Author Topic: RE: Essex boys murders 1995  (Read 1414 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6773
RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« on: February 06, 2019, 07:18:PM »
This case is being discussed on red for some reason. Its easy to work out.

Patrick Tate and Tony Tucker were planning or at least threatning to kill Steele (Patricks girlfriend testified this at trial). So Steele engineered a trap to lure them into Rettondon under false pretences then kill them.

Patrick, Tony and Rolfe suddenly liked Steele as he had promised them riches. We know this because Craig Rolfe was so exited about it he couldn't keep his mouth shut and told his girlfriend.

Here is what Craig Rolfe's girlfriend told the police BEFORE Darren Nichols was even thought of by the police.

"I understood that STEELE had been asked by a London based drugs firm to import 30 kilos of Charlie (Cocaine) and I believe that he was going to bring it in by plane from Holland. He had told Pat TATE that he was going to be given fifty thousand pounds as an up front payment to take to Holland and he was going to bring the Charlie back in company with a member of the London firm.

"The idea was that Pat TATE and Tony TUCKER would rob the firm of the Charlie when it arrived over here. STEELE had stated that he wanted to share it between them and had told the firm that he was going to land near to Clacton. Craig told me that STEELE was planning to actually land in South Essex but I never knew exactly where this was likely to be. Craig, Tony and Pat had previously obtained a machine gun from a man called Mad Mick BOWMAN and the details of this are subject of a previous statement."


This is how Steele ended up on the police radar. Not Darren Nichols. Notice how Patricks GF fails to mention Wholmes and Nicholls. Thats because Steele would not mention their involment to Patrick because Wholmes part is to shoot them and Nicholls being the getaway driver. Once they focused on Steele, they then homed in on Nicholls as he worked for Steele's drug business and was the weakest link.


And so, Patrick Tate, Tony Tucker and Craig Rolfe drive to the middle of nowhere (along with the guy they had not so long ago threatened to kill) in the middle of the night to plan/rehurse the robbery of the aircraft. Did Steele tell them it was best to do this at night to familairise themselves for a night time assault on the aircraft or were Tate and Tucker just stupid and too exited about the money?  I will let Craig Rolfe's girlfriend answer that question

"We were going out because they believed they were coming into money and they were going to have a pre-celebration. Craig phoned me at work in the afternoon and told me that Mickey STEELE had contacted Pat TATE and said that he wanted to meet with TATE and TUCKER to go and look at somewhere they could land a light aircraft."


When all is said and done and Nicholls pics up Wholmes and Steele after the shootings. Nicholls overhears two important details said between Wholmes and Steele in the car.

One being that Steele got worried when Patricks girlfriend (Sarah) called him on his mobile when he was in the range rover with Patrick. We know this phone call happened and we know that Steele would be worried since Steele and Patrick both told Sarah they had it in for eachother. Thus if Patick had told Sarah that Steele was with him in the car, she could have raised his suspicions.

The other import thing Nicholls overhears from them is that Patrick "squealed like a baby". This also corroborated by the crime scene. Tony Tuckers body was looking straight ahead with his hands in his lap while Craig Rofle was also looking straight ahead, feet still on the pedal. They had been killed more or less instantly. Patrick on the other hand was found in the corner leaning in a fetal like position with his hands covering his face. Hence he reacted and "squealed like a baby" and who wouldnt in that situation? So Wholmes and Steele revealed things to Nicholls that only the killers would know. Nicholls testimony matches what Craig Rolfe told his GF also.

This is what happened https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv1z844XDgc&feature=youtu.be


Case closed.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 07:35:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6773
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2019, 03:43:PM »
I have read through Jack Whome's questioning under caution. When asked what he done on the night in question his reply was simply "I have never been to Rettendon". This is a lie, phone records show not only has he been to Rettendon but he was there on the night of the murders.

What is the point of scrutinising the cell tower evidence when its not even Whomes original account? He never took the stand and never testified being at the Wheatsheaf pub in Rettedon. It was an argument the defence concocted to try and explain their clients close proximity to the murders when it took place.

If you look at the map. The SOC and the Wheatsheaf are almost parallel in relation to the Hockley cell tower. If Whomes walked or ran 100 or so feet into the field infront of the SOC to get a better signal he would literally be parallel with the Wheatsheaf. All in a place he claims he as never been!

https://i.ibb.co/ncmWNrL/rodbrmte1.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/JzJppZ5/rodbrmte2.jpg


"DS WILLS: Right okay I accept that Jack and I have listened to what you say (pause). We have got a duty to ask you these questions Jack and this Caution is as much for us as it is for you alright and it says that you do not have to say anything, you don't. It also says that if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court it may harm your defence, now if you're not questioned then you don't get the opportunity to either mention it or not to mention it which has implications with both of us, that's why we ask the questions and I accept what you say you say to me I know nothing about I was not involved in these murders. We then ask you were you in Rettendon on the 061295 and I haven't had an answer yet (pause).

Jack WHOMES: I think I've said my piece

DS WILLS: I'm not take I don't take that as an answer to the question that's a saying you think you've said your piece

Jack WHOMES: Well I'm sorry it's best I don't answer

DS WILLS: Okay it's best you don't answer that's what you said (pause) why's that (Pause)

Paul ROACH: I'll remind you of my clients answer. When you said to him have you been to Rettendon he said no.

DS WILLS: I'm sorry is that correct Jack that you hadn't been to Rettendon

Paul ROACH: Been to Rettendon - No and also as far as

DS WILLS: I'm sorry you're answering the question, if you're saying that's what your client said, now I ask him to confirm that

Paul ROACH: No no

DS WILLS: Cause I didn't hear that

Paul ROACH: No he did say: have you been to Rettendon, he answered no

Jack WHOMES: I will clear it for you

Paul ROACH: Please

DS WILLS: I have to ask the question again cause it's getting confusing. Have you ever or were you in 061295 did you go to Rettendon at all

Jack WHOMES: I have never been to Rettendon

DS WILLS: Right
"

And so, the victims told people they were going to rettendon with Mickey Steele that night. They were all found dead par Mickey Steele. When Steele and his close associates were first questioned on the matter.

Steele: "No commnet"
Nicholls: "No comment"
Whomes: "I have never been to Rettendon"

How can anyone believe the above three are innocent?


"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14623
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2019, 03:57:PM »
why dont you going on the red forum and discuss it there.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6773
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2019, 10:30:PM »
Quote
At what stage during police interviews was it put to Nicholls/Steele/Whomes they were in the frame for murder?  No one is suggesting they were law abiding citizens.  They most definitely were not having all served custodial sentences for previous crimes.  At the time of the murders they were all part of gang involved in organised crime namely the importation and distribution of cannabis.  They were known to visit the area to complete drug deals with the murdered trio.  If on the night of the murders they were in the area to complete drug deals with the murdered trio and/or others they were unlikely to fess up as to why they were in the area.  Being in the area does not necessarily equate to their involvement with the murders.  Indeed the mobile phone cell data would seem to exonerate them:

Whomes denied having ever been in Rettendon when he was asked if he murdered Tate,Tucker and Rolfe.

The mobile evidence does not exonerate them at all. 

The expert concluded

"2.2.   Cell site analysis is not an exact process. However, although I could not disprove the Prosecution's view of events, the call detail records for Jack Whomes' 'phone and for Michael Steel's 'phone were, in my opinion more consistent with the explanations put forward by the Defendants than with the claims made by the Prosecution.
"
The explanations put forward by the defendants are Steele saying "No comment" and Whomes saying "I have never been to Rettendon". Clearly the expert is under the impression that the defence theory is actually Whomes explanation for his wearabouts that night. It is not.

He goes on to say

"2.3.   I was aware that it might be argued in Court that the measurements I had carried out, and the conclusions I had drawn had certain weaknesses.

2.3.1.   The Vodafone service might have changed between the time of the murder and my tests, to the extent that my tests were invalid."


Quote
However what is missing is mobile cell phone data for Tate's call he received from Sarah Saunders at 18.44 placing his mobile in the vicinity of Rettendon along with cell data from all other calls made/received by murdered trio along with Nicholls/Steele/Whomes.  Why did the police investigation and prosecution centre around 3 calls only of which we only have half the data for 1 of these calls ie where was Tate's mobile at 18.44?


Why have you made this assumption? Its totally false. The call from Sarah Sanders to Pat Tate at 18:44 came through the Wickford cell tower. The Wickford cell tower is even closer to the scene of crime than the Hockley cell tower.

Here is the relevant part of judges summing up

"The variable factors include a particular position in the car and driving itself increases multiple reflections. Movements may mean you encounter obstructions." Going back to 73, 74, you do not need to, he said the call to Tate at 18.44.03 came through cell site 1404, which was the Wickford cell site.
"

And so, Tate was on the phone in Rettendon at 18.44 til 18:48. Then Whomes was in Rettendon at 18:59 making a four second phone call to Darren Nicolls. That four second call was most probably "come and pick us up". Tate, Tucker and Rolfe never answered their phones again afterwards.  Nicolls knew Sarah had phoned Patrick because he overheard Steele telling Jack about it.

« Last Edit: February 27, 2019, 10:34:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6773
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2019, 06:41:PM »
Quote
There's no evidence Tate was in Rettendon at 18.44 when he received the call from Sarah Saunders.  All that can be said is that he received a mobile tel call at 18.44 via the Wickford cell site.


 ::)

« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 06:42:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14623
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2019, 06:45:PM »
are you banned frm th rd forum david becous i cant see why yor replying to them on here.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6773
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2019, 08:50:PM »
are you banned frm th rd forum david becous i cant see why yor replying to them on here.

No I left voluntarily.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23686
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2019, 09:05:PM »
No I left voluntarily.

So why are you answering them here?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6773
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2019, 09:28:PM »
Here is the Judges summing up on the testimony Nicholls gave in 1997.

"Then he turned the car into the track and again turned it round to face towards the road. He had head lights on and when he pulled in he did not see anything or anyone as he drove into the track and turned round. Once he had turned in almost immediately the back door on the passenger side opened and Jack got in. No light came on when Jack got into the back. Nicholls did not think the courtesy light came on if it was the rear door you opened and not the front door. He could not see what Jack was wearing then because it was dark. He could just see it was Jack. Nicholls could not remember who spoke the first words but Nicholls said, "Where's Mick?" Jack said, "He won't be long, he's dropped something."

After not very long, a couple of minutes at the most, Steele opened the front door and got in and this time the interior light came on. When the light came on Nicholls saw Jack Wholmes sitting in the twin seats at the back and saw his hands and that he was wearing surgical type gloves like a white colour. They were covered in speckles of something which he saw was red. At that point he did not recall any sign of a bag which Jack had taken with him. Nicholls saw Steele get in and as soon as Steele realised the light was on Steele told him to turn it off, so he was more busy trying to turn the light off, but it could be about the same time as Steele got the door shut that the light went off anyway.

Steele told him to pull away and he pulled away. Nicholls was not sure at that point that he realised after Mick spoke what had gone on. Mick said as they pulled off something along the lines of, "They won't fuck with us." Nicholls drew the conclusion that "they" had been killed, or someone had been killed. Nicholls just pulled out of the track, he was not looking where he was going and forced a car nearly to drive into them. Steele said, "For fuck's sake pull yourself together." Nicholls said at the time he was a bit shocked.

Mick started to hand a gun over to Jack in the back. Mick Steele was sitting next to Nicholls, but Nicholls was still driving but he just saw bits of the barrels.
"

In 1999 Darren Nicholls took part in a BBC inside story documentary where he gives the exact same story.

https://streamable.com/29bqw

Both versions are the same because they are based on memory and not lies.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 09:29:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6773
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2019, 10:08:PM »
Quote
Perhaps the poster would like to create a further map adding in the cell site Nicholls calls were routed through when he claims to have been in Meadow Street at Rettendon.  These calls were received through the Basildon cell site which is not even on the poster's map as it so far away!


 ::)

« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 10:09:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10574
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2019, 03:03:PM »



 ::)



My first ever home on far right of that map 'Haw...'
« Last Edit: March 01, 2019, 03:05:PM by Roch »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6773
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2019, 04:44:PM »
Quote
Nicholls was taken into custody on 13th May 1996 (having been stopped by police with a boot load of cannabis).  He was kept on remand until trial in a special 'supergrass' unit.  The trial started 1st Sep 1997.  He had 15 months to prepare.  Think of live plays which are repeated night after night by the same cast.  They are word perfect.  Why?

They are word perfect because its not something he is going to forget. But at least you admit there is no deviation in his account of that night. Also how did he know about the call from Sarah to Patrick? How did he know Patrick reacted to the gunshots like the SOC suggests with Patrick cowering in the corner? You can claim the police gave him that information but you will never prove it. Nicholls claims he overheard this from Whomes and Steele and there is nothing to contradict this.

Quote
This will show beyond any doubt that cell site analysis in this type of situation is absolutely meaningless. It does not in any way shape or form place the individuals in the right locations at the right time.  All it is capable of showing is that the individuals were in areas covering radius's of several miles.

Absolutely meaningless? It was just the other day you were claiming the cell site analysis exonerated the two and that the prosecution withheld the cell data from Patricks call because it would have showed him elsewhere.  Now its all "absolutely meaningless"  ;D ;D ;D

Quote
If the justice system was concerned with the truth what needed to have happened is that all mobile calls made by the murdered trio, Nicholls, Steele and Whomes over the last 24 hours required analysing.

How do you know this didn't happen? Much like your assumption about Patrick Tate's 18:44 call you are probably wrong again. If you read the Judges summing up, Bristowe is not the only telephone expert that testified. They had experts from Cellnet, Vodaphone and Orange testify also. Unfortunately Bernard O'mahoney never posted their evidence on his website. He only uploaded Bristowe's statements. Probably for the same reason he only uploaded Darren Nicholls cross-examination and not his examination prior. He used to support Jack and Mick.

Are you aware that Bernard O'Mahoney took his website down after John Whomes (Jack Whomes Brother) admitted to Bernard that his brother was guilty? John Whomes denies this and its his word against Bernards. Considering Bernard O'Mahoney lost a lot of credibly by changing his mind after 20 years and he took his website down I am more inclined to believe Bernard O'Mahoney.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2019, 04:52:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6773
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2019, 06:56:PM »
My first ever home on far right of that map 'Haw...'


Did you grow up in Essex?
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6773
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2019, 08:00:PM »
The occupants of the farm right opposite the road from where the shootings took place gave statements to the police.


The wife -

"As I was walking back to the building I suddenly heard three gun shots being fired. The sound came from behind me in the area of the main road and Old Hall Farm. I looked towards this area as I heard the sounds but could not see anything.

I immediately thought about farmers shooting in the fields as this is a regular occurrence although I was surprised as it was quite late and the farmers usually shoot earlier in the day. I continued to walk back towards the building and as I did about 1 to 2 seconds after the first 3 shots were fired which were in quick succession I heard a further 2 shots.

These shots were fired with a gap of about half a second between them. I continued to the building and on entering I mentioned to my husband the lateness of the 'shooters' being out which was my term for farmers shooting and moments later I again heard another 3 shots being fired in quick succession."



The Husband -

"I am not sure of the exact time but it was late afternoon or early evening when I heard the sound of gunshots. My wife had just gone out to fill some water containers from a nearby tap. The door of my building was closed at this time and as she opened the door on her return I heard three shots in quick succession.

I remarked to my wife saying 'It's a bit late for shooting', I didn't take any notice of this and I carried on working. I think the time of the shots may have been around 1800 hours. I say this because I was buttoning setees. I normally take around two hours to do each setee."



The victims sustained 8 gunshot wounds exactly what the farmers wife heard. The farmers wife without a doubt heard the assault on the Range Rover when she went out to get some water. This "may have been around 1800 hours." combined with Tate being alive at 18:44 and Whomes making a four second call to Nicholls at 18:59 (placing him in an area where he claims he never was). We can deduce from this that they heard these 8 gun shots shortly before Whomes made the call the Nicholls. The farmers time is a little off because like he said he took no notice of it. Tony Tucker received a call on his mobile at 20.27 that he didnt answer (because he was dead).


This case really is a no brainer.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10574
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2019, 08:13:PM »

Did you grow up in Essex?

Only until aged about 6.  Then Maidstone in Kent until aged 9.