out to DC Bird that the exhibits annex PY/1D appears to come sequentially after another exhibits annex that bears more 'DB' exhibits, including a soil sample (no exhibit number), yellow gloves (DB/4) and gauntlets (DC Bird is not sure what the correct exhibit number for these should be), and a single glove (DB/5).

(xii). At sheet 983, DC Bird claims he collected the soil sample on 10/09/1985, and the gloves and the gauntlets on 11/09/1985, along with some fire debris.  He also thinks he collected the socks on 11/09/1985.

(xiii). At sheets 984/985, DC Bird admits he recorded the soil sample twice in his pocketbook, but maintains he collected only one soil sample - most likely on 10th. September 1985.  He then confirms at sheet 986 that the soil sample, DB/1, collected on 10/09/1985, was the very first exhibit he collected at the scene and no exhibits were collected by him on 7th., 8th. or 9th. August when he previously attended the scene.

Questions for Bubo Bubo:

1. Were the exhibit sheets in the possession of DC Bird blank?
2. Can you provide an example of what such an exhibit sheet would look like?
3. Is there a link to a copy of DC Bird's pocketbook?
4. In DC Bird's pocketbook, are the two entries for exhibit DB/1 on the same page or in different parts of the book?
5. Do you think DB/6 is referred to in the Concealed Document as well?
6. Do you place any significance in the fact that the date of David Boutflour's first statement of 12/09/1985 is given on the same date as DC Bird attended at the farmhouse and (so he claims) collected exhibit DB/6?
7. Who is the SOC exhibits officer that DC Bird refers to at sheets 971 and 972 of the transcript?
8. Do you have any comment on the activities of DC Hammersley that day?  Is there a link or relationship between the work of the two SOCOs?  Was DC Hammersley the SOC exhibits officer?  When was he on-scene?  There was another SOC officer who is supposed to have signed in as on-scene but is believed not to have been there.
9. Do we have a copy of the CID6 and PY/1 exhibits list for the Bamber crime scene?
10. Do we have a copy of the HOLAB forms?
11. I don't see where or how sheets 1014-1016 indicate a different statement or other document (Concealed Document) on 24/01/1985 in addition to the one we have.  Can you explain?
12. What is the relationship between the PY/1 (which included PY/1D - the socks) and the PY/6 mentioned at 1014/1015.  On the face of it, the exhibits annexes seem out-of-sequence, but do we have a copy of these?
13. Is there any HOLAB record and laboratory report for the soil sample and fire debris?  If so do you have a copy of these?

Some observations

I believe Bubo Bubo is right to be suspicious.  The clincher for me is that it appears from the various documents we have that the exhibit annexes are out-of-sequence.  Admittedly, these are second-hand reports, albeit from the officers on the scene, but something does look awry.  DC Bird is effectively engaged in self-contradiction and the COLP officers mysteriously fail to pick up on it.  Instead, Superintendent McKay describes his contribution as "smashing".

Apart from the blue socks, nowhere that I can see in all DC Bird's statements does he mention about collecting exhibits or the soil sample.  The fact is first mentioned in the 1991 COLP interview.  In his statement dated 24/10/1985, DC Bird states that he collected the blue socks (DB/6) on 12th. September 1985, whereas in the transcript at 983 he claims he collected the socks the day before, on the 11th.  Coincidentally (or not coincidentally), the first statement of David Boutflour is dated 12th. September 1985.  In that same statement of 24/10/1985, DC Bird says he handed the socks to DS Davidson, but in his COLP interview he cannot remember who the SOC exhibits officer was.

Now we move to the exhibit annexes (i.e. the 'PY' series lists that are appended to the CID6).  In the COLP interview, it states that the socks are recorded in exhibit annex PY/1D (which is attached to the CID6).  Other exhibits are listed in PY/6.  You will, I hope, immediately see the problem.  DC Bird says he never completed any of this paperwork, it was done by others.  PY/6 is completed in pencil (possibly by DI Cook).  It would be interesting to check if PY/6 includes the socks as well.  Unfortunately, the COLP officers do not go to the trouble of reading out the list for the benefit of the record.

Initial comment

Bubo Bubo has given his own speculation on the significance of all this.  I am going to be blunter: the clear implication of Bubo Bubo's allegations, if true, is that the soil sample (and maybe the fire debris as well) never existed, or were made-up needlessly, because officers of Essex Police needed to swop round exhibits for some reason.  So they invented a phantom exhibit or two, or created genuine but useless exhibits.  Soil sample and fire debris look like good candidates.  It is perfectly obvious they would not do this unless to conceal a mistake or some sort of wrongdoing.  It may be a mistake that was quite mundane, or it may something highly significant and catastrophic to the prosecution case, or it may be that there has been some other very serious wrong-doing.  The silencer springs to mind.

Another chilly thought I have is that, in the belief Jeremy was guilty, the crime scene was effectively reconstructed by a SOC team and evidence that was thought to exist on the morning of 7th. August 1985 was re-created for early September.  I am not saying any of that is what happened.  I have not yet formed my own view on it.

I think the crucial part of the COLP interview is at sheet 986 when Superintendent McKay puts him on the spot.  DC Bird maintains that prior to the soil sample (DB/1), all he had done was photograph the crime scene and assist with bagging up the bodies.  Is this likely?  Bubu Bubu seems to be saying that DC Bird must have at least collected the blue socks earlier, and there is a discrepancy in the sequence of the forms that the COLP officers picked up on and is discussed at sheets 971/972.  Given that sections of the CID6 exhibit annex was undated, it may be that information was changed to suit a particular narrative.

Let's say there is a discrepancy in how DC Bird recorded exhibits, however DC Bird avers at sheet 986 that he did not complete the exhibits annex or the CID6 or HOLAB. It is speculated at sheet 981 that DC Hammersley did.  It is possible that the confusion is down to the HOLAB numbers, which remember are not necessarily sequential to the exhibit numbers on the PY/1.  This is one possible innocent explanation, much like the explanation given for the change of the exhibit reference from DB/1 to DRB/1.  All sounds so innocent and bureaucratic.  It may explain it, but I will reserve judgement until I have more information and can see more documents.

[Erik Narramore]

The involvement of DC Hammersley in all this interesting.  Mike did some research on him and may be able to help.  I can't remember if it was DC Hammersley or another officer, but one of them was supposed to have been there but was not signed-in with the uniformed officer responsible for the crime scene register.  Was there a 'phantom SOC officer', i.e. an officer 'off-the-books' for that crime scene, who then messed around with the evidence?

I don't think this was DC Hammersley, but I recall he was interviewed by COLP and became distressed when asked about the silencer.

[Erik Narramore]

From a different thread, Bubo Bubo's explanation for police interfering with the exhibits (if that did happen):

WHY TWO STATEMENTS

Let me explain what I think happened. At the start and before trial the defence would have looked at the crime scene photos. The blood stained socks feature prominently in several photos taken in the main bedroom.

The defence would need to know who found them and what other forensic activity had been undertaken. They would need to see a witness statement by the finder/collector. The police could not show the other finds in the DB1 – DB7 range so they redacted all but the blue socks.

The other exhibits especially the SM (DB1) would open a very large can of worms and the fire debris (DB2) would have ignited a bonfire of huge proportions.

Five years later following JB's accusations the COLP were tasked in examining his claims. They would look into all DB's finds and the other paperwork like CID6's and Holab documentation.

So they created another statement which cross checked with the other paper work as above but now all the finds were found externally in outbuildings and the fire pit. In order to get round the SM it was swapped for a soil sample.

The COLP could also check with the FSS to see if they matched. DB2 – DB6 were sent to the lab (20/09/85). Please see JH's hand written notes on red.

The first statement which is also now demonstrably false was used at trial. The second full copy was given to the COLP along with other documents requested by the investigators.

CC has also shown that it was impossible to find a pair of blue socks, with or without blood stains in the main bedroom on the date stated.

If the socks DB6 had no blood evidence why were they sent to the lab.

Bubo Bubo asks: If the socks had no blood evidence, why were they sent to the lab?

Another question we could ask: Why was the collection of the socks left until September?  How were the socks not bagged and sent off to the lab with the rest of the evidence, or otherwise destroyed and burnt?

That's me done on this for now.