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

[Hartley]

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.

That has nothing to do with the claims Mike is making in this thread.

[ngb1066]

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.

Essex Police handed over to the CCRC all the negatives which they say they had, including those covered by PII.  The CCRC have released all of these negatives to the defence.

[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.

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.

The negatives have been handed over to the defence, but the defence are claiming that some are missing. It is also worth noting that many of the negatives were available to the defence for some time, they were just not allowed to take possession of them.

[Hartley]

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?

I'm sorry Mike but that is absolute rubbish, you haven't seen the negatives, you have only seen the images which you have posted in this thread, which you have had since 2004.

Your attempt to try and suggest that the relatives, me, the police or anybody else should be worried is pure fantasy, I think you are trying to convince yourself here.

[clifford]

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

[ngb1066]

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.

 

[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.

[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...

[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.

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.

[Hartley]

If you started this thread by saying, listen up guys, I've got this new theory about the rifle, I think that these images show marks on Sheilas hands etc etc.............

Then that would be fine, I probably wouldn't even have posted in the thread, but instead what you did is tried to mislead people, by saying that your theory wasn't a theory at all, it was the truth.

Personally I think you owe people an apology, not to me, because I couldn't care less, but to the people who have supported you and spoken up for you at every possible turn.

[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...

[ngb1066]

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. 

 

[mike tesko]

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.

The negatives have been handed over to the defence, but the defence are claiming that some are missing. It is also worth noting that many of the negatives were available to the defence for some time, they were just not allowed to take possession of them.

One of the worlds leading photographic experts (Kodak Man) has examined the negatives and he has confirmed that certain negatives have been cut out of the strips and that some strips are missing, so try to be more factual rather than making all these sweeping and generalized statements that you keep throwing in, without the slightest bit of evidence to back up what you are saying...

[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.

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.

The negatives have been handed over to the defence, but the defence are claiming that some are missing. It is also worth noting that many of the negatives were available to the defence for some time, they were just not allowed to take possession of them.

One of the worlds leading photographic experts (Kodak Man) has examined the negatives and he has confirmed that certain negatives have been cut out of the strips and that some strips are missing, so try to be more factual rather than making all these sweeping and generalized statements that you keep throwing in, without the slightest bit of evidence to back up what you are saying...

What part of my post which you quoted above is not true then?

[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.

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.