Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices

[Roch]

No you haven't. Much of what is written at the beginning of this thread can be explained by either the CPS not disclosing the material or lack diligence from JBs original trial counsel.

How does that tie in with Terezon's letter of complaint?  Mike claimed that Ainsley and co 'ran rings around' the defence or words to that effect.  Now that doesn't mean the defence didn't do a poor job.  Have you ever considered that it's possible to have corrupt cops and a poor defence in the same case?  I think the lines along which you think are too black or white. 

Mike and Bill have got lots of things wrong. Newby has already got one thing wrong (Nevills 999 call) So he can be wrong again. As for Stone were does he state Ainsley and Jones went out their way  to frame JB?

So what if Mike and Bill have 'got things wrong'.  You don't dismiss entire reams of research on the basis that somebody got some aspect of it wrong.  That's not to say that narratives should not be revisited and amended.  Of course they should.  Tested.  Yes, of course.  Broadly speaking, there is no way Ainsley is coming out of this as an 'honest cop' mistakenly believing in JB's guilt.  As for Stone, yes I am surmising he's on board with Newby.  If the case goes to court, Stone will be the one arguing against Ainsley's police practice in this case.  It's therefore a reasonable assumption that he is on board.  As for Nevill's 999 call - I too remain very sceptical but we actually do not know what's turned up in the evidence.  However, I do take your previous point about scrutiny of documents. 

[JackieD]

How does that tie in with Terezon's letter of complaint?  Mike claimed that Ainsley and co 'ran rings around' the defence or words to that effect.  Now that doesn't mean the defence didn't do a poor job.  Have you ever considered that it's possible to have corrupt cops and a poor defence in the same case?  I think the lines along which you think are too black or white. 

So what if Mike and Bill have 'got things wrong'.  You don't dismiss entire reams of research on the basis that somebody got some aspect of it wrong.  That's not to say that narratives should not be revisited and amended.  Of course they should.  Tested.  Yes, of course.  Broadly speaking, there is no way Ainsley is coming out of this as an 'honest cop' mistakenly believing in JB's guilt.  As for Stone, yes I am surmising he's on board with Newby.  If the case goes to court, Stone will be the one arguing against Ainsley's police practice in this case.  It's therefore a reasonable assumption that he is on board.  As for Nevill's 999 call - I too remain very sceptical but we actually do not know what's turned up in the evidence.  However, I do take your previous point about scrutiny of documents.

But any change in JB’s version regarding the phone call would surely mean the case would go straight to the appeal court. Either there is proof about the phone call or not

I really did not want this bought up again unless there is cast iron proof.

There are hundreds of pages on this form dedicated to the phone call scenario with no new evidence.

[David1819]

How does that tie in with Terezon's letter of complaint?  Mike claimed that Ainsley and co 'ran rings around' the defence or words to that effect.  Now that doesn't mean the defence didn't do a poor job.  Have you ever considered that it's possible to have corrupt cops and a poor defence in the same case?  I think the lines along which you think are too black or white. 

That's not a "letter of complaint". That is a witness statement he was asked to produce stating he didn't know about A,B,C etc etc. In order for the appeal to go ahead. That happens at every appeal. 

So what if Mike and Bill have 'got things wrong'.  You don't dismiss entire reams of research on the basis that somebody got some aspect of it wrong.  That's not to say that narratives should not be revisited and amended.  Of course they should.  Tested.  Yes, of course.  Broadly speaking, there is no way Ainsley is coming out of this as an 'honest cop' mistakenly believing in JB's guilt.  As for Stone, yes I am surmising he's on board with Newby.  If the case goes to court, Stone will be the one arguing against Ainsley's police practice in this case.  It's therefore a reasonable assumption that he is on board.  As for Nevill's 999 call - I too remain very sceptical but we actually do not know what's turned up in the evidence.  However, I do take your previous point about scrutiny of documents.

Show me the evidence and I will consider it. But until then its nothing but a conspiracy theory someone has thought up from nothing as far as I am concerned.

[Roch]

That's not a "letter of complaint". That is a witness statement he was asked to produce stating he didn't know about A,B,C etc etc. In order for the appeal to go ahead. That happens at every appeal. 

Show me the evidence and I will consider it. But until then its nothing but a conspiracy theory someone has thought up from nothing as far as I am concerned.

Terezon's letter is proof of malpractice in my opinion. As for your view on the case, I find it unfathomable. It is essentially that Sheila was the shooter / clubber / mutilator. She left virtually no evidence of these four murders and her suicide. Therefore the police didn't initially gather any evidence that indicated Sheila was responsible. Therefore Ainsley acted in good faith, didn't conceal anything, didn't omit anything, didn't alter anything. I know that in the past lone voices have been proved right, however I think yours is a longshot.

[Bubo bubo]

The blood on the pillow is probably from the shot that went through the lower right side of her neck near the collar bone.

The blood on the left side of the mattress is probably from June turning over to get out of the bed after she was shot.

Please allow me to point to what I see as flaws in your reasoning.

1 If shot in bed June for some time would be in severe shock and immense pain. At least a minute I would argue.  She was wearing a nightdress with a collar. If as you suggest the pillow blood was from a neck wound it would not produce patches/blobs with well-defined edges but the blood soaked nightdress would create more of a smear pattern not seen in the photographs. Try watching more episodes of Silent Witness.

2 The direction of this wound was downwards at an angle, meaning the shooter was firing from above. However, the shot to the knee which also exited was fired from below, it had an upward trajectory. Can you explain this conundrum?

3 Can you explain how she managed to stagger around the bed without stepping on the electric blanket without leaving an indentation in its photographed state. Did she jump it? I would also question the positioning of the electric blanket. They had already had a duvet and a top cover on the bed and the window was open, it was August. Why did they need to use an electric blanket?

I believe June was first moved to the bed before her final resting place was determined. Possibly by people who may have been dressed in an overcoat and plastic mackintosh for protection. They may have worn a man’s slip on shoes.

[guest7363]

How does that tie in with Terezon's letter of complaint?  Mike claimed that Ainsley and co 'ran rings around' the defence or words to that effect.  Now that doesn't mean the defence didn't do a poor job.  Have you ever considered that it's possible to have corrupt cops and a poor defence in the same case?  I think the lines along which you think are too black or white. 

So what if Mike and Bill have 'got things wrong'.  You don't dismiss entire reams of research on the basis that somebody got some aspect of it wrong.  That's not to say that narratives should not be revisited and amended.  Of course they should.  Tested.  Yes, of course.  Broadly speaking, there is no way Ainsley is coming out of this as an 'honest cop' mistakenly believing in JB's guilt.  As for Stone, yes I am surmising he's on board with Newby.  If the case goes to court, Stone will be the one arguing against Ainsley's police practice in this case.  It's therefore a reasonable assumption that he is on board.  As for Nevill's 999 call - I too remain very sceptical but we actually do not know what's turned up in the evidence.  However, I do take your previous point about scrutiny of documents.

I was always lead to believe (and it’s something I would have thought might help Jeremy get an appeal) Julie Mugfords NOW deal ect.  I thought if anything this might get the break through for an appeal if there was evidence that Julie signed the deal before trial, it’s been the main drum beat on here on this forum and by the CT,  yet, it wasn’t in the submission or it seems not to be included and to have died a death?

[David1819]

Please allow me to point to what I see as flaws in your reasoning.

1 If shot in bed June for some time would be in severe shock and immense pain. At least a minute I would argue.  She was wearing a nightdress with a collar. If as you suggest the pillow blood was from a neck wound it would not produce patches/blobs with well-defined edges but the blood soaked nightdress would create more of a smear pattern not seen in the photographs. Try watching more episodes of Silent Witness.

2 The direction of this wound was downwards at an angle, meaning the shooter was firing from above. However, the shot to the knee which also exited was fired from below, it had an upward trajectory. Can you explain this conundrum?

3 Can you explain how she managed to stagger around the bed without stepping on the electric blanket without leaving an indentation in its photographed state. Did she jump it? I would also question the positioning of the electric blanket. They had already had a duvet and a top cover on the bed and the window was open, it was August. Why did they need to use an electric blanket?

I believe June was first moved to the bed before her final resting place was determined. Possibly by people who may have been dressed in an overcoat and plastic mackintosh for protection. They may have worn a man’s slip on shoes.

1. I don't agree with your assumptions about the blood stains. Silent witness is fictional.

2. Sheila was standing up and June was laying on the bed, hence the trajectories. The shot to June's knee was probably fired as she raised her leg to try and curl up to protect herself.

3. There is blood on that blanket if you look close enough.

[David1819]

I was always lead to believe (and it’s something I would have thought might help Jeremy get an appeal) Julie Mugfords NOW deal ect.  I thought if anything this might get the break through for an appeal if there was evidence that Julie signed the deal before trial, it’s been the main drum beat on here on this forum and by the CT,  yet, it wasn’t in the submission or it seems not to be included and to have died a death?

According to NGB, the original contract has been obtained and it was signed by Julie pre-trial. As for wheather its been used in a CCRC submission, you'd have to ask him.

[Bubo bubo]

1. I don't agree with your assumptions about the blood stains. Silent witness is fictional.

2. Sheila was standing up and June was laying on the bed, hence the trajectories. The shot to June's knee was probably fired as she raised her leg to try and curl up to protect herself.

3. There is blood on that blanket if you look close enough.

Thank you for your reply. I think we will have to disagree.

I have noticed (as has Roch) that you are unwilling to accept arguments which are outside your own diagnosis of the case.

Silent witness is fiction but the presentation is guided by paid, qualified SOC analysts to ensure a factual scientific presentation. You just dismiss my analysis because it does not fit for YOU.

You have not explained the reason for the electric blanket.

You have not explained the absence of depressions in the blanket from June’s walk around the bed.

The blanket is multi-coloured and the scene is highly illuminated as witnessed by the shadows cast by the bed post. It is made of a highly coloured material with a satin like finish. Depending on the lighting and positioning angles different pieces give different reflections and this is without taking into account the quality of a photo that may have been reproduced many times. What you may see as blood could just be colour distortions. I see no blood.

If a crime scene is re-arranged items can be moved but blood cannot and has to be hidden. This may also be one of the reasons that many pictures remain undisclosed.

When taking crime scene photos pictures are taken from all corners of a room. This photo was taken on another day by DB. The door to the box room has been closed. It is possible that the door was used to conceal blood in those pictures with it open.

I have it on good authority that DB made an unrecorded visit to the scene a couple of days after the event because this shot could not be taken on the day.

He was dismayed when he found that pieces of carpet had already been removed and were outside the property. He told my source that he had to improvise to take some of the pictures.

This may explain the blanket and the curious piece of shaggy carpet, (hardly in keeping with June’s interior design characteristic). It appears that there is no carpet under the bedside table because there appears to be a join in the floorboards shown.

I will leave it to others to decide on our differing explanations.

[David1819]

Thank you for your reply. I think we will have to disagree.

I have noticed (as has Roch) that you are unwilling to accept arguments which are outside your own diagnosis of the case.

Silent witness is fiction but the presentation is guided by paid, qualified SOC analysts to ensure a factual scientific presentation. You just dismiss my analysis because it does not fit for YOU.

You have not explained the reason for the electric blanket.

You have not explained the absence of depressions in the blanket from June’s walk around the bed.

The blanket is multi-coloured and the scene is highly illuminated as witnessed by the shadows cast by the bed post. It is made of a highly coloured material with a satin like finish. Depending on the lighting and positioning angles different pieces give different reflections and this is without taking into account the quality of a photo that may have been reproduced many times. What you may see as blood could just be colour distortions. I see no blood.

If a crime scene is re-arranged items can be moved but blood cannot and has to be hidden. This may also be one of the reasons that many pictures remain undisclosed.

When taking crime scene photos pictures are taken from all corners of a room. This photo was taken on another day by DB. The door to the box room has been closed. It is possible that the door was used to conceal blood in those pictures with it open.

I have it on good authority that DB made an unrecorded visit to the scene a couple of days after the event because this shot could not be taken on the day.

He was dismayed when he found that pieces of carpet had already been removed and were outside the property. He told my source that he had to improvise to take some of the pictures.

This may explain the blanket and the curious piece of shaggy carpet, (hardly in keeping with June’s interior design characteristic). It appears that there is no carpet under the bedside table because there appears to be a join in the floorboards shown.

I will leave it to others to decide on our differing explanations.

Below is a reconstruction I made a while back, going strictly on the physical evidence. That is what I  believe happened. All the trajectories illustrated by the red lines are accurate.

[Bubo bubo]

Below is a reconstruction I made a while back, going strictly on the physical evidence. That is what I what I believe happened. All the trajectories illustrated by the red lines are accurate.

I cab see you have put a lot of effort into this but I see two flaws.

1 You have posed June in a most unlikely stance.
2Your pictorial assumes that her position did not alter between shots

both are most unlikely. The first shot would have produced a reaction, such as ducking or turning sideways to narrow herself as a target or falling further backwards.

You are trying to make the wounds fit with her being in bed.

Good graphics but poor logic in my estimation.

[David1819]

Terezon's letter is proof of malpractice in my opinion. As for your view on the case, I find it unfathomable. It is essentially that Sheila was the shooter / clubber / mutilator. She left virtually no evidence of these four murders and her suicide. Therefore the police didn't initially gather any evidence that indicated Sheila was responsible. Therefore Ainsley acted in good faith, didn't conceal anything, didn't omit anything, didn't alter anything. I know that in the past lone voices have been proved right, however I think yours is a longshot.

The material that was disclosed in 2001 was obtained through the CPS. Thus it was not Ainsley that withheld it in the first place it was CPS.

As for lone voices its only you and Bill that believe the blood streams and stains on Sheila's arm are actually "28 wounds" 

[David1819]

I cab see you have put a lot of effort into this but I see two flaws.

1 You have posed June in a most unlikely stance.
2Your pictorial assumes that her position did not alter between shots

both are most unlikely. The first shot would have produced a reaction, such as ducking or turning sideways to narrow herself as a target or falling further backwards.

You are trying to make the wounds fit with her being in bed.

Good graphics but poor logic in my estimation.

The bed is where she slept. Her side of the bed is covered in blood and her pillow has a bullet gone into it. She was found less than 2 feet away from the bed. Its rather irrefutable as far as I am concerned.

The gun in question was a semi automatic. All five shots could be fired in less than 3 seconds, the target wont have much time to move.

[Bubo bubo]

The bed is where she slept. Her side of the bed is covered in blood and her pillow has a bullet gone into it. She was found less than 2 feet away from the bed. Its rather irrefutable as far as I am concerned.

The gun in question was a semi automatic. All five shots could be fired in less than 3 seconds, the target wont have much time to move.

Just because she was found near the bed does not preclude her being else where at an earlier time and then returning to the bedroom. If as I suggest she was placed on the bed on her right hand side it would produce the stains that you see. the stains on the bed roughly mirror the wounds she sustained. Not much time to move is different from some time to move. Put yourself in her position what would you do? roll away of course you would attempt to move in some way. Rolling out of the line of fire.

You are assuming she was using the Anschutz but it could have been AP's bolt action rifle at that stage.
I am no green horn on this case. PV 20 was swapped by MF because it had the wrong lans and grooves. I have proved this but do not have time to present it at this time.

Can I suggest you examine the PV20 GER's of MF and the one by Taylor presented to him on 12/9. If you cant work it out I will do my best to post but am going away and might not be able to do this before I leave. Please note that the container also contained blood. A potential source for contaminating the silencer. Some of this blood could have formed into a flake.

[Roch]

The material that was disclosed in 2001 was obtained through the CPS. Thus it was not Ainsley that withheld it in the first place it was CPS.

As for lone voices its only you and Bill that believe the blood streams and stains on Sheila's arm are actually "28 wounds" 

How much of the material you refer to, was in existence from pre trial, up to and including the first appeal? In other words, under Ainsley's tenure / stewardship / curation etc. Not so, for your second point. In fact, I'm surprised I haven't been congratulated via pm, for probably reversing Susan and Maggie's brief foray towards guilt.