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

[mike tesko]

There is no sooty residue on her hands. The rejected hand swabs were resubmitted and found not to contain any traces of firearms residue.
If you want to attempt to mislead people into thinking that they did, then that's up to you and whether people fall for it or not depends upon how gullible they are.

There is sooty FDR on SheIla`s rIght hand as shown in the previously undisclosed photographs, and these particular pictures have never yet Been subject of any legal debate, either during the original trial, any subsequent appeal, or as Part of any CCRC application, and so your suggestion that because the hand swab evidence has already been dealt with during the 2002 appeal, proves Sheila`s hands were clean, It does no such thing...

The hand swab issue, like so many issues is not put to bed completely, or forever, until all new material and evidence has been taken into account, and rejected. The photographs which show residue on Sheila's right hand have not been relied on yet  to counter the claim that Sheila`s hands were spotlessly clean? The police in this case chose to withhold these particular photographs citing a reliance for doing so to pii. Now if there was no visible residue on Sheila`s right hand in these relatively newly released photographs, then you need to ask yourself why did Essex police withhold these photographs? It does`nt make any sense for the police to withhold these photographs, unless they contained something which compromised the case they brought against JB?

You can be sure as certain as night follows day, that these photographs which show SC`s right hand contaminated with residue from her operating the lever to the bolt during the reloading of the gun, is new evidence which serves to contradict the claim that her hands were spotlessly clean...

I have seen the original crime scene photographs from which I took copies, and the residue is a lot clearer in the originals, so if you are pinning all you hopes on trying to suggest there is no residue on Sheila`s right hand, prepare yourself for a major shock...

[Hartley]

Same old story Mike, the photographs shown in this thread are of such poor quality that you cannot possibly use them to prove or disprove anything, you post some images and then tell us all what they show, when questioned about it you say, 'oh well yes I don't mean these photographs, I mean other ones that nobody has seen'. In which case you have got nothing to show us.

I would also like to know how it is that the prosecution needed to take hand swabs from Sheila to ascertain whether firearms residue was present on her hands, yet you somehow have the magic ability to be able to forensically examine her hands from looking at a photograph alone?

Shall we also bear in mind that these hand swabs were taken at a time when Sheila was the accepted guilty party.

The allegations made by the defence about the hand swabs was completely torn to shreds during the 2002 appeal, yes as you quite rightly state, other grounds could be put forward about the hand swabs if new evidence is available, you know as well as I do that even if marks were present on Sheilas hands (which I don't for one second believe to be true) then the CCRC will simply say that witness staetments are stronger evidence.

Given your misleading tone and style of posting from the outset of this thread, I think it would be only common courtesy to admit to people that this is not some amazing concrete proof that has finally been revealed after 26 years, it is simply yet another one of your theories, nothing more and nothing less.

I don't expect that you will, however fortunately many folk on here from either side of the debate have a certain amount of intelligence about them and are more than capable of making their own minds up.

As I said earlier in this thread, if you really came across solid concrete evidence indicating that Jeremy is innocent, you wouldn't need to take two whole pages to tantalisingly drip feed false hopes and promises, you would be shouting it from the roof tops rather than deploying this kind of gamesmanship.

[mike tesko]

You cannot visibly see the sooty residue which contaminated Sheila`s right hand in every photograph, this is because these photographs fall into two categories (1) showing residue on right hand, (2) not showing residue on hand at all. Those which showed residue on Sheila`s right hand were withheld, whereas those that did not show residue were shown to the court...

There are a number of reasons for why some of these images show up the sooty residue on Sheila`s right hand, or as the case may be, this could be because of the angle that some of the photographs were taken at, or that some were taken after DCHammersley had taken the hand swab evidence and police were adjusting her body and props around and upon it?

[Hartley]

You cannot visibly see the sooty residue which contaminated Sheila`s right hand in every photograph, this is because these photographs fall into two categories (1) showing residue on right hand, (2) not showing residue on hand at all. Those which showed residue on Sheila`s right hand were withheld, whereas those that did not show residue were shown to the court...

There are a number of reasons for why some of these images show up the sooty residue on Sheila`s right hand, or as the case may be, this could be because of the angle that some of the photographs were taken at, or that some were taken after DCHammersley had taken the hand swab evidence and police were adjusting her body and props around and upon it?

I can't see sooty residue in any photographs.

[mike tesko]

Now that almost all the negatives have been handed over to the CCRC by the police, there will clearly be an issue concerning whether or not, Sheila's hands were clean, contradicted for the very first time bY two photographs, one showing what is clearly  sooty residue from the lever of the bolt from the right side of the gun which Sheila operated when she loaded it up with more Bullets. At this time, soot whIch was present upon the lever left corresponding marks in soot upon
 her right hand. This distinctive marks bear the same general characteristics In shape, size and position as to leave no doubt at all (unless you are one of those who don`t want `JB to be innocent) that Sheila fired the rifle and more crucially that she did load more bullets into the gun. Whereas,  previously there was no photographic evidence disclosed to contradict the prosecutions claim that Sheila's hands were spotlessly clean, that has now all changed thanks to me taking copies of photographs when I went to the office of GDS in London, in 2004. The copies I took on that occasion are of a reduced quality (admittedly) but nevertheless, although the quality is reduced compared to the originals I took the copies of, the quality is still good enough to see that Sheila`s right hand is contaminated, as opposed to her left hand which was not...

Police will now have to make a new statement explaining how Sheila`s right hand was contaminated by reference to these recently disclosed photo`s, and the claim m$ade at the time of the trial that her hands were spotlessly clean?


Members on the forum should use their commonsense regarding this information, since there some who are implying that the copies of these photographs are of such poor quality that it does not amount to evidence at all, but one should not forget that negatives exist...

[mertol22]

Hartley What is so special about the pictures we are not allowed to see that are under lock and key its been over 25 years now thats long enough i think or do we have to wait another 25 years , i for one would like to know .

[Hartley]

Now that almost all the negatives have been handed over to the CCRC by the police, there will clearly be an issue concerning whether or not, Sheila's hands were clean, contradicted for the very first time bY two photographs, one showing what is clearly  sooty residue from the lever of the bolt from the right side of the gun which Sheila operated when she loaded it up with more Bullets. At this time, soot whIch was present upon the lever left corresponding marks in soot upon
 her right hand. This distinctive marks bear the same general characteristics In shape, size and position as to leave no doubt at all (unless you are one of those who don`t want `JB to be innocent) that Sheila fired the rifle and more crucially that she did load more bullets into the gun. Whereas,  previously there was no photographic evidence disclosed to contradict the prosecutions claim that Sheila's hands were spotlessly clean, that has now all changed thanks to me taking copies of photographs when I went to the office of GDS in London, in 2004. The copies I took on that occasion are of a reduced quality (admittedly) but nevertheless, although the quality is reduced compared to the originals I took the copies of, the quality is still good enough to see that Sheila`s right hand is contaminated, as opposed to her left hand which was not...

Police will now have to make a new statement explaining how Sheila`s right hand was contaminated by reference to these recently disclosed photo`s, and the claim m$ade at the time of the trial that her hands were spotlessly clean?


Members on the forum should use their commonsense regarding this information, since there some who are implying that the copies of these photographs are of such poor quality that it does not amount to evidence at all, but one should not forget that negatives exist...

That is a hundred million miles away from what you have previously said in this thread. You have tried to bamboozle people into believing your theory is some ground breaking new evidence, which it clearly isn't at this stage.

If the negatives are examined and shown to indicate something then absolutely that is worth looking at further, but Mike has not seen these negatives, he has cobbled together a theory based on these 'poor quality images' posted in this thread. I really don't see how anybody can conclude what Mike is concluding from those images alone.

Also Mikes continuing reference to 'one of those who don't want Jeremy to be innocent' is also somewhat hollow, especially given the fact that I have informed him on many occasions that I do not want him to be guilty or innocent, I have no preference, I believe him to be guilty based on the evidence that I have seen. I think it's a little closer to the truth to say that it is Mike who 'Wants' Jeremy to be innocent.

Yes I absolutely agree that members should use their common sense with regards to this latest claim, after all the CCRC will certainly use theirs.

Now that all the negatives have been handed over, then surely the photograph which you allege shows Sheila on the bed will be posted later today?

[Hartley]

Hartley What is so special about the pictures we are not allowed to see that are under lock and key its been over 25 years now thats long enough i think or do we have to wait another 25 years , i for one would like to know .

As I've said on many occasions before, I've got no argument with that, I'd very much like every single little scrap of evidence released, what I take umbrage with, is the view that withheld images or documents must indicate that Jeremy is innocent, without having had the benefit of seeing said images or documents both you and I or anybody else cannot possibly know what information is contained within the withheld documents.

To assume their contents indicate one thing or another is incorrect, but now that the negatives have been handed over, their contents will become apparent in the very near future.

[mike tesko]

You cannot visibly see the sooty residue which contaminated Sheila`s right hand in every photograph, this is because these photographs fall into two categories (1) showing residue on right hand, (2) not showing residue on hand at all. Those which showed residue on Sheila`s right hand were withheld, whereas those that did not show residue were shown to the court...

There are a number of reasons for why some of these images show up the sooty residue on Sheila`s right hand, or as the case may be, this could be because of the angle that some of the photographs were taken at, or that some were taken after DCHammersley had taken the hand swab evidence and police were adjusting her body and props around and upon it?

I can't see sooty residue in any photographs.

Her right hand was contaminated with residue from operating the bolt when she reloaded the gun with bullets, you don`t see anything that exposes the fact that Sheila killed the others and perhaps herself. You and the relatives had better keep your fingers crossed that the recently disclosed negatives go missing again...

It is not only the fact that Sheila had residue on her right hand, but more importantly the manner with which the contamination occurred, whilst she had to manually operate the lever of the bolt during reloading- get used to the idea that Sheila reloaded that rifle with bullets, because she did...

I know this is not news the relatives do not want to hear anything that suggests Sheila was/is the killer, b ut if loaded bullets into the gun and she manually operated the lever of the bolt so she could fire more bullets, what m$ore is there to say?

[Roch]

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. 

[VORTEX]

There is no sooty residue on her hands. The rejected hand swabs were resubmitted and found not to contain any traces of firearms residue.
If you want to attempt to mislead people into thinking that they did, then that's up to you and whether people fall for it or not depends upon how gullible they are.

Oh Hartley I didn't expect you to agree for one minute. I've got a feeling you are going to stick to the relatives line right until the end. They play the music and you do the dance, no matter what tune it is. What do you think Taff Jones saw on the morning of the shootings that convinced him 100% that it was 4 murders and a suicide? He saw something for sure that convinced him. Can you give any information on what Hammersley referred to when he said "I didn't discover it" He was pretty worried about "it" to the point of breaking down and said it had effected his marriage (sounds serious doesn't it? Probably because  it was very serious). I look at all the evidence and not just the bits that fit the version of events I want to believe.

[ngb1066]

Now that almost all the negatives have been handed over to the CCRC by the police, there will clearly be an issue concerning whether or not, Sheila's hands were clean, contradicted for the very first time bY two photographs, one showing what is clearly  sooty residue from the lever of the bolt from the right side of the gun which Sheila operated when she loaded it up with more Bullets. At this time, soot whIch was present upon the lever left corresponding marks in soot upon
 her right hand. This distinctive marks bear the same general characteristics In shape, size and position as to leave no doubt at all (unless you are one of those who don`t want `JB to be innocent) that Sheila fired the rifle and more crucially that she did load more bullets into the gun. Whereas,  previously there was no photographic evidence disclosed to contradict the prosecutions claim that Sheila's hands were spotlessly clean, that has now all changed thanks to me taking copies of photographs when I went to the office of GDS in London, in 2004. The copies I took on that occasion are of a reduced quality (admittedly) but nevertheless, although the quality is reduced compared to the originals I took the copies of, the quality is still good enough to see that Sheila`s right hand is contaminated, as opposed to her left hand which was not...

Police will now have to make a new statement explaining how Sheila`s right hand was contaminated by reference to these recently disclosed photo`s, and the claim m$ade at the time of the trial that her hands were spotlessly clean?


Members on the forum should use their commonsense regarding this information, since there some who are implying that the copies of these photographs are of such poor quality that it does not amount to evidence at all, but one should not forget that negatives exist...

That is a hundred million miles away from what you have previously said in this thread. You have tried to bamboozle people into believing your theory is some ground breaking new evidence, which it clearly isn't at this stage.

If the negatives are examined and shown to indicate something then absolutely that is worth looking at further, but Mike has not seen these negatives, he has cobbled together a theory based on these 'poor quality images' posted in this thread. I really don't see how anybody can conclude what Mike is concluding from those images alone.

Also Mikes continuing reference to 'one of those who don't want Jeremy to be innocent' is also somewhat hollow, especially given the fact that I have informed him on many occasions that I do not want him to be guilty or innocent, I have no preference, I believe him to be guilty based on the evidence that I have seen. I think it's a little closer to the truth to say that it is Mike who 'Wants' Jeremy to be innocent.

Yes I absolutely agree that members should use their common sense with regards to this latest claim, after all the CCRC will certainly use theirs.

Now that all the negatives have been handed over, then surely the photograph which you allege shows Sheila on the bed will be posted later today?

Why do you suggest that the photograph which Mike saw in Ewan Smith's office will be posted here?  As Mike has made clear he does not have any of the negatives.  Recently all of the negatives provided by Essex Police to the CCRC have been released to the defence for examination.  However, there are negatives which have been cropped from the negative strips (in breach of standing orders), and some strips appear to be missing.  In addition, the negatives have only been released by the CCRC upon the basis of very strict conditions which include a ban on publication.  It is for this reason that the photographs to which Jackie has referred cannot be published.

[Hartley]

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.

[Hartley]

Now that almost all the negatives have been handed over to the CCRC by the police, there will clearly be an issue concerning whether or not, Sheila's hands were clean, contradicted for the very first time bY two photographs, one showing what is clearly  sooty residue from the lever of the bolt from the right side of the gun which Sheila operated when she loaded it up with more Bullets. At this time, soot whIch was present upon the lever left corresponding marks in soot upon
 her right hand. This distinctive marks bear the same general characteristics In shape, size and position as to leave no doubt at all (unless you are one of those who don`t want `JB to be innocent) that Sheila fired the rifle and more crucially that she did load more bullets into the gun. Whereas,  previously there was no photographic evidence disclosed to contradict the prosecutions claim that Sheila's hands were spotlessly clean, that has now all changed thanks to me taking copies of photographs when I went to the office of GDS in London, in 2004. The copies I took on that occasion are of a reduced quality (admittedly) but nevertheless, although the quality is reduced compared to the originals I took the copies of, the quality is still good enough to see that Sheila`s right hand is contaminated, as opposed to her left hand which was not...

Police will now have to make a new statement explaining how Sheila`s right hand was contaminated by reference to these recently disclosed photo`s, and the claim m$ade at the time of the trial that her hands were spotlessly clean?


Members on the forum should use their commonsense regarding this information, since there some who are implying that the copies of these photographs are of such poor quality that it does not amount to evidence at all, but one should not forget that negatives exist...

That is a hundred million miles away from what you have previously said in this thread. You have tried to bamboozle people into believing your theory is some ground breaking new evidence, which it clearly isn't at this stage.

If the negatives are examined and shown to indicate something then absolutely that is worth looking at further, but Mike has not seen these negatives, he has cobbled together a theory based on these 'poor quality images' posted in this thread. I really don't see how anybody can conclude what Mike is concluding from those images alone.

Also Mikes continuing reference to 'one of those who don't want Jeremy to be innocent' is also somewhat hollow, especially given the fact that I have informed him on many occasions that I do not want him to be guilty or innocent, I have no preference, I believe him to be guilty based on the evidence that I have seen. I think it's a little closer to the truth to say that it is Mike who 'Wants' Jeremy to be innocent.

Yes I absolutely agree that members should use their common sense with regards to this latest claim, after all the CCRC will certainly use theirs.

Now that all the negatives have been handed over, then surely the photograph which you allege shows Sheila on the bed will be posted later today?

Why do you suggest that the photograph which Mike saw in Ewan Smith's office will be posted here?  As Mike has made clear he does not have any of the negatives.  Recently all of the negatives provided by Essex Police to the CCRC have been released to the defence for examination.  However, there are negatives which have been cropped from the negative strips (in breach of standing orders), and some strips appear to be missing.  In addition, the negatives have only been released by the CCRC upon the basis of very strict conditions which include a ban on publication.  It is for this reason that the photographs to which Jackie has referred cannot be published.

Yes I know NGB, see my response to Rochy above.

[mertol22]

Hartley What is so special about the pictures we are not allowed to see that are under lock and key its been over 25 years now thats long enough i think or do we have to wait another 25 years , i for one would like to know .

As I've said on many occasions before, I've got no argument with that, I'd very much like every single little scrap of evidence released, what I take umbrage with, is the view that withheld images or documents must indicate that Jeremy is innocent, without having had the benefit of seeing said images or documents both you and I or anybody else cannot possibly know what information is contained within the withheld documents.

To assume their contents indicate one thing or another is incorrect, but now that the negatives have been handed over, their contents will become apparent in the very near future.

These negatives that have been handed over do they include the ones under pii, these pictures witheld are no longer up to EP to decide where they stay its time the european courts entered do you not think ? i do.