Author Topic: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony  (Read 5955 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony
« Reply #30 on: February 05, 2020, 09:00:PM »
AP had admitted to shooting two rabbits when he was at WHF a week before the murders. He didn't mention that he took the silencer with him, only the bolt.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony
« Reply #31 on: February 06, 2020, 10:04:AM »
Any comment Roch?  :-\

Sorry David I don't understand your point.  I think police were expecting what they received (from the lab). 

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Re: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony
« Reply #32 on: February 06, 2020, 10:47:AM »
Sorry David I don't understand your point.  I think police were expecting what they received (from the lab).

My point is that the evidence does not show the police manufactured the silencer. The evidence all points to the relatives or a relative being behind it.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony
« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2020, 10:48:AM »
If JB's legal team can get around the blood in the silencer JB has won his case.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony
« Reply #34 on: February 06, 2020, 11:18:AM »
My point is that the evidence does not show the police manufactured the silencer. The evidence all points to the relatives or a relative being behind it.

Yes I understand.  So in your version, Ainsley goes all out for Bamber because he genuinely believes the silencer evidence. I think he's too shrewd an operator for that.  I'm more open to there having been some 'technical' collusion between police and relatives.  What happened, in your opinion, between police and Huntingdon? Do you see any wrongdoing in that sphere?

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Re: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony
« Reply #35 on: February 06, 2020, 11:52:AM »
Yes I understand.  So in your version, Ainsley goes all out for Bamber because he genuinely believes the silencer evidence. I think he's too shrewd an operator for that.  I'm more open to there having been some 'technical' collusion between police and relatives.  What happened, in your opinion, between police and Huntingdon? Do you see any wrongdoing in that sphere?

The silencer evidence came into existence on August 10th at oak farm and white house farm. Only people present were RWB, DB, AE and PE. The police have no motive and no opportunity to have done anything.

The counter argument to this is a ludicrous crackpot conspiracy theory that requires almost every document in the case to be a forgery. The "evidence" that's used to back this up is nothing but Oakley's action report about collecting an empty box and RWB getting his memory mixed up six years later. I kid you not. Its embarrassing.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2020, 12:05:PM by David1819 »

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony
« Reply #36 on: February 06, 2020, 12:37:PM »
The silencer evidence came into existence on August 10th at oak farm and white house farm. Only people present were RWB, DB, AE and PE. The police have no motive and no opportunity to have done anything.

The counter argument to this is a ludicrous crackpot conspiracy theory that requires almost every document in the case to be a forgery. The "evidence" that's used to back this up is nothing but Oakley's action report about collecting an empty box and RWB getting his memory mixed up six years later. I kid you not. Its embarrassing.

I'm not trying to challenge your view but there are some anomalies.

DB gave an interview to the press where he expressed that the sound moderator had been found several weeks after the killings.  Cant find the link.  It's on here somewhere.

Pargeter stated that DB informed him that the police had returned a sound moderator to the family (I know you have your own view on this but I'd like to read it again if anyone can find it).

Finally, let us not forget HorseyDave? 

Scene 1. We have 5 dead bodies, and 2 (hear me out) phone calls to 'our' office. We visit the scene, witness somebody moving around inside whilst JB is outside with us. Daughter has a gun on her, history of mental problems - Case solved, its now 4 murders and a suicide.

Scene 2: Cousin who believes he as a farmer should inherit farm "suddenly" discovers a silencer 3 weeks after the police have left. (I know for a FACT because i was there, that the police used the scullery and kitchen as a office) - suddenly after being in the house for 3 weeks we "find a silencer" !!

Scene 3; Girlfriend has recently been dumped, but is heavily involved with JB and his drug dealings etc, so we cannot use her as a witness yet - we arrange for her to come clean at the bank, and the complainant regarding the caravan thefts is dead, so we have a potential witness.

Scene 4 Destroy JB's phonecall record, or deny it was him, and as WE made such a cock up first time round now that "uncle farmer should have the farm mysterially finds a silencer, all we now have to do is put the girlfriend in the box (washed of past history), produce the silencer and Bingo !!!!!! case solved

we the police dont look idiots a 2nd time, farmer uncle gets his farm rather than let a wayward druggy have it and Girlfriend is shown the way to 20k newspaper cash and best if all a new life (have you tried to get a permanent visa for canada with a criminal record ??) in Canada well away from JB's defence team -

This is keystone cops stuff, stop wasting youre time and everyone elses time with rediculas "ideas and theoies" - Look at the FACTS.

Scene 5 - You have all been retired by Essex Police
« Last Edit: February 06, 2020, 12:40:PM by Roch »

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony
« Reply #37 on: February 06, 2020, 12:41:PM »
Beside the point really.


well it might have avoided the discrepancies in their later statements .

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Re: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony
« Reply #38 on: February 06, 2020, 12:47:PM »
I'm not trying to challenge your view but there are some anomalies.

DB gave an interview to the press where he expressed that the sound moderator had been found several weeks after the killings.  Cant find the link.  It's on here somewhere.

Pargeter stated that DB informed him that the police had returned a sound moderator to the family (I know you have your own view on this but I'd like to read it again if anyone can find it).

Finally, let us not forget HorseyDave?

Just like what one newspaper got wrong about what ACC Simpson said. The same applies to what they wrote about DB. 

The second "anomaly" is explained below by Pargeter.



Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony
« Reply #39 on: February 06, 2020, 01:04:PM »
Just like what one newspaper got wrong about what ACC Simpson said. The same applies to what they wrote about DB. 

The second "anomaly" is explained below by Pargeter.


I don't believe it was one newspaper.  I think it was in several.  It's in the really lengthy document of anomalies produced by JB and the CT from about 2012 - was it called the allegation document?  Didn't Reader also put a link up recently to JB's letter - what did you make of that?

Re Pargeter - it sounds plausible, what he is saying - but I don't understand the context.  Both the statement you are showing and the statement he is referring back to, have the same date. 

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony
« Reply #40 on: February 06, 2020, 01:14:PM »
My point is that the evidence does not show the police manufactured the silencer. The evidence all points to the relatives or a relative being behind it.

Do you think they would have had the know how to get the blood inside the silencer as it was found  ? Or even to understand the science of blood groupings?

Dont remember any of the family  saying the spoke to AP about the find at the time it was found .

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Re: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony
« Reply #41 on: February 06, 2020, 01:49:PM »
I don't believe it was one newspaper.  I think it was in several.  It's in the really lengthy document of anomalies produced by JB and the CT from about 2012 - was it called the allegation document?  Didn't Reader also put a link up recently to JB's letter - what did you make of that?

Re Pargeter - it sounds plausible, what he is saying - but I don't understand the context.  Both the statement you are showing and the statement he is referring back to, have the same date.

I have read it before . Its full off errors, misinterpretations and wild conjecture. Its like one of Adams lists but in reverse. From the same people who brought us Sheila's ambulance call and the cake baking. I appreciate their efforts, but they are not cut out for this kind of thing.

They may have lots of material but its no good if you cant research it properly. Its like giving me Junes cake recipes when I don't know how to bake cakes.  :)

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Re: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony
« Reply #42 on: February 06, 2020, 01:52:PM »
Do you think they would have had the know how to get the blood inside the silencer as it was found  ? Or even to understand the science of blood groupings?


No

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony
« Reply #43 on: February 06, 2020, 05:09:PM »
No

So they might think if they put any blood in there it would be enough to implicate jeremy ?


Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: Malcolm Fletcher's 'expert' testimony
« Reply #44 on: February 06, 2020, 05:39:PM »
I have read it before . Its full off errors, misinterpretations and wild conjecture. Its like one of Adams lists but in reverse. From the same people who brought us Sheila's ambulance call and the cake baking. I appreciate their efforts, but they are not cut out for this kind of thing.

They may have lots of material but its no good if you cant research it properly. Its like giving me Junes cake recipes when I don't know how to bake cakes.  :)

Nevertheless, it contains entries about the media reports regarding sound moderator.