Mike Teskowski's opinion of the latest whf drama (series 1, episode 1)

[mike tesko]

Interesting production of the known facts as opinionated by author of book written by  Carole Ann Lee..

[Jan]

Mike . Did you ever have access to the original statements from bews myals etc? Handwritten ones ?

[mike tesko]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, in a case - interpretation of the evidence by one party or another, invariable can lead to serious conflict regarding what this or that piece of evidence tends to support. I have been impressed thus far by the author / producer of the first part of this serialised drama, although I have noted glaring discrepancies in the factual evidence gathered during the course of Essex police's handling of the matter.

I shall commence by saying that it was is true that Sheila Caffell did not shoot herself dead on the floor of her parents bedroom by use of a family owned .22 automatic rifle fitted with a silencer (moderator). There are several tipping point facts which support this view..

[mike tesko]

Mike . Did you ever have access to the original statements from bews myals etc? Handwritten ones ?

Jan, yes I still have copies of them...

[Caroline]

Mike . Did you ever have access to the original statements from bews myals etc? Handwritten ones ?

And Clark's notes from Jeremy's first interview at Head Street.

[Jan]

Would be great to see them .the reason being on the drama they said Jeremy said Sheila had been target shooting with him , but I am not sure that he did ? In fact on other statements he admitted she was not an expert in gun handling . So I would love to see the first handwritten statements when things were fresh in their minds.

[mike tesko]

I shall commence by saying that it was is true that Sheila Caffell did not shoot herself dead on the floor of her parents bedroom by use of a family owned .22 automatic rifle fitted with a silencer (moderator). There are several tipping point facts which support this view..

Firstly, there was / is no evidence to prove or establish that before or up until 8.10pm, that Sheila had already by that stage been shot dead by two bullets on her parents bedroom floor, or that she had been laid dead there since before the firearms team first entered the farmhouse shortly after 7.30am. Since the contents of the spontaneous police radio log clearly confirms that by 8.10am, a further three bodies were found upstairs making five occupants in total dead...

Add to this, that according to the TV drama's account, it was allegedly recorded by a firearms officer that the body of a female was come upon downstairs in the kitchen, a claim which was rectified when the same officer concerned confirmed that the body in question was in fact the body of one dead male.. In contrast that variously timed contents of key crucial firearm officers radio logs, described the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, and the all important reference to there having been a second body that was also found in the kitchen, both messages relayed within seconds that leave no room for doubt, that these two bodies were in the same room downstairs, long before firearm officers had made or completed a thorough search of all the ground level rooms of the farmhouse..

After the search of the downstairs kitchen and the discovery of two dead bodies at precisely 7.37am, this information was repeated by a further timed radio message timed at 7.38am, that the firearms team had found the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, in the kitchen. By this time, the firearms officers had not yet even entered the ground floor hallway, or the living room, or as it were searched a nearby cellar, or been able to venture up the main stairs to the bedrooms accessed off the upper landing..

I do not believe that within the space of one minute,  the firearms officers could have progressed further into the farmhouse in between 7.37am, and 7.38am, without anyone noticing or mentioning that Sheila Caffell had recovered in a daze and managed to flee upstairs, at some stage after 8.10am. Nobody saw Sheila get up and run from the kitchen after 7.37am, and travel all the way upstairs to one of the crime scenes and quietly carry on normally with her body initially ending up with one rifle on her body, and she having been shot by two separate pages...

[mike tesko]

Would be great to see them .the reason being on the drama they said Jeremy said Sheila had been target shooting with him , but I am not sure that he did ? In fact on other statements he admitted she was not an expert in gun handling . So I would love to see the first handwritten statements when things were fresh in their minds.

OK, Jan, I will see if I can put my hands on such information and evidence. For what its worth, my recollection is that Jeremy told me that David Boutflour had taught Sheila how to load bullets into the magazine of the .22 rifle and fire the gun. Interestingly enough, Pamela Boutflour recounted on one occasion when she had been to visit her sister June Bamber at whf, and how June had told her that Jeremy had been teaching this young lady (Sheila) how to load and to fire it...

I distinctly do have a memory of seeing such a witness statement from Pamela Boutflour, and I also believe to have been aware that Robert Boutflour made such contact / comments about this spoken about matter...

[mike tesko]

And Clark's notes from Jeremy's first interview at Head Street.

Caroline, I do have a copy of DC Clarke's notebook entry which covers that matter..

[mike tesko]

I can also confirm that according to Jeremy that Sheila had been on gaming shoots with the Bambers up in Scotland, and that there existed a photograph showing how these persons had all been together showing Sheila in possession of a game bird whilst sporting the rifle. I think Sheila did know how to use a number of rifles and shotguns kept by Neville Bambers at the farmhouse..

[Caroline]

Caroline, I do have a copy of DC Clarke's notebook entry which covers that matter..

Thanks Mike - are those the notes that his statement was made from?

[Jan]

OK, Jan, I will see if I can put my hands on such information and evidence. For what its worth, my recollection is that Jeremy told me that David Boutflour had taught Sheila how to load bullets into the magazine of the .22 rifle and fire the gun. Interestingly enough, Pamela Boutflour recounted on one occasion when she had been to visit her sister June Bamber at whf, and how June had told her that Jeremy had been teaching this young lady (Sheila) how to load and to fire it...

I distinctly do have a memory of seeing such a witness statement from Pamela Boutflour, and I also believe to have been aware that Robert Boutflour made such contact / comments about this spoken about matter...

Yes have seen that statement. It goes on to say sheila was not interested in learning or words to that affect .

[mike tesko]

Thanks Mike - are those the notes that his statement was made from?

To be specific, he and many others involved in the investigation made more than one version of 'their witness statements', in a lot of instances, another police officer or member of the CPS made or edited and re-wrote the contents of the version of that persons witness statement to be relied upon in court proceedings. The question which needs to be asked, or mentioned, and talked about, is the false claim that any witness statement is made by a person of their own free will? The truth is that not always (in the case of a trained police officer or official) but more often than not a member of let's say the public, do not make their own witness statements, of their own free will. This should be obvious to anyone who seeks or who is seeking to get to the truth at various stages of prosecution and defence counsel's witnesses. I can assure everyone that if u are a witness trying to support the police and the prosecuting authorities, or as the case may be for example the defence case in any particular matter or persecution, invariably have someone in a position of let's say trust and authority, who asks questions of a witness, (whoever that witness may be) questions which in most instances get a response from the witness, but the actual words which are used in what turns out to be a completed witness statement in somebody or others name, which has cited (usually) on the first page of a witness a citation which states that the named witness, has made this (that) statement of their own free will, but it turns out in almost or nearly almost every case, not to be true (in other words) because the details and the sequence with which the investigating officer asked a question, or a linked and an associated follow up question, and the response(s) given by the named witness, do not get recorded in that or a version of the named witness who supposedly made their 'own' witness statement of their own free will, when rather astoundingly 'they don't...

It gets progressively worse, because in the circumstances of how a named witnesses witness statement ends up getting compiled, he or she not only did not make 'that' witness statement of their own free will - since what that \ an investigating officer asked, and in response, what the witness said in response, becomes paraphrased by the interviewing officer, who during that process records the witnesses evidence in the form of his or her witness statement, with an added citated threat, that if there is anything in that witness statement which they know to be false, or as the case may be, not as it were to be true, then the named witness whose name appears on a particular witness statement shall be liable to prosecution...

Imagine it, the police officer, official, or let's say a solicitor who has been hired by a defendant who is being taken to this or that court, to face being convicted (guilty or otherwise) of a, or various offences, on the basis that the named witness, of a particular witness statement, did not in fact make a witness statement of their own free will, because the words recorded in such a particular witness statement, were / are words and paraphrases adopted let's say in a short hand version of what was actually being asked of the witness by the witness statement taker, or being recorded accurately of any answer given by the / a witness to a statement taker..

To cut to the chase, its all a pack of lies, and the named person of such a false compilation of such a witness statement, are threatened by an included citation, clearly visible of the first page of such a witness statement, that 'they may be liable to prosecution if they have stated in a particular witness statement, anything which they might know to be false, or not to be true, when all along the witness in whose witness statement  is what becomes relied upon in pending criminal proceedings, was clearly not made by the named witness..

This, in my book is what I have termed to be 'A TIPPING POINT MOMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ANY POLICE INVESTIGATION OR A PROSECUTION OF SUCH A VICTIM'...

THIS TIPPING POINT EVIDENCE, is something of huge significance, because when looked into properly, there can never be or exist two different interpretations from let's say prosecution or defence counsel regarding a (or that) particular timed event which ultimately lies at the heart of this (or as the case may be).that or a matter...

[mike tesko]

THIS TIPPING POINT EVIDENCE, is something of huge significance, because when looked into properly, there can never be or exist two different interpretations from let's say prosecution or defence counsel regarding a (or that) particular timed event which ultimately lies at the heart of this (or as the case may be).that or a matter...

The 'TIPPING POINT EVIDENCE' in Jeremy Bambers case / convictions, which through more than a decade of research carried out by myself, and supported by official documentary proof, in my possession, establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt, that (a) Sheila could not have shot herself twice, once on two separate occasions, by two different weapons, in two different locations of the farmhouse (whf) only one of which had a silencer (sound moderator) attached to the end of the .22 bolt action rifle plus its silencer (sound Moderator) belonging to and owned by Anthony Pargeter, used during a guaging exercise to try and establish whether or not police could suggest that Sheila had shot herself dead and committed suicide by using the same gun at the time the two shots to her neck were inflicted, in the same location (main bedroom upstairs), when of course Sheila was initially shot downstairs in the kitchen as one of the firearm officers forced his way in to the kitchen via that internal door and at which time, that officer became  engaged in a life or death battle with Sheila over the control and possession of the officers weapon, a shooting incident / tragedy to which I do not apportion blame to that firearms officer whose trigger finger via it being in direct contact with the trigger mechanism itself which had ultimately inflicted that initial bullet wound entry to Sheila's neck, because when Sheila made a grab for the muzzle end of the officers weapon as it, being followed by his body, physically came around the opening edge of the internal kitchen door. This was an internal (kitchen) door which was hinged on the left hand side of its frame as viewed from the vantage point of the first officer who subsequently entered the kitchen of the farmhouse via this door. Whereas, from anyone's vantage point who were present on the other side of that same door, which would have this internal door hinged on the right hand side of the same internal kitchen door..

So to cut to the chase, let's just deal with that internal kitchen door..

It's the same door depending whether or not, that a moment prior to firearms officer being on one side of the door, and let's for arguments sake say in agreement, that the bodies of Sheila Caffell, and Neville Bambers were on the other side to each other of the same door..

I will come back to the matter of which door hinges and door lock upon either side of this same door in a few moments..

But for now I would like to introduce the internal wall of the kitchen, in relation to the position and the location aforementioned, of the relevant internal kitchen door, and whether or not the door hinges were fitted on the right or left of it? Of course, dependant upon the vantage point of anyone  facing that door, the parties on either side of the same door were 100% correct upon describing how the door in question was hung upon its hinges...

[mike tesko]

But for now I would like to introduce the internal wall of the kitchen, in relation to the position and the location aforementioned, of the relevant internal kitchen door, and whether or not the door hinges were fitted on the right or left of it? Of course, dependant upon the vantage point of anyone  facing that door, the parties on either side of the same door were 100% correct upon describing how the door in question was hung upon its hinges...

Two sides of the same door - (a) a six man firearm team on one side of it (Hallway side), and (b) One dead body, along with Sheila Caffell on the other (kitchen side). To those on (a) side of the door in question, the hinges were on the left hand side of the door, whilst for those on (b) side of the same door, it was hinged on the right hand side of the same door...

The significance of this, meant that the opening edge of that door, prevented any firearms officer from making an entry beyond the door into the kitchen beyond, he being unable to train the barrel end of his rifle toward a target who might be lurking in wait - the direct / angle end of the rifles barrel would be determined by the degree in which the door was gradually opened sufficient enough to allow the firearms officer to point the barrel of his weapon towards a target in the kitchen. That target was believed to be a female as seen by a firearms officer who had looked into the kitchen via the kitchen window before entry into the premises was achieved...

It seems to me, that the body seen through the kitchen window was almost certainly an exhausted Sheila Caffell, and not the body of Neville Bambers body which turned out to have been mistakenly identified as the body of a dead female. I arrive at this conclusion, by drawing upon a number of evidential factors..