Author Topic: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer  (Read 21476 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #165 on: July 25, 2020, 11:32:PM »
You've asked some pertinent questions there.  I suspect he's either been bought off or is in fear for his life or lives of his family members.  Whether he's actually in prison or attended his own trial are up for debate. As is where Jo Cox ended up.  Yes a thread may be an idea.

Come on. 

Why would they buy him or threaten him in particular?  Is he John Connor?  What's so special about him?  If they wanted to kill Jo Cox so badly, why not just kill her?  Why complicate it by involving him?
 And what was so important about Jo Cox anyway?  She was just an ordinary MP. 

Had she stumbled on evidence that Theresa May actually ran through three fields of wheat instead of two?  Is that it?  Is that the scandal? 

He's in a high security prison, but he is in the general population and he is not in communicado and he is not mute. 

As a general prisoner, he has daily or frequent contact with, or guaranteed access to, the following:

Other prisoners, including at least one prisoner on his wing appointed as a confidential 'listener'.
A trained prison officer who is also his personal officer.
Other prison officers.
Tutors in education and training.
Work supervisors.
A wing governor.
A deputy governor.
A governing governor.
A chaplain.
A prison psychologist.

He can also appoint a lawyer.

He can also contact prisoner friends organisations, the Quakers, prison visitors, and miscarriage of justice organisations, none of whom will judge him for his alleged "far Right" political leanings.

He can ring them if he wants.  Or he can write to him.  It's his choice.  They'd probably agree to let him send the message by pigeon, if he asks nicely.

True, his letters and phone calls will be censored, but they are censored by ordinary prison officers.  And he first has to write the letter in his cell.  And he has access to phones.  Do you see where this leads, logically?

He has a right to issue visiting orders and receive cleared and vetted visitors, who can be ordinary/regular people, even people with criminal records.

You could visit him, if he agrees. 

He can write letters, send postcards, issue e-mails and serve legal papers.  He could send Jeremy a birthday card if he wants, and add a postscript saying: 'Jeremy, I know what it's like to be innocent, believe me.'

He could fill out his canteen sheet and hand it to the governor and demand extra curly-wurlies this week, and then say: 'By the way, I'm innocent'.

The governor would reply: "I'm sorry, you can't order Innocent drinks from the canteen'.

If, at any point, he were to indicate to anybody - anybody at all, even the prison cat - that he is in fact innocent, I can practically guarantee that it would be headline news by 9 a.m. tomorrow morning, regardless of what various organs of the state think or say.  If the government tried to block the information from public media, journalists would just go to foreign media.  In any event, it would leak and it would be a sensation.

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #166 on: July 25, 2020, 11:35:PM »
Sorry but you're changing the subject and moving the goalposts of the discussion.  I know there's police corruption.  I know the police lie.  That's not in dispute. 

What I'm disputing is the specific suggestion that the police intentionally frame innocent ordinary people for crimes.  Not regular criminals, ordinary people with no involvement in criminality.

Nobody so far has provided me with an actual example of such conduct.
   Far from moving the goalposts, Stefan Kiszko puts the ball in the back of your net. The further examples were merely to demonstrate that deliberate perversions of justice by the police are far more common than you care to admit.
     On what do you base your belief that the police framing of Kiszko wasn't deliberate?

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #167 on: July 25, 2020, 11:38:PM »
    It is widely regarded as the most egregious example of police misconduct in a supposed miscarriage of justice. I am baffled that anyone can consider the Kiszko case was an honest mistake.

There's a difference between believing somebody is innocent and going ahead with the charges anyway, on the one hand, and the other hand, believing somebody is guilty and suppressing evidence that points the other way because you want to secure the conviction.

I agree it's a fine line between the two, and it amounts to the police playing judge and jury. 

Can you provide me with a source that confirms the police knew Kiszko was innocent but went ahead with the charges anyway? 

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #168 on: July 25, 2020, 11:48:PM »
There's a difference between believing somebody is innocent and going ahead with the charges anyway, on the one hand, and the other hand, believing somebody is guilty and suppressing evidence that points the other way because you want to secure the conviction.

I agree it's a fine line between the two, and it amounts to the police playing judge and jury. 

Can you provide me with a source that confirms the police knew Kiszko was innocent but went ahead with the charges anyway?
  https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/local-news/the-worst-miscarriage-time-how-17907418
   Two officers were charged with perverting the course of justice but never came to trial because "passage of time made fair trial impossible"
    I am sure you can find plenty more information yourself. My recollections are from memory but the article above is a reasonable summing up.
    Officers being charged is a very high bar. It cannot be reasonably argued that I have not given you the one example that you requested. Stefan Kiszko was prosecuted by officers deliberately perverting the course of justice.

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #169 on: July 25, 2020, 11:59:PM »
  https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/local-news/the-worst-miscarriage-time-how-17907418
   Two officers were charged with perverting the course of justice but never came to trial because "passage of time made fair trial impossible"
    I am sure you can find plenty more information yourself. My recollections are from memory but the article above is a reasonable summing up.
    Officers being charged is a very high bar. It cannot be reasonably argued that I have not given you the one example that you requested. Stefan Kiszko was prosecuted by officers deliberately perverting the course of justice.

I really don't accept you have.  I am sorry.  I am genuinely not trying to be difficult, and I hold no brief for the police, but I am talking about police officers who believe somebody to be innocent, not cases where officers withhold evidence because they think somebody did it and they don't want them to get away with it - which is what happened in the Kiszko case.  Unfortunately, that's common.  It still happens today.

I accept the two things amount to the same thing for practical purposes, but you allege that Essex Police not only made a mess of the Bamber investigation and maybe ignored and suppressed evidence that pointed to Sheila, you go further and say that they believed him to be innocent and pursued him anyway - which is a completely different thing. 

The first thing is still criminal - it's perverting the course of justice, potentially.  But what you are alleging is even worse.  You are alleging major organised criminality on the part of the police, not just in fitting-up known criminals, or suppressing evidence in a case against somebody they think is guilty, but in actually framing an innocent man with no criminal record.  Wow! That's quite an allegation! 

There has to be a very high bar of proof for that sort of allegation.  You can't just casually say that.  Don't police officers have the same rights to a fair trial, etc., as everybody else?

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #170 on: July 26, 2020, 12:03:AM »
I really don't accept you have.  I am sorry.  I am genuinely not trying to be difficult, and I hold no brief for the police, but I am talking about police officers who believe somebody to be innocent, not cases where officers withhold evidence because they think somebody did it and they don't want them to get away with it - which is what happened in the Kiszko case.  Unfortunately, that's common.  It still happens today.

I accept the two things amount to the same thing for practical purposes, but you allege that Essex Police not only made a mess of the Bamber investigation and maybe ignored and suppressed evidence that pointed to Sheila, you go further and say that they believed him to be innocent and pursued him anyway - which is a completely different thing. 

The first thing is still criminal - it's perverting the course of justice, potentially.  But what you are alleging is even worse.  You are alleging major organised criminality on the part of the police, not just in fitting-up known criminals, or suppressing evidence in a case against somebody they think is guilty, but in framing an innocent man with no criminal record.  That's quite an allegation!  Would you mind if I maintain some distance from you?

There has to be a very high bar of proof for that sort of allegation.  You can't just casually say that.  Don't police officers have the same rights to a fair trial, etc., as everybody else?
   The withheld evidence proved that Kiszko could not have killed Lesley Molseed. The police withheld the evidence that showed this.
     How is it possible to simultaneously hold evidence establishing someone's innocence and believe them to be guilty?

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #171 on: July 26, 2020, 12:24:AM »
I really don't accept you have.  I am sorry.  I am genuinely not trying to be difficult, and I hold no brief for the police, but I am talking about police officers who believe somebody to be innocent, not cases where officers withhold evidence because they think somebody did it and they don't want them to get away with it - which is what happened in the Kiszko case.  Unfortunately, that's common.  It still happens today.

I accept the two things amount to the same thing for practical purposes, but you allege that Essex Police not only made a mess of the Bamber investigation and maybe ignored and suppressed evidence that pointed to Sheila, you go further and say that they believed him to be innocent and pursued him anyway - which is a completely different thing. 

The first thing is still criminal - it's perverting the course of justice, potentially.  But what you are alleging is even worse. You are alleging major organised criminality on the part of the police, not just in fitting-up known criminals, or suppressing evidence in a case against somebody they think is guilty, but in actually framing an innocent man with no criminal record.  Wow! That's quite an allegation! 

There has to be a very high bar of proof for that sort of allegation.  You can't just casually say that.  Don't police officers have the same rights to a fair trial, etc., as everybody else?
   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/west-midlands-serious-crime-squad-police-unit-to-blame-for-dozens-more-injustices-1120219.html      Does this sound like widespread police corruption or organised criminality? You could find thousands of links to the history of WMSCS and it isn't pretty.
    West Midlands Serious Crime Squad is a byword for police criminality and notorious for being so. I am not alone in this opinion. It is not reasonably argued by anyone WMSCS were not utterly criminal.

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #172 on: July 26, 2020, 12:27:AM »
   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/west-midlands-serious-crime-squad-police-unit-to-blame-for-dozens-more-injustices-1120219.html      Does this sound like widespread police corruption or organised criminality? You could find thousands of links to the history of WMSCS and it isn't pretty.
    West Midlands Serious Crime Squad is a byword for police criminality and notorious for being so. I am not alone in this opinion. It is not reasonably argued by anyone WMSCS were not utterly criminal.
   To be an apologist for this kind of documented police criminality and to dismiss it as some sort of honest corruption because you believe they believed suspects guilty is not credible.

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #173 on: July 26, 2020, 12:41:AM »
   To be an apologist for this kind of documented police criminality and to dismiss it as some sort of honest corruption because you believe they believed suspects guilty is not credible.

Again, you are twisting what I have said.  I think it may be because you genuinely don't understand.  There's a nuance to this that you've not thought about.

I am not saying these officers were honest or made an "honest mistake" in all cases.  In these cases that you cite, potentially they have perverted the course of justice, but that's not the same thing as believing somebody to be innocent and corruptly pursuing them anyway.

To summarise:

Believing somebody to be guilty and suppressing exculpatory evidence = Perverting the course of justice.

Believing somebody to be innocent and suppressing exculpatory evidence - Perverting the course of justice.

They bring about the same practical result, but there's a fundamental difference in motive and intent. 

The first is serious misconduct and could lead to criminal prosecution of police officers.

The second is even more serious - in a completely different league in seriousness.

You're alleging the second, but you fail to produce examples.  The article you link to doesn't give examples.  You're either being disingenuous or you just don't understand.

You then dishonestly try to cast aspersions on me, as if I'm to blame for the misconduct of police officers.  All I'm doing is being careful, making distinctions, sticking to facts and relying on evidence.  The reason I am able to do that is that I am not biased.

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #174 on: July 26, 2020, 12:48:AM »
Again, you are twisting what I have said.  I think it may be because you genuinely don't understand.  There's a nuance to this that you've not thought about.

I am not saying these officers were honest or made an "honest mistake" in all cases.  In these cases that you cite, potentially they have perverted the course of justice, but that's not the same thing as believing somebody to be innocent and corruptly pursuing them anyway.

To summarise:

Believing somebody to be guilty and suppressing exculpatory evidence = Perverting the course of justice.

Believing somebody to be innocent and suppressing exculpatory evidence - Perverting the course of justice.

They bring about the same practical result, but there's a fundamental difference in motive and intent. 

The first is serious misconduct and could lead to criminal prosecution of police officers.

The second is even more serious - in a completely different league in seriousness.

You're alleging the second, but you fail to produce examples.  The article you link to doesn't give examples.  You're either being disingenuous or you just don't understand.

You then dishonestly try to cast aspersions on me, as if I'm to blame for the misconduct of police officers.  All I'm doing is being careful, making distinctions, sticking to facts and relying on evidence.  The reason I am able to do that is that I am not biased.
In 1994, a surviving senior West Yorkshire officer, Dick Holland, who worked on the original investigation, along with a retired forensic scientist, were charged with perverting the course of justice by allegedly suppressing evidence relating to the results of tests on semen taken from the victim's body and from the accused.

    They suppressed evidence that proved Kiszko could not have killed LM. They were charged with doing so. You simply cannot believe that someone is guilty when you hold evidence showing the opposite.
    Explain why you believe that the police thought that Kiszko was guilty despite knowing that he couldn't be. 

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #175 on: July 26, 2020, 12:59:AM »
Again, you are twisting what I have said.  I think it may be because you genuinely don't understand.  There's a nuance to this that you've not thought about.

I am not saying these officers were honest or made an "honest mistake" in all cases.  In these cases that you cite, potentially they have perverted the course of justice, but that's not the same thing as believing somebody to be innocent and corruptly pursuing them anyway.

To summarise:

Believing somebody to be guilty and suppressing exculpatory evidence = Perverting the course of justice.

Believing somebody to be innocent and suppressing exculpatory evidence - Perverting the course of justice.

They bring about the same practical result, but there's a fundamental difference in motive and intent. 


The first is serious misconduct and could lead to criminal prosecution of police officers.

The second is even more serious - in a completely different league in seriousness.

You're alleging the second, but you fail to produce examples.  The article you link to doesn't give examples.  You're either being disingenuous or you just don't understand.

You then dishonestly try to cast aspersions on me, as if I'm to blame for the misconduct of police officers.  All I'm doing is being careful, making distinctions, sticking to facts and relying on evidence.  The reason I am able to do that is that I am not biased.
   I perfectly well understand the "nuance" and have given you an example which you refuse to acknowledge. You have failed to explain in any way how the police can hold evidence proving a man's innocence(the sperm samples) and yet believe him guilty. How does this compute?
     I understand the difference perfectly well and questioning my honesty or intelligence is a low move designed to move the goalposts because you cannot adequately explain the above quandary.

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #176 on: July 26, 2020, 01:08:AM »
I really don't accept you have.  I am sorry.  I am genuinely not trying to be difficult, and I hold no brief for the police, but I am talking about police officers who believe somebody to be innocent, not cases where officers withhold evidence because they think somebody did it and they don't want them to get away with it - which is what happened in the Kiszko case.  Unfortunately, that's common.  It still happens today.

I accept the two things amount to the same thing for practical purposes, but you allege that Essex Police not only made a mess of the Bamber investigation and maybe ignored and suppressed evidence that pointed to Sheila, you go further and say that they believed him to be innocent and pursued him anyway - which is a completely different thing. 

The first thing is still criminal - it's perverting the course of justice, potentially.  But what you are alleging is even worse.  You are alleging major organised criminality on the part of the police, not just in fitting-up known criminals, or suppressing evidence in a case against somebody they think is guilty, but in actually framing an innocent man with no criminal record.  Wow! That's quite an allegation! 

There has to be a very high bar of proof for that sort of allegation.  You can't just casually say that.  Don't police officers have the same rights to a fair trial, etc., as everybody else?
   It would have been much easier just to accept that your challenge had been met and move on. It is well established that the police fitting up of Stefan Kiszko was done despite knowing him to be innocent.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #177 on: July 26, 2020, 10:46:AM »
Again, you are twisting what I have said.  I think it may be because you genuinely don't understand.  There's a nuance to this that you've not thought about.

I am not saying these officers were honest or made an "honest mistake" in all cases.  In these cases that you cite, potentially they have perverted the course of justice, but that's not the same thing as believing somebody to be innocent and corruptly pursuing them anyway.

To summarise:

Believing somebody to be guilty and suppressing exculpatory evidence = Perverting the course of justice.

Believing somebody to be innocent and suppressing exculpatory evidence - Perverting the course of justice.

They bring about the same practical result, but there's a fundamental difference in motive and intent. 

The first is serious misconduct and could lead to criminal prosecution of police officers.

The second is even more serious - in a completely different league in seriousness.

You're alleging the second, but you fail to produce examples.  The article you link to doesn't give examples.  You're either being disingenuous or you just don't understand.

You then dishonestly try to cast aspersions on me, as if I'm to blame for the misconduct of police officers.  All I'm doing is being careful, making distinctions, sticking to facts and relying on evidence.  The reason I am able to do that is that I am not biased.

Google Harold Challoner.  Corrupt Met Police officer.  Fitted up people he knew to be innocent.  I knew one of his victims.


Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44395
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #178 on: July 26, 2020, 11:16:AM »
Google Harold Challoner.  Corrupt Met Police officer.  Fitted up people he knew to be innocent.  I knew one of his victims.

Strange thing to do.

Do you believe the relatives or police fabricated the silencer?


'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer
« Reply #179 on: July 26, 2020, 11:18:AM »