Superglue problems when Silencer examined on 23rd August 1985

[clifford]

Sorry.

[mike tesko]

Hey! I answered Mike's question and now the subject is being changed. 

-------------------

I will come back to dealing with the question I posed to you, and the answer you have given...

[Kaldin]

I thought that both shots were quite close.

---------------------------

EP originally tried to suggest that both shots were inflicted close together, but the pathologist (Peter Venezis) speaks about there being a delay where the victim  could have moved / walked around a bit...

Are you suggesting that both these explanations are consistent, one with the other - or different, please explain what you point of view is with regard to these matters?

He doesn't say there was a delay in this report. In fact, he says the opposite.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=156.0;attach=168;image

[mike tesko]

I thought that both shots were quite close.

---------------------------

EP originally tried to suggest that both shots were inflicted close together, but the pathologist (Peter Venezis) speaks about there being a delay where the victim  could have moved / walked around a bit...

Are you suggesting that both these explanations are consistent, one with the other - or different, please explain what you point of view is with regard to these matters?

He doesn't say there was a delay in this report. In fact, he says the opposite.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=156.0;attach=168;image

-----------------------

How many reports / statements do you think the pathologist made?

I have a report where he admits that the victim could have walked around a bit before the second shot was inflicted...

Do you think I make these things up deliberately?

[Kaldin]

I thought that both shots were quite close.

---------------------------

EP originally tried to suggest that both shots were inflicted close together, but the pathologist (Peter Venezis) speaks about there being a delay where the victim  could have moved / walked around a bit...

Are you suggesting that both these explanations are consistent, one with the other - or different, please explain what you point of view is with regard to these matters?

He doesn't say there was a delay in this report. In fact, he says the opposite.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=156.0;attach=168;image

-----------------------

How many reports / statements do you think the pathologist made?

I have a report where he admits that the victim could have walked around a bit before the second shot was inflicted...

Do you think I make these things up deliberately?

Why don't you post that report?

The one I posted is from May 1986.

[mike tesko]

So, I think we are in agreement that although one of the silencers (DB/1) Lab' item number 23 - was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, inside which was allegedly found the crucial flake of blood (trapped between baffle plates one and two), EP still had another silencer in their possession, that they kept until either 20th or 26th September 1985, that EP sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?

Where did this additional silencer come from?

Please give me an explanation...

[mike tesko]

I thought that both shots were quite close.

---------------------------

EP originally tried to suggest that both shots were inflicted close together, but the pathologist (Peter Venezis) speaks about there being a delay where the victim  could have moved / walked around a bit...

Are you suggesting that both these explanations are consistent, one with the other - or different, please explain what you point of view is with regard to these matters?

He doesn't say there was a delay in this report. In fact, he says the opposite.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=156.0;attach=168;image

-----------------------

How many reports / statements do you think the pathologist made?

I have a report where he admits that the victim could have walked around a bit before the second shot was inflicted...

Do you think I make these things up deliberately?

Why don't you post that report?

The one I posted is from May 1986.

-----------------

I will post it...

[mike tesko]

The silencer (DB/1 - Lab' item number 23) and the silencer which EP had in their possession until either 20th / 26th September 1985, could not have been / was not the same silencer...

What do you have to say?

[Kaldin]

So, I think we are in agreement that although one of the silencers (DB/1) Lab' item number 23 - was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985, inside which was allegedly found the crucial flake of blood (trapped between baffle plates one and two), EP still had another silencer in their possession, that they kept until either 20th or 26th September 1985, that EP sent to the Lab' to be checked for fibers, blood and to be fingerprinted?

Where did this additional silencer come from?

Please give me an explanation...

No, I didn't say that. I said that a silencer was sent to the lab on either 20th or 26th September. I didn't say it was a different silencer to the one(s) sent to the lab on prevous occasions. I said it might have been resubmitted in September.

[ngb1066]

Mike, I admire you dedication to JBs cause, but I feel you were done wrong by the police, and need to get revenge.
Are you clutching at straws, with all this about silencers. The patholgist said that after the first shot[non fatal] to SC it would have rendered her unable to move about. If this was the case it does not matter if the silencer was in place or not.

It matters a great deal whether the silencer was attached to the rifle during the shootings at WHF.  The evidence at trial was that the rifle found on Sheila's body did not have a silencer attached.  The prosecution claimed that the forsensic examination of the silencer found later by a relative and handed to police proved that the silencer had been attached to the rifle.  Since Sheila obviously could not have killed herself and then removed the silencer they argued that she could not have committed suicide and that Jeremy therefore had to be responsible.  If the evidence relating to the silencer can be undermined Jeremy's conviction would be unsafe and his appeal would succeed.  Mike Tesko is therefore right to focus on the silencer evidence and even though it is at times hard to follow it is important for anyone with an interest in this case to gain a proper understanding of the evidence relating to the silencer.

 

[Kaldin]

I will post it...

Thank you.

Don't get me wrong - an amateur sleuth should never take an expert's word for anything, and I'm also going on what I see in the photos of Sheila. However, it's good to have all the information to hand.

[clifford]

I do not think you made anything up, but I think you have a grudge against the police.
Let me be clear to you I have no love for the police, as I have been accused of things that were later disregarded. The EP are really wanting, and I think they made a real hash of things, and tried to cover their ars*s.

[mike tesko]

I do not think you made anything up, but I think you have a grudge against the police.
Let me be clear to you I have no love for the police, as I have been accused of things that were later disregarded. The EP are really wanting, and I think they made a real hash of things, and tried to cover their ars*s.

-------------

A grudge against which police?

Relatives of mine are police officers, and I have friends who are police officers, so what is your point, as far as this investigation (the bamber case) is concerned?

[clifford]

They are all the same

[mike tesko]

They are all the same

--------------------

Well, I would choose to take issue with that - even in my own case there were many police officers who chose to tell the truth, and who did not falsify any part of the evidence...

So, why would I be taking on EP, and the CPS / DPP in the Bamber case?