Author Topic: Question for Mike Tesko  (Read 428 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cambridgecutie

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1982
Re: Question for Mike Tesko
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2022, 12:02:AM »
You have already posted up a transcript of Jeremy's interview in which he is asked if the rifle with silencer attached fits in the gun cupboard and he answers, 'Don't know'.  I believe that answer (and possibly other representations from him), together with Anthony Pargeter's evidence, is why the photograph was taken.  See my explanation already given above.

It may well also be true that Jeremy said he could not fit the rifle with silencer attached inside the gun case.  I don't necessarily doubt it, but the transcript you've posted up does not establish what Jeremy said about it one way or the other.

Anthony Pargeter confirmed in his wit stat when he visited the farm on 26/28 July the rifle was in the understairs cupboard with sights and silencer attached.
Patrick O'Connor, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers: "It will have to be a slam dunk.  It will have to be something of a blockbuster piece of evidence to have a chance".

Highlights Women's FA Cup Final https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZwaTjPlSwk

Offline QCChevalier

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4182
  • I defer to Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, QC
Re: Question for Mike Tesko
« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2022, 12:03:AM »
Did Anthony Pargeter assert the rifle would not fit in the gun cupboard with the silencer attached?  Please provide a source.

If you wish to assert Bamber said the rifle would not fit in the gun cupboard with the silencer attached please provide the source.

No.  Anthony Pargeter stated that it would fit!  In a witness statement, he recalled that he had found the rifle with silencer and scope on when he looked in the gun cupboard on the 24th. July 1985.  I explain all this above, if you would care to actually read my posts before responding. 

You have provided a source for what Jeremy said.  He told the police, 'I don't know'.  The police already had Anthony Pargeter's statement and therefore interpreted this as Jeremy being disingenuous or lying.  Hence the photograph, which I came on to the thread to explain to another member.

For the reasons explained, I believe Anthony Pargeter was mistaken and Jeremy was being truthful because he probably never did try to fit the rifle in with the silencer, the reason being that it would not fit in ordinary usage.  The police were only able to make it fit in a staged way for the purpose of a photograph.

I hope that explains it.  I can't really put it any clearer. 

Offline QCChevalier

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4182
  • I defer to Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, QC
Re: Question for Mike Tesko
« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2022, 12:03:AM »
Anthony Pargeter confirmed in his wit stat when he visited the farm on 26/28 July the rifle was in the understairs cupboard with sights and silencer attached.

Yes, and that's exactly what I have just been telling you, if you'd actually bother to read my posts on the thread!

Offline Cambridgecutie

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1982
Re: Question for Mike Tesko
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2022, 12:06:AM »
Yes, and that's exactly what I have just been telling you, if you'd actually bother to read my posts on the thread!

There's never been any question about the rifle with silencer attached fitting in the gun cupboard.
Patrick O'Connor, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers: "It will have to be a slam dunk.  It will have to be something of a blockbuster piece of evidence to have a chance".

Highlights Women's FA Cup Final https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZwaTjPlSwk

Offline QCChevalier

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4182
  • I defer to Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, QC
Re: Question for Mike Tesko
« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2022, 12:07:AM »
There's never been any question about the rifle with silencer attached fitting in the gun cupboard.

That must be why Jeremy told the police he didn't know, when they asked him that very question.

Offline snow66!

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
Re: Question for Mike Tesko
« Reply #20 on: January 15, 2022, 12:08:AM »
Thank you Qc that makes perfect sense now,sorry to have wasted everyones time.I will pay more attention next time.Goodnight all.

Offline Cambridgecutie

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1982
Re: Question for Mike Tesko
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2022, 12:14:AM »
That must be why Jeremy told the police he didn't know, when they asked him that very question.

It was Mrs Eaton who asserted that Bamber said the rifle with silencer attached would not fit in the cupboard.
Patrick O'Connor, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers: "It will have to be a slam dunk.  It will have to be something of a blockbuster piece of evidence to have a chance".

Highlights Women's FA Cup Final https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZwaTjPlSwk

Offline QCChevalier

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4182
  • I defer to Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, QC
Re: Question for Mike Tesko
« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2022, 12:25:AM »
It was Mrs Eaton who asserted that Bamber said the rifle with silencer attached would not fit in the cupboard.

OK, thanks.  That doesn't change what I have said above, but it is good to know.  The relatives were obviously thinking about the silencer early on.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50239
Re: Question for Mike Tesko
« Reply #23 on: January 15, 2022, 12:32:AM »
According, to 'Essex police' the gun case to the. 22 semi-automatic rifle, was missing from the scene (or they did not disclose the seizure or find it there)..
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50239
Re: Question for Mike Tesko
« Reply #24 on: January 15, 2022, 01:09:AM »
Here, 'are the 5 problems' surrounding 'what the photograph in question' establishes beyond 'any reasonable doubt' that 'cops', 'relatives', and 'so called experts at Huntingdon Lab', 'staged the photographic evidence', the 'various bodily postures' and ( also) 'they faked the validity' of 'many crime scene [referenced] exhibits', 'at', or 'from the scene' including 'facts regarding', 'who found' it, or 'seized' it and 'the occasion', that 'such an exhibit', 'was first discovered' or 'taken possession of' (initially) on 'the very first occasion' it became an item of interest' [to them] - a typical example, is the faked claim that 'there was only one silencer at the heart of the police` and `the prosecutions corrupt case', involving, 'one' or 'more', silencers!

Surely, 'no honest decent member of the public',  'believes that' there was 'only ever just one silencer' that was 'found', 'seized' or 'taken possession of'? A 'legitimate court hearing' 'does not', and 'should not', have 'more than one exhibit reference', in 'any' or 'under any circumstances' [unless, 'there is confirmation' in 'a witness statement', that 'the reason for such discrepancies  [may], `exist' , because 'the witness in question', as 'the actual person', who they received it (the item in question) from 'whom' they refer to by a different t exhibit (and 'item referenced') ...

I mean, 'SJ/1', 'SBJ/1', DB/1', 'AE/1', 'CAE/1' and 'DRB/1' [ various ' exhibit references']

[problem (4) - the 'white arrow', 'shown on the rifles wooden butt', denotes 'the date' that 'Di Cook' Fingerprinted the rifle in question [ 23rd August 1985] using the 'oblique light test procedure / process' and the finding 'Sheila Caffells fingerprints' on the wooden butt of the rifle]

problem (3) - the 'wooden [piece of] stock belonging to a rifle [photographed at the scene on the first morning of the police investigation] 'cannot have belonged to', or 'have originated' from' the 'Bamber owned', '. 22 semi-automatic Anshuzt rifle' at the time of any attack upon 'Neville Bamber' during the circumstances of any struggle prior to him losing the battle to survive, because at the time the crucial photograph of '. That rifle fitted with a silencer, telescopic site, and after which it had already been fingerprinted by' Di Cook' using the all important oblique light test/procedure [performed on the 23rd August 1985] does 'not appear to be damaged at all' in 'the area of that rifles wooden butt', a factor suggestive of 'that broken piece of a wooden rifle butt', could 'not have derived' from the. 22 semi-automatic rifle at the scene (during any struggle with 'Neville Bamber') in the kitchen, which is 'inconsistent' with 'photographic content', that was 'taken at the scene', on 'the first morning of the police investigation' which depict 'a broken piece of a rifles wooden butt', discarded upon 'the kitchen floor' in 'an area beneath the aga surround','Close' to 'the body' [7th August 1985] ..

problem (1) - there is 'no exhibit label attached to the silencer', despite the suggestion that 'DI Cook' states in his evidence, that on the date that he first took the silencer to the laboratory [`13th August 1985'] to be examined by 'Glynis Howard', that 'it' did not have an exhibit label attached to it, so 'Cook' attached a blank one, after both 'he' and 'Glynis Howard' signed it at positions 2 and 3 [he states, that position 1 on the label was 'left blank' for 'the finder of the silencer' to 'sign later on']. 'He' added, that because he had been handed 'this' /'that' silencer on that very same morning by 'DS Jones', that 'he' gave that an exhibit reference of 'SJ/1', which was allocated, along with 'an item reference number of 22'.[much `later`] which when 'he' was 'questioned' by 'COLP INVESTIGATORS' [1991] regarding why there existed more than three exhibit references [`SJ/1'(22), 'DB/1' (23), `AE/1'(?), 'CAE/1'(?) and 'DRB/1' (23/22)], 'DI COOK' gave the explanation, that 'he was not aware' (at that time) that 'DS Jones' had a middle Christian name ['Brian'] and 'only knew him', as 'Stan Jones' [hence, why he gave the silencer the exhibit reference of', `SJ/1'] - CODSWALLOP'!!!

Problem (2) - 'The telescopic site', was 'not received' by 'the Essex police' from 'Ann Eaton'/'David Boutflour' until 'the 11th September 1985', along with 'a silencer' [ originally given the following 'two exhibit references' - `AE/1' - 'CAE/1', and which subsequently became exhibit (reference) 'DRB/1' (Court exhibit no. 9). Between the  '11th September 1985' and 'the 20th September 1985', 'this' / 'that', 'silencer exhibit' remained 'in the possession of Essex police' which 'had associated to it', 'three separate versions' of 'an exhibit reference' [`AE/1', 'transfigured' (at the stroke of a pen) into 'CAE/1', until the powers that be, decided to refer to it, by the 'exhibit reference' of 'DRB/1' ('laboratory item no. 23', and 'Court item no. 9'). This 'latest alteration' coincided `with the date` [`20th September 1985'] when 'this particular silencer' (in all of 'its previous exhibit reference disguises', was 'sent' or 'taken' to 'Huntingdon Laboratory' for 'the very first time' , on 'the 20th September 1985'. In other words, this particular silencer ( in all its various exhibit reference disguises' was not the / a silencer, taken by 'Di Cook' to the Laboratory to be examined by 'Glyniss Howard' on 'the 13th August 1985 referred to by' Di Cook' as 'exhibit reference', 'SJ/1' yet referred to, by 'Glyniss Howard' in one of her witness statements regarding the same occasion of 'that examination, by referring to 'it'/'that silencer', as bearing 'exhibit reference', 'DRB/1'. This is indicative, of someone in authority, altering 'Glynis Howards' witness statement without her knowledge, for the purpose of 'merging the identity of two or more different silencers that were taken or submitted to the lab' to be examined on 'the 13th August 1985' and on the 30th August 1985'.. Moreover, once 'Ann Eaton' handed over the silencer to Essex police' on 'the 11th September 1985' and the date of `its first submission` to `Huntingdon Laboratory` [on 'the 20th September 1985'] `Essex police' 'fingerprinted', 'that' / 'this silencer' using 'cynoacrylate technique' at 'Chelmsford police headquarters' ('superglue treatment'), despite the fact that 'if' there had been, or was, only ever one silencer used at the heart of the police/prosecutions case, that 'DI Cook' had

the ['15th August 1985' by way of an 'oblique light test technique' and 'on a second occasion', the[/u][/color]'23rd August 1985' [/u][/color] when 'he re-fingerprinted' the 'same silencer', by way of 'superglue treatment'. As far as scientific technique are concerned, it 'is impossible' to 'successfully refingerprint', 'a silencer' on a later date, than 'it was originally fingerprinted' using 'the cynoacrylate practice' already 'carried out on the ('alledged') same silencer', [previously] which 'in this case`, 'took place' on the 23rd August 1985 by 'Di Cook',
Foolowed later on by refingerprinting of a silencer, on the '13th September 1985'and ['WHICH' took place] 'after the second submission of  a silencer' which supposedly took place, between 'Essex police' and 'Huntingdon Laboratory' on 'the 30th August 1985'. If the second submission of a silencer by 'Essex police', to 'Huntingdon Laboratory' took place as the powers that be have claimed, then how could 'DS Eastwood' and 'DS Davison' have got the same silencer in their possession at 'Chelmsford police HQ' on the '13th September 1985' on the pretense that they were 'tasked to fingerprint it' by 'senior officers' who seemed 'HELL BENT' upon changing the focus of the police INVESTIGATION (from that stage onward), from, one of 'four murders' and 'suicide' into a different narrative, where 'they targeted', 'Jeremy Bamber' as being involved in a case of 'five murders' [`THE SAME SILENCER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LOCATIONS', [Huntingdon Laboratory' and 'Chelmsford police HQ', at 'the same time', on 'the same date' (and that is 'A FACT' which no-one can argue with). The absolute truth of the matter, was / is that the silencer found by 'David Boutflour' at the scene, 'was not found by him' on 'Saturday 10th August 1985', (a proposal given by me in this instance, which can be proven by reference to sequences of documented events which those involved know and accept to be true which I will be alluding to in due course) since, 'he actually found it' at the scene [WHF] on a date, after 'Jeremy Bambers' first arrest which occurred on the
« Last Edit: January 16, 2022, 05:08:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Cambridgecutie

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1982
Re: Question for Mike Tesko
« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2022, 11:00:AM »
OK, thanks.  That doesn't change what I have said above, but it is good to know.  The relatives were obviously thinking about the silencer early on.

It does change what you said above insofar as Bamber never claimed the rifle would not fit in the gun cupboard with the silencer attached to the rifle. 



Patrick O'Connor, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers: "It will have to be a slam dunk.  It will have to be something of a blockbuster piece of evidence to have a chance".

Highlights Women's FA Cup Final https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZwaTjPlSwk

Offline QCChevalier

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4182
  • I defer to Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, QC
Re: Question for Mike Tesko
« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2022, 01:09:PM »
It does change what you said above insofar as Bamber never claimed the rifle would not fit in the gun cupboard with the silencer attached to the rifle.

No, even if that is true, it doesn't change what I've said, if you actually read what I've said and look at what you have posted to the thread, but I don't to waste further time arguing about it.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2022, 01:18:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline snow66!

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
Re: Question for Mike Tesko
« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2022, 03:15:PM »
Hello Mike ,if there was more than one silencer ,does that mean the other one was from Anthonys rifle ,and does this mean it was present at the farm like JB said it was all the time.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50239
Re: Question for Mike Tesko
« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2022, 09:50:PM »
Hello Mike ,if there was more than one silencer ,does that mean the other one was from Anthonys rifle ,and does this mean it was present at the farm like JB said it was all the time.
'Hi', snow66 - rest assured, that the 'Pargeter' and 'the Bamber' owned 'Parker hale silencers', 'lies at the heart' of 'this humongouos', 'miscarriage of justice', involving 'collaboration' between 'relatives', 'cops' and the 'so called', 'ballistics', 'biology', 'experts' who 'all were housed' in 'careers, at 'Huntingdon Laboratory' [encouraged by the dastardly prosecution and some despicable persons of the judiciary].

'Both rifles'[ discounting the use of firearm officers weapons which were discharged at the scene], and 'one particular silencer'[owned by 'ANTHONY PARGETER'], were 'used during this shooting incident' - proven by the ' internal design features' subject to distinguishing, one of these Parker hale silencers, one from the other, by the number of internal baffle plates contained in each silencer, [the 'Anthony Pargeter' Parker hale silencer, which 'he purchased in 1980', was 'manufactured having 17 internal metallic baffle plates'] as compared to the internal design features manufactured by 'Parker Hale Silencer Ltd' at the beginning of 1984, when the number of metallic internalised baffle plates, we're reduced, from 'the previous 17' [as produced in 1980, until the beginning of 'November','1984'] to `the latest model of its day` to `15 internal baffle plates`. It goes 'without saying', that 'in point of fact', although 'the Pargeter' and 'Bamber','Parker hale silencers', 'looked' or 'appeared' to be 'identical visually', and or 'externally', there was 'a stark difference' with regards to 'the number of internal metallic baffle plates' that /which 'distinguished one of these Parker hale silencers' and 'to whom', 'each' or 'both of these Parker hale silencers', 'belonged to' [`the devil is in the detail'] 'not viewed externally' by `the police`, `its expert witnesses', 'over zealous relatives', 'the gun dealer [`Radcliffe' in Colchester], who sold 'one of these silencer owners', at least four years after 'Anthony Pargeter' purchased 'his', '17 baffle plated Parker Hale silencer', and certainly, which the very same manufacturer of these (establishably) separate 'two distinguishable silencers'[Parker Hale Ltd].
« Last Edit: January 15, 2022, 10:45:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline snow66!

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
Re: Question for Mike Tesko
« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2022, 11:06:PM »
Thanks for the reply Mike.So let me get this straight ,both rifles and both silencers were at the farm on the night of the trajedy.Anthonys probably in the down stairs shower room,And do you generally agree with the likes of Andrew Hunter and Mark Higgs[Bambergate] that Sheila used both rifles and maybe didnt have to re-load at all.And is this why it was decided to claim Anthonys rifle was not present ,so that they could claim only one silencer was present in the house that night.Obviously JB believed it was present that night.telling the police it was in the house.