Essex police found evidence that Sheila fired rifle (SC/688/85)

[mike tesko]

I have never drawn Jeremy's attention to the material I have recently brought to the attention of this forum, so he had no idea about the significance or otherwise of the residue found on Sheila's right hand and what can be safely inferred from it/them. It was pointless mentioning it to Jeremy until he got access to the original photographs from all three albums, and the negatives. I would imagine that by now Jeremy has been informed and brought up to date with these latest findings and no doubt he will have taken steps to check this out now that his experts and legal team have got access to the negatives - so from his point of view, these matters would be new and fresh...

Remember...

This is Jeremy's application to the CCRC, not mine...

As far as I know, Jeremy has had to wait for over 26 years before he got access to all the negatives, and so on this basis, if anything comes to light after his examination of them, it can only best be described as being new and fresh evidence...

There are some people who will stop at nothing to try and prevent the truth coming out, likewise there are others who will also stop at nothing until the truth does come out...

The new photographic evidence (supported by the disclosure of the negatives recently) supports the case for Sheila having handled the rifle more extensively than alluded to by the prosecutions case and its witnesses, and that she reloaded the gun with bullets that were discharged afterward. Sheila was guilty, the presence of residue from the lever of the bolt on the right hand side of the weapon confirms the role she played in these deaths. Police knew about this evidence from a very early stage, and they sought to deliberately conceal it, and lie to the court about the state and condition of Sheila's hands, when all along they had photographic proof that her right hand was contaminated by residue from operating the lever for the bolt which was manually pulled and pushed back and forth when the gun needed to be reloaded...

If this evidence had been found to be present upon Jeremy's hands, the relatives and the police would have been singing a different tune at the trial (1986), and the appeal (2002), and ever since...

The police and the relatives will never be allowed to get away with this, judgement day is looming large, and I await what the police will have to say about what happened to the contamination which was photographed on Sheila's right hand, to enable the police to report in time for the trial proceedings to make the deliberately false claim that Sheila's hands were spotlessly clean?

He he he...

To put it bluntly, the police have dropped a right bollock...

[Hartley]

NGB if the CCRC consider that EP have tampered/removed some of the negatives what bearing will this have on their decision if any.

Cliff - the fact that some of the negatives are missing should lead the CCRC to view the conduct of Essex Police with suspicion.  Unfortunately so far the CCRC seem to have adopted a very uncritical attitude towards the prosecution, accepting their explanations in relation to various aspects of the evidence.  If there are alternative inferences which could be drawn the CCRC seem to prefer the inference with favours the police.  They have followed this approach in relation to the missing negatives.

I was under the impression that this is something the defence allege rather than it being a fact.
As we're talking facts, is it not a fact that Essex Police have said that only unexposed frames have been cropped? Whilst this is in breach of procedure, it isn't quite as alleged by the defence.

It is a fact that there are missing frames.  It is admitted by Essex Police that frames have been cropped from the strips of negatives.  Essex Police have advanced the explanation for this that the frames cropped must have been unexposed negatives. There are problems with this explanation.  Even if it is true it was a breach of the internal procedures which are established so that suspicion does not arise that evidence has been destroyed.  In addition, some of the missing frames are at the beginning of a strip of negatives and this is not consistent with the suggestion that the photographer finished what he wanted to accomplish leaving some unexposed film in his camera. 

 

Yes okay I'll give you that one, but what I meant was that the defence allege that cut out negatives are being deliberately withheld from the defence. That is not a fact, as per the response from EP.

[mike tesko]

Hartley, the negatives not available for viewing by the public.  The defence are also I believe still alleging that some negatives are missing / cut from a strip.  I'm not following your arguments very well on this thread but I do accept that Mike's photographs of photographs and especially the grainy image are not clear.  I'm assuming that the defence, who will have seen the negatives / blow ups in question, are able to confirm to Mike that his theory is correct and therefore not cobbled.  Then again, at this point, that is an assumption on my part.  However, I fail to understand why anyone would wish to present such arguments in this case unless they genuinely believed them to be absolutely true.

Yes I know they're not, I was being sarcastic, but I do not believe that Mike has seen them either.


Mike has had the images he has posted in this thread since 2004, by his own admission, yet six years later he is suggesting they are new ground breaking evidence. That quite clearly is not the case, he has based the theory given in this thread, passing it off as concrete solid proof, on the images in this thread.

Er...

I don't think there's been an appeal in the last six years which dealt with the new photographic evidence I. Have recently introduced, nor any argument placed before the CCRC regarding the same during the last six years, so the evidence I hav e brought top light is new by any bodies standards, except it seems - yours...

No Mike you have had these photographs for six or seven years, you are speaking as if this new theory is a direct consequence of negatives being released, which it is not.

You are trying to trick people into thinking that this is new evidence which has only just been released, you refer to negatives recently released to back up your claims in this thread, yet you have not seen these negatives.

What this actually is, is that you have had a look at some photographs which have been in your possession for a long time and centred a theory around it. It is nothing more than your opinion, it is not evidence, it is not concrete proof and it is not about to suddenly change everything. You can wrap this up and try to sell it any way you like.

The copies I took in 2004, are not evidence, the original photographs contained in the albums (Senior Investigating Officers album (581 pictures), Master Copy album (223 pictures) Court album (50 pictures) and the negatives of all these pictures is the evidence. The negatives have only very recently been made available to the defense, and so the materialistic evidence I am referring to, is fresh evidence which was not available before now, because those original photographs and negatives were being withheld under pii...

So get your facts right if you are going to try to manipulate the truth, like the police and the relatives have done for over 26 years...

I have never seen the negatives...

I have seen the original photographs, contained in the three albums:-

(1) MASTER COPY ALBUM (223)
(2) COURT ALBUM (50)
(3) Senior INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM (581)

So, before you start making false allegations about me, I suggest you contact Ewen Smith at the CCRC, and that you contact GDS and his son Michael, and you find out what I have had access to, what I have been shown, and what I have seen, and what I was allowed to take copies of...

What photograohs have you seen?

Very few, so why should anyone listen to what you are saying about this matter, you simply do not know what you are talking about, its all waffle, and the fact is the negatives have only very recently been made available so anything linked or connected to that disclosure is new and fresh evidence, and you and Essex police and the relatives are in for a rough ride trying to get out of falsifying evidence, and making inaccurate, and very misleading statements, and comments...

Sheila handled the rifle, and she fired and loaded bullets into it, and the police had photographic evidence in their possession from a very early stage to convince them and prove to them that Sheuila was responsible...

And I don't particularly care what you think, its what the new evidence is that's come to light what matters, and there was residue on Sheila's right hand, and this is now supported by the negatives of the photographs which have only very recently been made available...

Mike, I'm not sure that I can say this any clearer. You have not seen the recently released negatives, therefore your entire theory that you have put across in this thread is from the photographs that you have had in your possession since 2004.

That is correct is it not?

In which case this isn't even evidence, I'm not arguing whether it's new or old, you have tried to pass off a theory as rock solid proof, a sudden revelation that is going to send shock waves through this case. Quite simply, it isn't.

Show me where I have ever claimed to have seen the recently disclosed negatives, otherwise button your lip because you are fast sounding like a prick...

[jackiepreece]

Hartley it's hardly rocket science is it with regard to the photos/negatives you know exactly why these pieces of evidence must be shown complete

You can play on words as much as you like but anything that hasn't been malicously destroyed will become available very soon

It's a shame Anne couldn't have played the White man and put her weight behind getting everything released under PII

That would have been a very gracious thing to do for her cousin as I am sure she wants to get to the truth like all of us

[mike tesko]

NGB if the CCRC consider that EP have tampered/removed some of the negatives what bearing will this have on their decision if any.

Cliff - the fact that some of the negatives are missing should lead the CCRC to view the conduct of Essex Police with suspicion.  Unfortunately so far the CCRC seem to have adopted a very uncritical attitude towards the prosecution, accepting their explanations in relation to various aspects of the evidence.  If there are alternative inferences which could be drawn the CCRC seem to prefer the inference with favours the police.  They have followed this approach in relation to the missing negatives.

I was under the impression that this is something the defence allege rather than it being a fact.
As we're talking facts, is it not a fact that Essex Police have said that only unexposed frames have been cropped? Whilst this is in breach of procedure, it isn't quite as alleged by the defence.

It is a fact that there are missing frames.  It is admitted by Essex Police that frames have been cropped from the strips of negatives.  Essex Police have advanced the explanation for this that the frames cropped must have been unexposed negatives. There are problems with this explanation.  Even if it is true it was a breach of the internal procedures which are established so that suspicion does not arise that evidence has been destroyed.  In addition, some of the missing frames are at the beginning of a strip of negatives and this is not consistent with the suggestion that the photographer finished what he wanted to accomplish leaving some unexposed film in his . 

 

Yes okay I'll give you that one, but what I meant was that the defence allege that cut out negatives are being deliberately withheld from the defence. That is not a fact, as per the response from EP.

Nothing Essex police say can be treated as being the absolute truth, since they have tampered and doctored the evidence in this case from pillar to post over and over during the past 26 years, and their is no reason to suspect or expect them to suddenly become honest and openly admit to what they got up to and did...

[Hartley]

I have never drawn Jeremy's attention to the material I have recently brought to the attention of this forum, so he had no idea about the significance or otherwise of the residue found on Sheila's right hand and what can be safely inferred from it/them.

You see that is the problem, in the first instance, there is no proof that there is firearms residue on Sheilas hands, if fact quite the opposite there is proof that there was not any residue, proof as accepted by the courts in the form of hand swabs, the hand swabs were questioned during the 2002 appeal by the defence to no avail.

So to now look at photographs and decide that there is residue on Sheila's hands and form a whole theory about it, is a complete none starter, you would first of all need to prove that there is residue on her hands.

Your only proof is blurry images which have been in your possession since 2004, even giving these blurry images to Kodak Man he would not be able to come to that conclusion, so how you are able to is more to do with wishful thinking than any actual reality.

[chochokeira]

NGB if the CCRC consider that EP have tampered/removed some of the negatives what bearing will this have on their decision if any.

Cliff - the fact that some of the negatives are missing should lead the CCRC to view the conduct of Essex Police with suspicion.  Unfortunately so far the CCRC seem to have adopted a very uncritical attitude towards the prosecution, accepting their explanations in relation to various aspects of the evidence.  If there are alternative inferences which could be drawn the CCRC seem to prefer the inference with favours the police.  They have followed this approach in relation to the missing negatives.

I was under the impression that this is something the defence allege rather than it being a fact.
As we're talking facts, is it not a fact that Essex Police have said that only unexposed frames have been cropped? Whilst this is in breach of procedure, it isn't quite as alleged by the defence.

It is a fact that there are missing frames.  It is admitted by Essex Police that frames have been cropped from the strips of negatives.  Essex Police have advanced the explanation for this that the frames cropped must have been unexposed negatives. There are problems with this explanation.  Even if it is true it was a breach of the internal procedures which are established so that suspicion does not arise that evidence has been destroyed.  In addition, some of the missing frames are at the beginning of a strip of negatives and this is not consistent with the suggestion that the photographer finished what he wanted to accomplish leaving some unexposed film in his camera. 

 

Well said, NGB, a big round of applause for you. Great to see someone else commenting on Mike's posts and some fresh ideas too, perhaps I shan't yawn myself to death after all.

[Hartley]

NGB if the CCRC consider that EP have tampered/removed some of the negatives what bearing will this have on their decision if any.

Cliff - the fact that some of the negatives are missing should lead the CCRC to view the conduct of Essex Police with suspicion.  Unfortunately so far the CCRC seem to have adopted a very uncritical attitude towards the prosecution, accepting their explanations in relation to various aspects of the evidence.  If there are alternative inferences which could be drawn the CCRC seem to prefer the inference with favours the police.  They have followed this approach in relation to the missing negatives.

I was under the impression that this is something the defence allege rather than it being a fact.
As we're talking facts, is it not a fact that Essex Police have said that only unexposed frames have been cropped? Whilst this is in breach of procedure, it isn't quite as alleged by the defence.

It is a fact that there are missing frames.  It is admitted by Essex Police that frames have been cropped from the strips of negatives.  Essex Police have advanced the explanation for this that the frames cropped must have been unexposed negatives. There are problems with this explanation.  Even if it is true it was a breach of the internal procedures which are established so that suspicion does not arise that evidence has been destroyed.  In addition, some of the missing frames are at the beginning of a strip of negatives and this is not consistent with the suggestion that the photographer finished what he wanted to accomplish leaving some unexposed film in his . 

 

Yes okay I'll give you that one, but what I meant was that the defence allege that cut out negatives are being deliberately withheld from the defence. That is not a fact, as per the response from EP.

Nothing Essex police say can be treated as being the absolute truth, since they have tampered and doctored the evidence in this case from pillar to post over and over during the past 26 years, and their is no reason to suspect or expect them to suddenly become honest and openly admit to what they got up to and did...

What else would the defence say? Turn that one on it's head, the prosecution and the CCRC will not take a convicted criminals word either, not without proof to back up an allegation.

[chochokeira]

Hartley it's hardly rocket science is it with regard to the photos/negatives you know exactly why these pieces of evidence must be shown complete

You can play on words as much as you like but anything that hasn't been malicously destroyed will become available very soon

It's a shame Anne couldn't have played the White man and put her weight behind getting everything released under PII

That would have been a very gracious thing to do for her cousin as I am sure she wants to get to the truth like all of us

Well said, Jackie, another spark of life on this thread. +1

[Hartley]

Show me where I have ever claimed to have seen the recently disclosed negatives, otherwise button your lip because you are fast sounding like a prick...

Well the fact that you have stated that your theory is backed up by recently released negatives gives that impression, does it not.

So you are falling back on insults now? I think you have been shown up and you're trying to manipulate your way out of it. IMO.

[Blodwynflower]

Good afternoon all

With regard to the recently disclosed negatives, would Jeremy be able to view them or are they only available to his team?

Thankyou.

[Hartley]

Good afternoon all

With regard to the recently disclosed negatives, would Jeremy be able to view them or are they only available to his team?

Thankyou.

I would have thought so, or at least see prints from them, it depends upon what conditions were attached to their release whether he could actually see the negatives themselves.

Edit: By that I mean that there could be a condition attached which dictates where the negatives must be kept.

[mike tesko]

Show me where I have ever claimed to have seen the recently disclosed negatives, otherwise button your lip because you are fast sounding like a prick...

Well the fact that you have stated that your theory is backed up by recently released negatives gives that impression, does it not.

So you are falling back on insults now? I think you have been shown up and you're trying to manipulate your way out of it. IMO.

Stop being a complete idiot...

THE NEGATIVES HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED, SO IT IS NEW/FRESH EVIDENCE...
THE NEGATIVES HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED, SO IT IS NEW/FRESH EVIDENCE...
THE NEGATIVES HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED, SO IT IS NEW/FRESH EVIDENCE...
THE NEGATIVES HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED, SO IT IS NEW/FRESH EVIDENCE...
THE NEGATIVES HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED, SO IT IS NEW/FRESH EVIDENCE...
THE NEGATIVES HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED, SO IT IS NEW/FRESH EVIDENCE...
THE NEGATIVES HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED, SO IT IS NEW/FRESH EVIDENCE...
THE NEGATIVES HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED, SO IT IS NEW/FRESH EVIDENCE...
THE NEGATIVES HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED, SO IT IS NEW/FRESH EVIDENCE...
THE NEGATIVES HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED, SO IT IS NEW/FRESH EVIDENCE...
THE NEGATIVES HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED, SO IT IS NEW/FRESH EVIDENCE...
THE NEGATIVES HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED, SO IT IS NEW/FRESH EVIDENCE...

Do you comprehend, understandie, Yes, I took copies in 2004 from the original pictures, but those original pictures were not mine, they did not belong to me, and I had very little control over them, yet...

If Negatives were to go missing, and the original photographs that I took copies from were to go missing, then the copies I took could become admissible and be evidence in any subsequent appeal, so when you say the pictures I took of the pictures is not evidence, that might not strictly be true...

So...

Be careful what you write about...

[mike tesko]

Imagine though...

If that residue that was found and photographed on Sheila's right hand got there when she manually operated the bolt during the reload of the gun to enable her to fire more bullets?

Now that would throw a whole new light on the case, would it not?

[Blodwynflower]

Good afternoon all

With regard to the recently disclosed negatives, would Jeremy be able to view them or are they only available to his team?

Thankyou.

I would have thought so, or at least see prints from them, it depends upon what conditions were attached to their release whether he could actually see the negatives themselves.

Edit: By that I mean that there could be a condition attached which dictates where the negatives must be kept.

Many thanks for your reply.