0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Just out of interest, why do you start with the name calling when your weird off the wall theories are questioned? Very strange, but if the cap fits.
Quote from: mike tesko on July 26, 2011, 09:45:PMQuote from: Hartley on July 26, 2011, 09:08:PMJust out of interest, why do you start with the name calling when your weird off the wall theories are questioned? Very strange, but if the cap fits. -------------------You are the weirdo...I thought this was a civilised forum with no name calling.
Quote from: Hartley on July 26, 2011, 09:08:PMJust out of interest, why do you start with the name calling when your weird off the wall theories are questioned? Very strange, but if the cap fits. -------------------You are the weirdo...
Quote from: mike tesko on July 26, 2011, 09:45:PMQuote from: Hartley on July 26, 2011, 09:08:PMJust out of interest, why do you start with the name calling when your weird off the wall theories are questioned? Very strange, but if the cap fits. ::)-------------------You are the weirdo...I thought this was a civilised forum with no name calling. ::)
Quote from: Hartley on July 26, 2011, 09:08:PMJust out of interest, why do you start with the name calling when your weird off the wall theories are questioned? Very strange, but if the cap fits. ::)-------------------You are the weirdo...
Just out of interest, why do you start with the name calling when your weird off the wall theories are questioned? Very strange, but if the cap fits. ::)
Well done Mike you just passed the 5000 post mark. Jeremy must be very proud of the dedication you show on his behalf.How many posts do you think you will get to before he is freed?
Quote from: mike tesko on July 26, 2011, 10:06:PMQuote from: Poor Bambi on July 26, 2011, 10:02:PMWell done Mike you just passed the 5000 post mark. Jeremy must be very proud of the dedication you show on his behalf.How many posts do you think you will get to before he is freed?-------------------DS Jones was / is a crook, he falsified the contents of the above pocketbook to incorporate the evidence of the silencer, and the roles played by the relatives and Mugford - he recorded all the lies in his forged pocketbook - where are the original notes that were substituted?Senior police officers allowed Jones to falsify this pocketbook, and to write up in it all the false evidence about the finding of the silencer by the relatives, and Mugfords contribution...Absolute tosh, he did no such thing.
Quote from: Poor Bambi on July 26, 2011, 10:02:PMWell done Mike you just passed the 5000 post mark. Jeremy must be very proud of the dedication you show on his behalf.How many posts do you think you will get to before he is freed?-------------------DS Jones was / is a crook, he falsified the contents of the above pocketbook to incorporate the evidence of the silencer, and the roles played by the relatives and Mugford - he recorded all the lies in his forged pocketbook - where are the original notes that were substituted?Senior police officers allowed Jones to falsify this pocketbook, and to write up in it all the false evidence about the finding of the silencer by the relatives, and Mugfords contribution...
Quote from: mike tesko on July 26, 2011, 10:16:PMQuote from: Dave on July 26, 2011, 10:10:PMQuote from: mike tesko on July 26, 2011, 10:06:PMQuote from: Poor Bambi on July 26, 2011, 10:02:PMWell done Mike you just passed the 5000 post mark. Jeremy must be very proud of the dedication you show on his behalf.How many posts do you think you will get to before he is freed?-------------------DS Jones was / is a crook, he falsified the contents of the above pocketbook to incorporate the evidence of the silencer, and the roles played by the relatives and Mugford - he recorded all the lies in his forged pocketbook - where are the original notes that were substituted?Senior police officers allowed Jones to falsify this pocketbook, and to write up in it all the false evidence about the finding of the silencer by the relatives, and Mugfords contribution...Absolute tosh, he did no such thing........He falsified his pocketbook entries relating to the silencer, relatives and Mugford, and senior officers knew he had re-written his notes in a pocketbook (49) which had been issued to him, five months previously, which even contained the official Essex police stamp, dated, 5th November 1984 - senior officers are responsible for checking pocketbooks of lower ranked police officers such as DS Jones, so how did he get away with it?Pure fantasy me Lord!
Quote from: Dave on July 26, 2011, 10:10:PMQuote from: mike tesko on July 26, 2011, 10:06:PMQuote from: Poor Bambi on July 26, 2011, 10:02:PMWell done Mike you just passed the 5000 post mark. Jeremy must be very proud of the dedication you show on his behalf.How many posts do you think you will get to before he is freed?-------------------DS Jones was / is a crook, he falsified the contents of the above pocketbook to incorporate the evidence of the silencer, and the roles played by the relatives and Mugford - he recorded all the lies in his forged pocketbook - where are the original notes that were substituted?Senior police officers allowed Jones to falsify this pocketbook, and to write up in it all the false evidence about the finding of the silencer by the relatives, and Mugfords contribution...Absolute tosh, he did no such thing........He falsified his pocketbook entries relating to the silencer, relatives and Mugford, and senior officers knew he had re-written his notes in a pocketbook (49) which had been issued to him, five months previously, which even contained the official Essex police stamp, dated, 5th November 1984 - senior officers are responsible for checking pocketbooks of lower ranked police officers such as DS Jones, so how did he get away with it?
The police did not stage manage anything, they moved the rifle to photograph blood staining, that is why there are photographs of each. You work it out. Our friendly photographer turns up, snap, snap, snap, can you move that please, thanks snap. As per the witness statements.If they stage managed, Bird must have been in on it right? Due to the different positions photographed right? No, if they stage managed it they would have done so prior to the photographs being taken, not decide to do so half way through.This is weak, very,very weak. Good luck with that.
Quote from: Hartley on July 26, 2011, 08:05:PMThe police did not stage manage anything, they moved the rifle to photograph blood staining, that is why there are photographs of each. You work it out. Our friendly photographer turns up, snap, snap, snap, can you move that please, thanks snap. As per the witness statements.If they stage managed, Bird must have been in on it right? Due to the different positions photographed right? No, if they stage managed it they would have done so prior to the photographs being taken, not decide to do so half way through.This is weak, very,very weak. Good luck with that.So do we have two photographs with sheila's arm in these different positions? Also why would they want to photograph the blood staining. I thought all police photos were of the crime scene as it is?
Quote from: grahame on July 26, 2011, 11:17:PMQuote from: Hartley on July 26, 2011, 08:05:PMThe police did not stage manage anything, they moved the rifle to photograph blood staining, that is why there are photographs of each. You work it out. Our friendly photographer turns up, snap, snap, snap, can you move that please, thanks snap. As per the witness statements.If they stage managed, Bird must have been in on it right? Due to the different positions photographed right? No, if they stage managed it they would have done so prior to the photographs being taken, not decide to do so half way through.This is weak, very,very weak. Good luck with that.So do we have two photographs with sheila's arm in these different positions? Also why would they want to photograph the blood staining. I thought all police photos were of the crime scene as it is?Yes, the ones which were superimposed and submitted to the ccrc, but the witness statements explaining the movement were not advertised on this forum. That is why we had the comment from the ccrc that the photographs were not as strong as the witness statements.
No, their witness statements clearly explained why, it's Mike playing games, at the time I hadn't seen the statements which describe the movement.
