The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer

[guest29835]

   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.

The only person who has provided me with an example is NG1066.

[Adam]

Possibly that IS an example.  I wish one of the other posters had yesterday just done what you have just done, instead of taking us round the houses.

I accept that a police officer could take a disliking to somebody and decide to fit them up for something.  In Challoner case, it was claimed he was mentally-ill, but we'll disregard that and just assume that Challoner is an example.  However, what some people here are suggesting is that Stan Jones or some other police officer involved in this, has intentionally gone about framing Jeremy KNOWING HIM TO BE INNOCENT.

That's a big accusation to make.  So far, I see no evidence for it.

So far, what the evidence tells me is that there was a solid basis to look at Jeremy, Stan Jones decided it was Jeremy, and set about shaping the evidence to make it stick.  That's no commentary on whether Jeremy did it or not, but arguably that was unprofessional and jeopardises the safety of the conviction.  However, it's very far removed from knowing Jeremy to be innocent and then fitting him up.

What evidence did 'the treacherous' Stan Jones shape?

[ngb1066]

The silencer is this case was made very little difference to the human ear.


In America you can get good silencers, but they would not be legal here.

Why would they not be legal?  The Parker Hale is a very simple design which is widely used, but there are far better ones available now.  There is no problem here in getting permission for one.  In fact one of the strange things about firearms law is that the USA is generally far stricter on silencers than is the case in the UK, despite the generally far more liberal gun laws in the USA.

[guest29835]

What evidence did 'the treacherous' Stan Jones shape?

I don't know.  I've been relying on your lists, Adam.

[Adam]

I don't know.  I've been relying on your lists, Adam.

The forensic evidence list is in reply 148.

[guest29835]

The forensic evidence list is in reply 148.

Thanks Adam.  You're my blue-eyed boy.

[David1819]

Why would they not be legal?  The Parker Hale is a very simple design which is widely used, but there are far better ones available now.  There is no problem here in getting permission for one.  In fact one of the strange things about firearms law is that the USA is generally far stricter on silencers than is the case in the UK, despite the generally far more liberal gun laws in the USA.

In the US they sell silencers for 30-50 caliber automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns. So they should be far stricter.

Do you think someone here could get permission for this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgiOuyM6iQM

[guest29835]

Going back to the original post, who was the defence's blood stain distribution expert at trial?

[Roch]

Come on. 

Why would they buy him or threaten him in particular?  Is he John Connor?  What's so special about him?  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?   

 

I suspect he may be a 'patsy'.  I doubt there's a need for there to be anything special about him, however he may have conveniently met certain criteria which placed him in that position.

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.

Jo Cox may well have been killed.  In the aftermath of the killing, I immediately considered the incident was linked to an attempt to manipulate the Brexit vote.  Nothing has changed my mind on that, however there may be more strands to it.  Although Jo Cox was not well known to the UK public or even within Westminster, she had at a relatively young age held some arguably prominent positions.

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.

I hope it's not his trial lawyer.  I think if you ask the chaplain to check on Tommy's welfare in prison, you're not likely to hear back from the chaplain. 

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.

I think his mam has visited him.  If you write to him to discuss the circumstances of his case and trial, there's a good chance you will receive a visit from plain clothes officers, ostensibly to check for any 'right wing' leanings - but in reality to warn you off.

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.

If he attempted to do so, it may break whatever arrangement / agreement that he was coerced in to, thereby placing either himself or his family at risk in some way or form.

[guest29835]

 

I suspect he may be a 'patsy'.  I doubt there's a need for there to be anything special about him, however he may have conveniently met certain criteria which placed him in that position.

Jo Cox may well have been killed.  In the aftermath of the killing, I immediately considered the incident was linked to an attempt to manipulate the Brexit vote.  Nothing has changed my mind on that, however there may be more strands to it.  Although Jo Cox was not well known to the UK public or even within Westminster, she had at a relatively young age held some arguably prominent positions.

I hope it's not his trial lawyer.  I think if you ask the chaplain to check on Tommy's welfare in prison, you're not likely to hear back from the chaplain. 

I think his mam has visited him.  If you write to him to discuss the circumstances of his case and trial, there's a good chance you will receive a visit from plain clothes officers, ostensibly to check for any 'right wing' leanings - but in reality to warn you off.




If he attempted to do so, it may break whatever arrangement / agreement that he was coerced in to, thereby placing either himself or his family at risk in some way or form.

I will start a new thread.

[Roch]

The only person who has provided me with an example is NG1066.

It may be difficult to weigh this against your original question regarding deliberate (and therefore malicious) prosecution of a person known to be innocent. However, there are some situations were a decision is made that 'the ends justify the means'.  I recently used the term 'patsy' as you are aware.  I suspect that there are some situations where the lines become blurred, between the security services, military and the police.  Not overtly or publicly, but 'in the interests of the state' and behind the scenes.  How much is known by the police officers involved in these scenarios is debatable.  However, I would expect it to make sense that information was on a strictly need to know basis.  Following this line of thought, I would expect that only some senior police officers would know for certain, that the person being pursued was innocent.

[guest29835]

I will start a new thread.

Here's the thread:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10307.0.html

[guest29835]

It may be difficult to weigh this against your original question regarding deliberate (and therefore malicious) prosecution of a person known to be innocent. However, there are some situations were a decision is made that 'the ends justify the means'.  I recently used the term 'patsy' as you are aware.  I suspect that there are some situations where the lines become blurred, between the security services, military and the police.  Not overtly or publicly, but 'in the interests of the state' and behind the scenes.  How much is known by the police officers involved in these scenarios is debatable.  However, I would expect it to make sense that information was on a strictly need to know basis.  Following this line of thought, I would expect that only some senior police officers would know for certain, that the person being pursued was innocent.

Where there is a political dimension to a case, I think you are right that they will not stick to strict investigative goals.  Politics can come into it a lot, even with seemingly mundane criminal cases like the McCanns.

However, I'm not sure I can accept that they go round framing innocent ordinary Joe Bloggs type people.  There is a fine line, but when it goes wrong, it seems to me it's more about either a mistake in the investigation, or officers have got a bee in their bonnet about somebody and they break the rules to get them convicted or the evidence has been misinterpreted.

In all cases, they think, believe or assume - or 'know' - that the individual is guilty or caught up in it in some way, and that's what drives it.

It's a consequentialist attitude to ethics.

Take somebody like Dick Holland.  It's not that he thinks an individual is innocent, though that may have happened with career criminals he wanted to set up in order to bang them up - which is a good example of consequentialist ethics in itself. 

With regular people like Kiszko, the mindset of detectives like Dick Holland is more along the lines of:

Kiszko did it.

Oh, wait, we've got some evidence that might make a jury decide there's reasonable doubt.

But Kiszko did it and we need him locked up.

Hide the evidence from the trial so that we can get the result we want.

Job done.

It then turns out that Kiszko didn't do it. 

Whether it's stupidity or malice on the part of the police officers, I'm not sure you can say they believed Kiszko to be innocent.  Certainly, it's perverting the course of justice.

[Roch]

Here's the thread:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10307.0.html

Thanks, for that.

[Roch]

Where there is a political dimension to a case, I think you are right that they will not stick to strict investigative goals.  Politics can come into it a lot, even with seemingly mundane criminal cases like the McCanns.

However, I'm not sure I can accept that they go round framing innocent ordinary Joe Bloggs type people.  There is a fine line, but when it goes wrong, it seems to me it's more about either a mistake in the investigation, or officers have got a bee in their bonnet about somebody and they break the rules to get them convicted or the evidence has been misinterpreted.

In all cases, they think, believe or assume - or 'know' - that the individual is guilty or caught up in it in some way, and that's what drives it.

Yes I definitely differ with you on this view.  The kind of incidents I'm referring to.. there would be some pretty ruthless individuals behind the scenes.  There would be an established link with professionals in other agencies (for example police) who were, let's say, not overly concerned with integrity / were ambitious / or somehow otherwise compromised themselves (and therefore not in a position to resist cooperation in proceedings).  Remember, most police officers and the public will have no wind of this - and the press and media will diligently report what they are fed.   In such circs, I believe people known to be innocent can be convicted or incarcerated temporarily.  Whether those people are joe bloggs or lilly white in character is another matter.