Author Topic: RE: Essex boys murders 1995  (Read 777 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20568
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #30 on: March 07, 2019, 09:43:PM »

Unlike rifles and pistols, Shot guns cannot be forensically linked to the bullets they fire since they are smooth bore.  :(

Even if it was not the massacre gun. What is he doing with one? His previous convictions would have precluded him from getting it legally and neither was he the member of a shooting club. I can only deduce that he had if for bad intentions.

In my opinion It is a myth that Whomes and Steele were convicted on the word of Darren Nicholls. What convicted them was thier own inconsistent versions of events and the excuses they came up with to cover thier web of lies. This only made Darren Nicholls seem even more credible in contrast. If anyone tries to discredit Darren Nicholls I suggest they look at Whomes and Steeles side of the story. Then they can get a good idea of who is being truthfull and who isnt.

Would have thought the murder weapon would have been dumped. Then again, shot guns don't come cheap & won't be easy to obtain. Steele would have thought he would never be a suspect & anyway the shotgun was hidden.

Why do you think they used Nicholl's ? Was there nowhere secluded a 10 minute walk away where Whomes could have left a car.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #31 on: March 07, 2019, 11:14:PM »
Would have thought the murder weapon would have been dumped. Then again, shot guns don't come cheap & won't be easy to obtain. Steele would have thought he would never be a suspect & anyway the shotgun was hidden.


Dumping it is the best thing to do however many criminals do not know that thier gun can be linked to their crime. For example Steven Avery kept his rifle hanging up on his wall because he didnt know a rifle leaves unique groove impressions on the bullets it fires.

Why do you think they used Nicholl's ? Was there nowhere secluded a 10 minute walk away where Whomes could have left a car.

Why not? Nicholl's was a trusted member of Steele's crime syndicate. He drove them about places to commit crimes like Rolfe did for Tate and Tucker.

Besides, Steele only ended up on the police radar because Rolfe told his GF that they were all going to remote field that night with Steele to rehearse a drug robbery. The fact they were all found dead in a field except for Steele made Steele their prime suspect.

The police were able to compile enough evidence to arrest them before Nicholls cracked. If Rolfe had not revealed the details of their plans to other people, its very possible the crime may never have been solved.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #32 on: March 08, 2019, 12:23:AM »
i dont know much about the case but bernie o bullshit was being rather dishonest when he said the supergrass was the only evdence agianst them.

he left out the the cell phone evdence.

Did he leave it out or was he simply never given the whole picture?

Its been claimed that Omahoney obtained all the evidence that he had via Jack Whomes brother. This is probably the case as I cannot see how else he could have got it. Its very possible that its was more a case of Bernard not receiving all the cell phone evidence.

The only cell phone evidence that ever got posted on his site was a 2002 report from the defences cell phone expert Mr Bristowe. This report if taken in isolation paints a rather rosy picture for the defence. I suspect that's why it got posted. 

None of Mr Bristowes 1997 reports or this trial testimony was posted. Neither was any evidence from the four cell phone experts for the prosecution posted either. According to the judges summing up the Vodaphone expert produced some very detailed maps for the prosecution they were not posted either.

So it was probably a case of Bernie getting the wrong idea with what he had rather than him lying.

"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #33 on: March 08, 2019, 06:19:AM »
Did he leave it out or was he simply never given the whole picture?

Its been claimed that Omahoney obtained all the evidence that he had via Jack Whomes brother. This is probably the case as I cannot see how else he could have got it. Its very possible that its was more a case of Bernard not receiving all the cell phone evidence.

The only cell phone evidence that ever got posted on his site was a 2002 report from the defences cell phone expert Mr Bristowe. This report if taken in isolation paints a rather rosy picture for the defence. I suspect that's why it got posted. 

None of Mr Bristowes 1997 reports or this trial testimony was posted. Neither was any evidence from the four cell phone experts for the prosecution posted either. According to the judges summing up the Vodaphone expert produced some very detailed maps for the prosecution they were not posted either.

So it was probably a case of Bernie getting the wrong idea with what he had rather than him lying.

Further reading the judges summing up we can now establish that Darren Nicholls made a call at 18:48 on the night of the murders. This call he made got directed through the Rettendon Orange cell tower.

"Back again to 73, you see that in fact Ingatestone was received for one second at 18.59.21, and Hockley was received for four seconds at 18.59.32. Now Mr Bristow turned from Mr Whomes's phone and looked at the Orange system and Nicholls' phone, that is Nicholls' phone 0973 427 288, that we know as 288. He said that Orange provided better data if the recipient of the call was an Orange subscriber. Nicholls' phone was an Orange digital mobile phone. He talked about the 18.48.08 call with messages from Nicholls. He said that was rooted through the Rettendon beacon, that the two calls at 18.59 were rooted through the Basildon beacon. "
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #34 on: March 09, 2019, 04:14:PM »
Judges summing up -

"The cartridge cases all came from seven 12-bore vantage cartridges with a loading of seven and a half size shot lead shot. Then importantly he examined the firing marks on all of those cartridges microscopically and was satisfied that all seven were fired using the same firearm which he said was almost certainly a pump-action or self-loading 12-bore shotgun."

Darren Nicholls -

"I pulled out in front on a car, Mick asked if I was ok, I said yes I was and as we drove up the road towards turnpike, Mick said they wont fuck us about no more, and Jack said yeah it was quite funny cause when Mick had shot one of them the gun fell apart, he kept asking me if I was ok several times. I realised what happened but not to who, so I said I hope I don’t fall out with you two, Mick said no you wont fall out with us."


8 shots were fired but only 7 cartriges found, all 7 cartriges from the same type of gun. Where was the 8th cartridge? If Micks gun broke apart after he shot one of them, he wont be able to reload it nor would he bother trying. The 8th cartridge remained in Micks weapon that he took from the scene.

Once again it can be deduced that Darren Nicholls knows things only the killers would know.

As for Adams question about the gun in the loft being the same type used in the killing. The answer is almost certainly no. If it broke then I cant see him keeping it.

Considering there was three gunshot wounds to Tuckers head and two to Rolfes head. There is an element of overkill. Its most likely that Whomes used a pump action with a 6 round capacity tube plus one round already chambered and just kept shooting until he was out.  Much like in this film scene.

https://streamable.com/s5oyw

I guess Micks gun falling apart would have spoiled the film somewhat  ;D
« Last Edit: March 09, 2019, 04:16:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #35 on: March 10, 2019, 12:35:AM »
This is a facebook post from Bernard O'Mahoney  in 2015.


I have until now been unable to comment on the comments made since the release of Essex Boys the truth. This is because I was contracted to refrain from doing so until I spoke to a national newspaper.I had to laugh at the sad act who last night was asking people to post bad reviews on Amazon, 9 responded. Do you honestly think I am concerned where I am in the Amazon ratings? You wouldn't know this but books are sold in bulk to chain stores, hence the book is currently number one in crime sales. I am no longer involved in crime and am proud of that fact, I am an author that writes about matters that I believe in. For twenty years I did my best to get two convicted murderers out of prison. I knew that they were guilty but I felt one, Jack Whomes had been duped and did not deserve to be in there. All the clowns on here who talk the gangster shite, how many hours have you dedicated to to doing anything you believe in? Justice no longer exists in this country, its a game. the police chose to let Darren Nicholls walk away from a charge of triple murder, how is that right? Based on the twisted logic of the police I felt no guilt when attempting to help Whomes. However, after twenty years the task became futile as we were damaging the very people we set out to protect. As Jack Whomes father lay on his deathbed he asked his son if he was guilty and Jack assured him that he was not. Isn't a dying man entitled to the truth? Chris Bowen, a solicitor who worked for nothing for 16 years eventually suffered a breakdown because he firmly believed Steele and Whomes were innocent. A life ruined, isn't he entitled to the truth? When Steele sued the prison service for pain caused by a tooth ache he was awarded £44.500 in damages. He thought he was really clever until the authorities informed him that he now had too much money to be entitled to legal aid. So, he now sits in prison with no grounds of appeal, no solicitor and no chance of release until he admits his guilt. As recently as Friday Jacks mother was on tv saying her son is innocent, she `knows` it because he would never lie to her. Isn't that poor woman entitled to the truth? The freedom campaign has become a complete joke and all concerned need a line to drawn in the sand. As for the idiots claiming there is nothing new in my book, Nicholls is as guilty as Steele and Whomes yet walks in our midst a free man. Tate threatening to kill his mother, proof Nicholls is guilty of murder, the meadow road phone signal, the full length shotgun etc...etc...For the person who claims the film description of the murders varies to my book, it would do, the film description of the murders comes from John Whomes account, my book is my account based on scientific evidence. the internet has permitted a lot of nobodies to have opinions about matters they know very little about. Unlike the masses I spent two decades trying to assist Whomes, I consider it to be damaging now and so I have chosen to call time on what has become a charade. I appreciate ROTFS fans will be upset that the truth doesnt contain their hero, I appreciate all you clowns who have told mates you know who really did it now have egg on your faces, but look, all is not lost. Get a clean hanky, get yourself down your local cinema on the 11th, book a seat in the back row and wank over your hero and yet another fictitious film filled with bullshit until your satisfied. I am on holiday from tomorrow but will be returning after Christmas. Pop over to Conroys page in the meantime and ask him about todays judgement regarding his complaint/legal action over my lies? Clown.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2019, 03:49:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #36 on: March 11, 2019, 01:08:PM »
Holly seriously, just give up already. You thought the investigation and prosecution was all “cherrypicked” evidence. When in reality it was your own sloppy research and assumptions giving you that impression.

Your attempts to link the “real killers” to an unsolved crime that was committed while Steele and Whomes were in police custody, based purely on perceived similarities sounds rather desperate IMO.

Back in January you spoke about writing to Mick Steele. I hope you haven’t got yourself emotionally invested in this.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2019, 01:24:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10570
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #37 on: March 11, 2019, 08:13:PM »
This is a facebook post from Bernard O'Mahoney  in 2015.


I have until now been unable to comment on the comments made since the release of Essex Boys the truth. This is because I was contracted to refrain from doing so until I spoke to a national newspaper.I had to laugh at the sad act who last night was asking people to post bad reviews on Amazon, 9 responded. Do you honestly think I am concerned where I am in the Amazon ratings? You wouldn't know this but books are sold in bulk to chain stores, hence the book is currently number one in crime sales. I am no longer involved in crime and am proud of that fact, I am an author that writes about matters that I believe in. For twenty years I did my best to get two convicted murderers out of prison. I knew that they were guilty but I felt one, Jack Whomes had been duped and did not deserve to be in there. All the clowns on here who talk the gangster shite, how many hours have you dedicated to to doing anything you believe in? Justice no longer exists in this country, its a game. the police chose to let Darren Nicholls walk away from a charge of triple murder, how is that right? Based on the twisted logic of the police I felt no guilt when attempting to help Whomes. However, after twenty years the task became futile as we were damaging the very people we set out to protect. As Jack Whomes father lay on his deathbed he asked his son if he was guilty and Jack assured him that he was not. Isn't a dying man entitled to the truth? Chris Bowen, a solicitor who worked for nothing for 16 years eventually suffered a breakdown because he firmly believed Steele and Whomes were innocent. A life ruined, isn't he entitled to the truth? When Steele sued the prison service for pain caused by a tooth ache he was awarded £44.500 in damages. He thought he was really clever until the authorities informed him that he now had too much money to be entitled to legal aid. So, he now sits in prison with no grounds of appeal, no solicitor and no chance of release until he admits his guilt. As recently as Friday Jacks mother was on tv saying her son is innocent, she `knows` it because he would never lie to her. Isn't that poor woman entitled to the truth? The freedom campaign has become a complete joke and all concerned need a line to drawn in the sand. As for the idiots claiming there is nothing new in my book, Nicholls is as guilty as Steele and Whomes yet walks in our midst a free man. Tate threatening to kill his mother, proof Nicholls is guilty of murder, the meadow road phone signal, the full length shotgun etc...etc...For the person who claims the film description of the murders varies to my book, it would do, the film description of the murders comes from John Whomes account, my book is my account based on scientific evidence. the internet has permitted a lot of nobodies to have opinions about matters they know very little about. Unlike the masses I spent two decades trying to assist Whomes, I consider it to be damaging now and so I have chosen to call time on what has become a charade. I appreciate ROTFS fans will be upset that the truth doesnt contain their hero, I appreciate all you clowns who have told mates you know who really did it now have egg on your faces, but look, all is not lost. Get a clean hanky, get yourself down your local cinema on the 11th, book a seat in the back row and wank over your hero and yet another fictitious film filled with bullshit until your satisfied. I am on holiday from tomorrow but will be returning after Christmas. Pop over to Conroys page in the meantime and ask him about todays judgement regarding his complaint/legal action over my lies? Clown.

Is he referring to Paddy Conroy?   ::)

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #38 on: March 11, 2019, 08:15:PM »
Is he referring to Paddy Conroy?   ::)

Your guess is as good as mine.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10570
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #39 on: March 11, 2019, 08:20:PM »
Your guess is as good as mine.

I think it's a good bet.  PC was in prison with JB. 

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #40 on: March 11, 2019, 09:19:PM »

« Last Edit: March 11, 2019, 09:20:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6497
Re: RE: Essex boys murders 1995
« Reply #41 on: March 21, 2019, 03:00:PM »
Quote
I would rule out Steele and Whomes as perps based on the efficiency of the shootings which have all the hallmarks of someone trained by the military or police.

What efficiency? Fireing a shotgun eight times at three close range targets (less than two feet away) is not efficent. Moreover one shot skimmed past patricks head and out the window.


This is what you call using a shotgun efficiantly. Eight targets, eight shots fired and all eight targets hit.

https://streamable.com/pd90w

Quote
I would say the perp was more along the lines of police marksman Tony Long (and I'm not suggesting him either).  or a member of the SAS/Iranian embassy siege or SEAL/Bin Laden.  This is the type of person psychologically and with this level of skill.   

lol

SAS/SEALS and Police marksman are all skilled and trained to engage targets that are armed and ready. ie people that will shoot back at them.  It doesnt take any skill to shoot three unsuspecting and unarmed men sat in a stationary vehicle.

Making things up to circumvent the incriminating evidence is never going to achieve anything.
"A theory without facts is fantasy"