PC John Manners statement - 23/09/1985

[andrea]

june was in the doorway wasnt she, but laid to one side of it.

[ngb1066]

Smiffy your posts are as effective as a chihuahua chewing a tank.
I am going to ask the DPP to gag you with a PII; now that would
be in the public interest. 

He actually makes a pretty good point. The have already admitted moving Sheila's arm so they could photograph the boodstain on her night dress (It baffles me as to why they wanted a good picture of blood?) Mike also claims thay he has seen a picture of Sheila on the bed instead of on the floor. And I believe him. So why would it not be reasonable to suppose that June's body had also been "manipulated" into that position?

That is simple. Sheila's manipulation is documented and photographed, I don't believe Mike has seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed, I think he is lying.There is no documentation that June has been manipulated, if there are drag marks then it's just as likely that she dragged her own injured body to that position before being shot between the eyes.

Hartley  -  Do you really believe it is necessary or appropriate to call Mike a liar in relation to this?  He has stated that he recalls seeing the photograph and I have no reason to doubt him.  If you do not believe he in fact saw the photograph you could say that he might have been mistaken.  I personally take great exception to being called a liar (as has happened several times on this forum) and although there are times when that term is necessary and appropriate I do not see how you can consider this to be one of them.  I hope that on reflection you will agree with me on this.



 

[Hartley]

Hartley  -  Do you really believe it is necessary or appropriate to call Mike a liar in relation to this?  He has stated that he recalls seeing the photograph and I have no reason to doubt him.  If you do not believe he in fact saw the photograph you could say that he might have been mistaken.  I personally take great exception to being called a liar (as has happened several times on this forum) and although there are times when that term is necessary and appropriate I do not see how you can consider this to be one of them.  I hope that on reflection you will agree with me on this.

Well that is what I believe and I do feel it appropriate if it is being used to somehow bolster his argument.

I don't think you can play too high and mighty with me on this NGB, I've been on the receiving end of some of Mikes vitriol, of which I take great exception to.

This post for example:

You are a complete idiot...

I said that his body was frozen in a sitting position by rigor mortis...

Or this one:

Stop being an idiot, of course it happened...

Or this one:

Stop being pathetic...

So with all due respect NGB, I disagree with your entire post.

[mike tesko]

Can we get one thing clear here please. The highlighting and crossing out was done by Mike Teskowski, we have enough conpiracy theories already thank you.

... You lying scumbag, I haven't altered anything...

[grahameb]

Hartley  -  Do you really believe it is necessary or appropriate to call Mike a liar in relation to this?  He has stated that he recalls seeing the photograph and I have no reason to doubt him.  If you do not believe he in fact saw the photograph you could say that he might have been mistaken.  I personally take great exception to being called a liar (as has happened several times on this forum) and although there are times when that term is necessary and appropriate I do not see how you can consider this to be one of them.  I hope that on reflection you will agree with me on this.

Well that is what I believe and I do feel it appropriate if it is being used to somehow bolster his argument.

I don't think you can play too high and mighty with me on this NGB, I've been on the receiving end of some of Mikes vitriol, of which I take great exception to.

This post for example:

You are a complete idiot...

I said that his body was frozen in a sitting position by rigor mortis...

Or this one:

Stop being an idiot, of course it happened...

Or this one:

Stop being pathetic...

So with all due respect NGB, I disagree with your entire post.

hmm, got a point.

[Hartley]

And also to add I do not think he was mistaken, to describe it as such would not convey my opinion, I believe he is actively lying in order to bolster his argument.

Just as he did when he informed us that Ann Eaton took blood soaked clothes home for whf, he cropped a page of Ann's statement, if he hadn't cropped it then we would have seen the next line which shows Mike to be actively lying in an attempt to deceive people.

So yes that's it. You have irritated the hell out of me though, but I'll calm down in thirty seconds. 

[Hartley]

Can we get one thing clear here please. The highlighting and crossing out was done by Mike Teskowski, we have enough conpiracy theories already thank you.

... You lying scumbag, I haven't altered anything...

See my point NGB?

So Mike you haven't highlighted and crossed out on this page? Besides I think it's quite obvious I was not accusing you of anything untowards. Great reaction though!   

[ngb1066]

Hartley  -  Do you really believe it is necessary or appropriate to call Mike a liar in relation to this?  He has stated that he recalls seeing the photograph and I have no reason to doubt him.  If you do not believe he in fact saw the photograph you could say that he might have been mistaken.  I personally take great exception to being called a liar (as has happened several times on this forum) and although there are times when that term is necessary and appropriate I do not see how you can consider this to be one of them.  I hope that on reflection you will agree with me on this.

Well that is what I believe and I do feel it appropriate if it is being used to somehow bolster his argument.

I don't think you can play too high and mighty with me on this NGB, I've been on the receiving end of some of Mikes vitriol, of which I take great exception to.

This post for example:

You are a complete idiot...

I said that his body was frozen in a sitting position by rigor mortis...

Or this one:

Stop being an idiot, of course it happened...

Or this one:

Stop being pathetic...

So with all due respect NGB, I disagree with your entire post.

Hartley  -  Fair enough, and I understand the point that you are making.  I was not trying to "play high and mighty" on this. Posters on both sides of the argument sometimes use emotive language to put across their point of view.  I agree we should not be too thin skinned about it.  My only point is that calling someone a liar crosses a line in my view.  If I am called an idiot I may be irritated but I regard it simply as abuse.  If I am called a liar that goes beyond abuse - it is a direct attack on my integrity. I hope that you can see the difference.

[Hartley]

june was in the doorway wasnt she, but laid to one side of it.

Sort of, to the side a bit, she wasn't blocking the doorway though.

[Hartley]

Hartley  -  Fair enough, and I understand the point that you are making.  I was not trying to "play high and mighty" on this. Posters on both sides of the argument sometimes use emotive language to put across their point of view.  I agree we should not be too thin skinned about it.  My only point is that calling someone a liar crosses a line in my view.  If I am called an idiot I may be irritated but I regard it simply as abuse.  If I am called a liar that goes beyond abuse - it is a direct attack on my integrity. I hope that you can see the difference.

Sort of I suppose, but that is genuinely what I believe, I think being called a lying scumbag could be just as irritating and directly attacking my credibility, as per Mikes previous post.

But anyway. Let's move on.

[ngb1066]

And also to add I do not think he was mistaken, to describe it as such would not convey my opinion, I believe he is actively lying in order to bolster his argument.

Just as he did when he informed us that Ann Eaton took blood soaked clothes home for whf, he cropped a page of Ann's statement, if he hadn't cropped it then we would have seen the next line which shows Mike to be actively lying in an attempt to deceive people.

So yes that's it. You have irritated the hell out of me though, but I'll calm down in thirty seconds. 

I will leave well alone then!

[ngb1066]

Hartley  -  Fair enough, and I understand the point that you are making.  I was not trying to "play high and mighty" on this. Posters on both sides of the argument sometimes use emotive language to put across their point of view.  I agree we should not be too thin skinned about it.  My only point is that calling someone a liar crosses a line in my view.  If I am called an idiot I may be irritated but I regard it simply as abuse.  If I am called a liar that goes beyond abuse - it is a direct attack on my integrity. I hope that you can see the difference.

Sort of I suppose, but that is genuinely what I believe, I think being called a lying scumbag could be just as irritating and directly attacking my credibility, as per Mikes previous post.

But anyway. Let's move on.

Fair enough, in the circumstances I think we probably should!

[grahameb]

Sometimes we all get a bit heated and irritated with folk and calling people lyers is wrong whoever says it. Perhaps we can all take a bit more care and moderate our language and respect one another?

[mike tesko]

And also to add I do not think he was mistaken, to describe it as such would not convey my opinion, I believe he is actively lying in order to bolster his argument.

Just as he did when he informed us that Ann Eaton took blood soaked clothes home for whf, he cropped a page of Ann's statement, if he hadn't cropped it then we would have seen the next line which shows Mike to be actively lying in an attempt to deceive people.

So yes that's it. You have irritated the hell out of me though, but I'll calm down in thirty seconds. 

-------------------

Ann Eaton has lied about handing the silencer over, she knows she gave it to the police on 11th September 1985, and that the relatives have conspired with police officers (in particular their best friend DS "Stan" Jones) about the silencer being found a month earlier. Eaton knows the truth and she is hoping that no evidence surfaces which proves that the relatives deliberately contaminated the silencer by scratching it against the paintwork of the aga...

David Boutfloyur also has lied, because he did not contact the police until 11th September 1985, to inform them that he had found a silencer in the gun cupboard at whf - he would hardly wait a month before choosing to report the find of a silencer a month previously?

I don't have to lie, the relatives and the police have made such a good job of it all by themselves...

[mike tesko]

Smiffy your posts are as effective as a chihuahua chewing a tank.
I am going to ask the DPP to gag you with a PII; now that would
be in the public interest. 

He actually makes a pretty good point. The have already admitted moving Sheila's arm so they could photograph the boodstain on her night dress (It baffles me as to why they wanted a good picture of blood?) Mike also claims thay he has seen a picture of Sheila on the bed instead of on the floor. And I believe him. So why would it not be reasonable to suppose that June's body had also been "manipulated" into that position?

-------------------

One of the firearm officers witness statements has June on the bedroom floor with her feet closest to the doorway when he entered the bedroom - now in the crime scene photographs that PC Bird took, Junes feet are pointing away from the door, so who moved her biody into that position?