you should all know this?

[mike tesko]

Here is what 'Z' was telling me about the other day:-

[mike tesko]

How can police still have possession of a silencer by 26th September 1985, with paint on it, and no blood on or in it, and why would police be sending this silencer to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers?

[Roch]

Mike I sent you a pm about shots to Nevill and the diagram which portrays the kitchen door ajar with possible trajectory of shots.  Has (Z) discussed any issues relating to discharge of police weapons?

[mike tesko]

Mike I sent you a pm about shots to Nevill and the diagram which portrays the kitchen door ajar with possible trajectory of shots.  Has (Z) discussed any issues relating to discharge of police weapons?

Not yet directly spoken to 'Z' about this feature, but will do so next time we meet up...

[mike tesko]

'Z' says this silencer, referred to in this lab' document, is a different silencer to the one sent to the lab' on 26th September 1985:-

Attached is corresponding signed exhibit label bearing identifying mark of DB/1...

[Roch]

Mike I sent you a pm about shots to Nevill and the diagram which portrays the kitchen door ajar with possible trajectory of shots.  Has (Z) discussed any issues relating to discharge of police weapons?

Not yet directly spoken to 'Z' about this feature, but will do so next time we meet up...

Thanks for response.

[mike tesko]

Here is the other lab'  (silencer) document which 'Z' spoke to me about, dated, 27th September 1985:-

Note:- no bloodstains on this silencer...

[mike tesko]

How could this silencer, bearing the identifying mark of SBJ/1, be sent to the lab' on 27th September 1985, if the silencer bearing this same identifying mark (SBJ/1) was the silencer sent to the lab' on 13th August 1985, and 30th August 1985?

[Roch]

Regarding the silencer issue:

I've not read any substantial contradictory responses, from the respected forum members who suspect or believe in Jeremy's guilt.  One has even conceded that the silencer evidence would be dismissed outright as inadmissible, given what is now known.  Another has described the silencer evidence as a "crock of shit".  Others simply choose to stay silent on this aspect of the case.  Granted, its' complexity may have had an impact on this avoidance.

I also think one or two forum members may be 'in denial' about the issue, on account of their loyalty ties to the relatives.  Not an easy position to be in.   

[mike tesko]

Regarding the silencer issue:

I've not read any substantial contradictory responses, from the respected forum members who suspect or believe in Jeremy's guilt.  One has even conceded that the silencer evidence would be dismissed outright as inadmissible, given what is now known.  Another has described the silencer evidence as a "crock of shit".  Others simply choose to stay silent on this aspect of the case.  Granted, its' complexity may have had an impact on this avoidance.

I also think one or two forum members may be 'in denial' about the issue, on account of their loyalty ties to the relatives.  Not an easy position to be in.   

'Z' told me submission of silencer to lab' on 26th September 1985, and accompanying lab' records, will prove in any court in land, that there was more than one silencer, and that two of them were merged into being one and the same...

also...

how could silencer SBJ/1, be the same silencer sent to the lab' on 13th and 30th August 1985, and blood be found inside it before silencer (SBJ/1) sent to the lab' on 26th September 1985, where police are asking for it to be checked for blood and fibers, if blood had already been found inside it, and confirmed as belonging to Sheila (between 12th and 19th September 1985)?

It just doesn't add up, and when I spoke to 'Z' the other day about this, I had to agree with 'Z' that these lab' records do prove the existence of at least two different silencers, which prosecution witnesses have merged into the same silencer...

[mike tesko]

The other thing which 'Z' told me about regarding these lab' records, is that the references to the paint on the lab' document, dated, 25th September 1985, and mention of the paint being similar or matching paint sample lab' item 97, is mentioned out of sequence, since by 25th September 1985 paint sample RC/1 had not yet been analysed?

I asked 'Z' if this could be accounted for, because the original paint sample, RC/1 taken by DI Cook from the scene on 8th August 1985 was used as the yardstick, rather than the other paint sample bearing the mark RWC/1, which Cook claims he took from the scene on 14th August 1985?

'Z' told me police got themselves in a tizzy, because both silencers ended up with paint on the end of them, and that was why two different paint samples (RC/1 and RWC/1) had been taken on different occasions, first one, RC/1 taken on 8th August 1985,and second one, RWC/1 had been taken on 14th August 1985?

[mike tesko]

The other thing which 'Z' told me about regarding these lab' records, is that the references to the paint on the lab' document, dated, 25th September 1985, and mention of the paint being similar or matching paint sample lab' item 97, is mentioned out of sequence, since by 25th September 1985 paint sample RC/1 had not yet been analysed?

I asked 'Z' if this could be accounted for, because the original paint sample, RC/1 taken by DI Cook from the scene on 8th August 1985 was used as the yardstick, rather than the other paint sample bearing the mark RWC/1, which Cook claims he took from the scene on 14th August 1985?

'Z' told me police got themselves in a tizzy, because both silencers ended up with paint on the end of them, and that was why two different paint samples (RC/1 and RWC/1) had been taken on different occasions, first one, RC/1 taken on 8th August 1985,and second one, RWC/1 had been taken on 14th August 1985?

'Z' asked me, "How could red paint from the aga be present on two different silencers if only one gun was used"?

This got me thinking about other matters, which I intend to speak to 'Z' about at next meeting...

[mike tesko]

Imagine that - two silencers with red paint on end, one at the lab' already from 30th August 1985, and another in police possession until 26th September 1985?

[clifford]

Regarding the silencer issue:

I've not read any substantial contradictory responses, from the respected forum members who suspect or believe in Jeremy's guilt.  One has even conceded that the silencer evidence would be dismissed outright as inadmissible, given what is now known.  Another has described the silencer evidence as a "crock of shit".  Others simply choose to stay silent on this aspect of the case.  Granted, its' complexity may have had an impact on this avoidance.

I also think one or two forum members may be 'in denial' about the issue, on account of their loyalty ties to the relatives.  Not an easy position to be in.   

'Z' told me submission of silencer to lab' on 26th September 1985, and accompanying lab' records, will prove in any court in land, that there was more than one silencer, and that two of them were merged into being one and the same...

also...

how could silencer SBJ/1, be the same silencer sent to the lab' on 13th and 30th August 1985, and blood be found inside it before silencer (SBJ/1) sent to the lab' on 26th September 1985, where police are asking for it to be checked for blood and fibers, if blood had already been found inside it, and confirmed as belonging to Sheila (between 12th and 19th September 1985)?

It just doesn't add up, and when I spoke to 'Z' the other day about this, I had to agree with 'Z' that these lab' records do prove the existence of at least two different silencers, which prosecution witnesses have merged into the same silencer...

am I the only one who is off pissed off by Z.

I think this is a crock of shit, and refuse to be drawn on this. I will not put my name forward to discuss this seriously, because I think this a load of B*******s.
Mike you are undermining the forum and losing creditability.
Any ex cop would make a lot of money if he went to the press, but no he went to Mike Tesko and spilled his guts for nothing. Get real Stop taking the piss out of me, I do not believe a word of it.





Completed quote brackets: Grahame

[clifford]

Thanks Grahame.