Author Topic: Video re photographs non-disclosure  (Read 3957 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10701
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #360 on: August 09, 2018, 10:54:PM »
I think this is one more thread for Maggie to lock.

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1259
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #361 on: August 09, 2018, 11:51:PM »
DC David Robert Hammersley Trial Transcript------is worth a look.
   Reading both Hammersley's and Bird's cross examinations, one of the photos discussed, photo 20, shows the gun cupboard with another cupboard in front of it. Staining on the cupboard is discussed which wasn't examined, we are told, and this picture was taken on 11/9/85. Following timelines it appears that around this date is when the fabrication and making the evidence fit was taking shape.
   I suspect the contents of the Bird photos of the gun cupboard taken on the day would be most revealing.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4768
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #362 on: August 10, 2018, 09:35:AM »
I think this is one more thread for Maggie to lock.

I have removed a number of posts from this thread.  I do ask members to debate the issues, but avoid personal attacks.


Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45981
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #363 on: August 10, 2018, 02:37:PM »
   Reading both Hammersley's and Bird's cross examinations, one of the photos discussed, photo 20, shows the gun cupboard with another cupboard in front of it. Staining on the cupboard is discussed which wasn't examined, we are told, and this picture was taken on 11/9/85. Following timelines it appears that around this date is when the fabrication and making the evidence fit was taking shape.
   I suspect the contents of the Bird photos of the gun cupboard taken on the day would be most revealing.

Yes, and it would also be very interesting to have access to a photograph which was taken in the downstairs bathroom by DS Jones on the first morning of the police investigation - Jones had returned to the scene from Jeremy's cottage at around 11.15am, and thereupon he proceeded to seize or to take a total of 4 exhibits, which were originally earmarked the following exhibit references:-

SBJ/4
SBJ/3
SBJ/2
SBJ/1 (silencer)

According to document I have in my possession, the photograph that Stan Jones took in the downstairs toilet which was the location where Anthony Pargeter always kept his .22 Brno bolt action rifle, his silencer, and his .22 ammunition, the photograph in question was earmarked to be 'destroyed', in rather suspicious circumstances! On occasions when I either had occasion to speak or to write to Jeremy about this particular photograph he was of the firm opinion that that photograph had not been destroyed, he suggesting that he had in fact had sight of it, and that it shows that Anthony Pargeters Brno rifle and silencer (attached to barrel of gun) was captured in the said photograph! If this is true, it begs the question why did Anthony Pargeter alter the contents of his first witness statement in which he stated that he owed a Brno .22 bolt action rifle, Parker Hale silencer, and a large quantity of .22 ammunition which he always kept inside the downstairs toilet at whf, but that as a precaution how he always removed the bolt from that gun and took that away with him when he went home at the end of his week-end visits to his home in Bournend, in Buckinghamshire, so that no-one could fire it!

However, by the time of the COLP investigation, 1991, Anthony Pargeter made an additional witness statement in which he suggested that his Brno rifle was not at white House farm at the time of the shooting tragedy involving the Bamber family, he said that he had taken it home with him on the penultimate week-end beforehand!

But..

If Jeremy is correct and the photograph which Stan Jones took in the downstairs toilet on the first morning of the police investigation, then Pargeter has deliberately made a false witness statement concerning the whereabouts of his .22 rifle and silencer at a critical point of the investigations into the shootings! Let us also not forget that Stan Jones took possession of a silencer on that very same morning, a Parker Hale silencer (SBJ/1) that belonged to Anthony Pargeters .22 rifle!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6319
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #364 on: August 10, 2018, 02:54:PM »
I haven't even watched the video yet.  Forgot why this topic was even started.  ;D
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45981
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #365 on: August 10, 2018, 07:55:PM »

If Jeremy is correct and the photograph which Stan Jones took in the downstairs toilet on the first morning of the police investigation, then Pargeter has deliberately made a false witness statement concerning the whereabouts of his .22 rifle and silencer at a critical point of the investigations into the shootings! Let us also not forget that Stan Jones took possession of a silencer on that very same morning, a Parker Hale silencer (SBJ/1) that belonged to Anthony Pargeters .22 rifle!

Essex police, the relatives, and the Lab' experts are all havin' a laugh making out a false case that there was only one silencer, found once, fingerprinted once, checked for blood once, paint found ingrained into the end of only one silencer,  handed over once by the relatives, having a variety of different exhibit references at different stages of the police investigation, despite the prosecution duping the jury into believing it had only had one exhibit reference (DRB/1), one Lab' item no. 23, and that the unique blood belonging to Sheila Caffell, and red paint from the kitchen aga surround found on the same silencero!

What a complete load of codswallop!
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 08:03:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #366 on: August 10, 2018, 08:41:PM »
I haven't even watched the video yet.  Forgot why this topic was even started.  ;D
;D ;D

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45981
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #367 on: August 10, 2018, 10:07:PM »
Essex police, the relatives, and the Lab' experts are all havin' a laugh making out a false case that there was only one silencer, found once, fingerprinted once, checked for blood once, paint found ingrained into the end of only one silencer,  handed over once by the relatives, having a variety of different exhibit references at different stages of the police investigation, despite the prosecution duping the jury into believing it had only had one exhibit reference (DRB/1), one Lab' item no. 23, and that the unique blood belonging to Sheila Caffell, and red paint from the kitchen aga surround found on the same silencero!

What a complete load of codswallop!

You cannot trust the police, you cannot trust the police witnesses, and you cannot trust the police experts!

They fabricate evidence, they tampered with the contents of witness statements, and they are experts say moving the goal posts, and presenting an argument that may not necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with the case on trial!

I am being serious when I say that / this...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45981
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #368 on: August 10, 2018, 10:11:PM »
You cannot trust the police, you cannot trust the police witnesses, and you cannot trust the police experts!

They fabricate evidence, they tampered with the contents of witness statements, and they are experts say moving the goal posts, and presenting an argument that may not necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with the case on trial!

I am being serious when I say that / this...
I believe that when a trial takes place that everybody who testified should be on trial, at peril of being convicted of fabricating or tampering with the evidence, with criminal contempt! It's the only way forward, the jury should be entitled to point out any witness who has given evidence which they feel was given totally dishonestly, and in such instances the trial judge should be able to impose a minimum sentence comparable to the minimum sentence any defendant could receive if convicted. We need to stamp out the lies which are being told in these trials, and punish the liars accordingly!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6319
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #369 on: August 11, 2018, 10:51:AM »
The only reason I can think of for the photos of the gun cupboard being destroyed. Is that they could have showed the Pargheter rifle was also at the scene.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #370 on: August 11, 2018, 12:49:PM »
The only reason I can think of for the photos of the gun cupboard being destroyed. Is that they could have showed the Pargheter rifle was also at the scene.
I agree. There has always been a question mark over the Pargeter rifle.

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10556
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #371 on: August 11, 2018, 12:50:PM »
I haven't even watched the video yet.  Forgot why this topic was even started.  ;D

The issue is also explained to some extent here.  Just ignore the part about him getting out of prison:

https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-withholding-of-crime-scene.html


Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23263
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #372 on: August 11, 2018, 05:06:PM »
The issue is also explained to some extent here.  Just ignore the part about him getting out of prison:

https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-withholding-of-crime-scene.html

I posted this on Red Roch - I think it's fair comment.

The Bamber blogs states that

"On 09.10.2002, Mr John MacLeod examined 58 rolls of photographic film. He viewed 429 negative images and reached the conclusion that a total of 249 frames of film had been cut from the 58 rolls of film disclosed to him.

On 01.10.08, Mr Peter Suthurst examined 58 rolls of photographic film. He viewed 416 negative images and he reached the conclusion that 262 frames had been cut from the 58 rolls of film that had been disclosed to him.

In 2011, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) disclosed photographic negatives to photography experts who examined 58 rolls of photographic film. They viewed 406 negative images and reached the conclusion that 272 frames had been cut from the 58 rolls of film disclosed to them."


So Mr John MacLeod saw 13 more images than Suthurst and 23 more than photography experts but he reported nothing untoward. Nothing that was remarkable and certainly none of the things that Bamber claims they 'may' reveal;

"It is probable that they showed all of the guns in the house including those belonging to Anthony Pargeter, the telephone I supposedly hid in magazines actually being on a shelf in the office and they will no doubt reveal further proof that Sheila was moved by the police and that her hands and feet were not spotlessly clean as they informed the jury they were."

Mr Peter Suthurst saw 10 more images than the photography experts and hasn't claimed (other than the scratches) any of the above either.

Are we meant to believe that EP just kept chopping away at the negatives, even though they kept allowing people to look through them, realising (presumably afterwards) that they needed to chop more? Wouldn't that lead to MacLeod and Suthurst wondering what they had seen, that they shouldn't have?
« Last Edit: August 11, 2018, 05:22:PM by Caroline »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6319
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #373 on: August 11, 2018, 06:29:PM »

Are we meant to believe that EP just kept chopping away at the negatives, even though they kept allowing people to look through them, realising (presumably afterwards) that they needed to chop more? Wouldn't that lead to MacLeod and Suthurst wondering what they had seen, that they shouldn't have?


The CCRC has the power to gain disclosure of materials from any public body. EP had no option but to allow the experts to have a look. So they had no option to chop if they had something to hide.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10556
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #374 on: August 11, 2018, 08:41:PM »
I posted this on Red Roch - I think it's fair comment.

The Bamber blogs states that

"On 09.10.2002, Mr John MacLeod examined 58 rolls of photographic film. He viewed 429 negative images and reached the conclusion that a total of 249 frames of film had been cut from the 58 rolls of film disclosed to him.

On 01.10.08, Mr Peter Suthurst examined 58 rolls of photographic film. He viewed 416 negative images and he reached the conclusion that 262 frames had been cut from the 58 rolls of film that had been disclosed to him.

In 2011, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) disclosed photographic negatives to photography experts who examined 58 rolls of photographic film. They viewed 406 negative images and reached the conclusion that 272 frames had been cut from the 58 rolls of film disclosed to them."


So Mr John MacLeod saw 13 more images than Suthurst and 23 more than photography experts but he reported nothing untoward. Nothing that was remarkable and certainly none of the things that Bamber claims they 'may' reveal;

"It is probable that they showed all of the guns in the house including those belonging to Anthony Pargeter, the telephone I supposedly hid in magazines actually being on a shelf in the office and they will no doubt reveal further proof that Sheila was moved by the police and that her hands and feet were not spotlessly clean as they informed the jury they were."

Mr Peter Suthurst saw 10 more images than the photography experts and hasn't claimed (other than the scratches) any of the above either.

Are we meant to believe that EP just kept chopping away at the negatives, even though they kept allowing people to look through them, realising (presumably afterwards) that they needed to chop more? Wouldn't that lead to MacLeod and Suthurst wondering what they had seen, that they shouldn't have?

Yes.

With regard to my 'ignore' remark, I simply meant Jeremy will not be released, no matter what evidence of wrongdoing comes to light.

In answer to your other question.  Also yes.  The case has been deliberately 'managed' by successive coming and going modern EP officers, who were / are not as familiar with the case complexities as say (for example) you, David, Gringo, Hartey, ngb, Bill etc.

EP will have cut from the negatives as per their knowledge developed, regarding pertinent issues that posed a risk.

As for Sutherst and McLeod et al.  While they may have been given pointers, I doubt they viewed the negatives as 'experts' on the case.  It was not their remit.  Hypothetically, If Jeremy Bamber had been allowed to view the negatives provided to McLeod, that would equate to a very risky situation for EP, as he would no doubt have very much represented a 'case expert' viewing a higher number of negatives.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2018, 08:46:PM by Roch »