you should all know this?

[mike tesko]

In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?

"I think not"...

But...

"others may take a different view"...

[mike tesko]

In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?

"I think not"...

But...

"others may take a different view"...

When you are an inmate, convicted of such a crime, and whilst being approached on the basis that "You might as well tell me the truth, because I will not let/allow you, to "pull the wool over my eyes", it becomes clear that police know what to do, and what to say, in order to secure a conviction...

[mike tesko]

In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?

"I think not"...

But...

"others may take a different view"...

When you are an inmate, convicted of such a crime, and whilst being approached on the basis that "You might as well tell me the truth, because I will not let/allow you, to "pull the wool over my eyes", it becomes clear that police know what to do, and what to say, in order to secure a conviction...

The case of Jeremy Bamber, is "not" and "never has been", one of these such cases...

[ngb1066]

In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?

"I think not"...

But...

"others may take a different view"...

I agree with you Mike.  So called "noble cause corruption" is dangerous because it is based upon the opinions of the police about an individual and it denies the accused a fair trial.  The police are not objective and should never take it upon themselves to falsify evidence where they do not believe they have sufficient legitimate evidence to prosecute.  I have seen this happen in many cases where the police have been convinced that a defendant  committed a specific crime and have beefed up the case with false evidence to secure the conviction.  That is bad enough, but even worse is the case where the police do not even believe the defendant has committed the offence with which he is charged, but fabricate evidence because the defendant is regarded as a "target criminal", usually based upon information provided by a paid police informant, and the defendant is "about due" to be convicted.  From what I have read of your own case Mike it is clear that you were a victim of this type of police corruption.  I do not use the words "noble cause" in describing it, corruption is what it is and it is disgraceful and unacceptable whenever it occurs.  I cannot stand bent police.

[mike tesko]

The case of "the bomber", who blew off Eileen Caultons, hand...

A typical example of this, involved a case (Whilst at HMP Full Sutton), where I was approached, and I spoke to the convicted prisoner, who was convicted of delivering the "parcel bomb" which was responsible for blowing off, Mrs Eileen Caultons, hand (Sheffield)...

[mike tesko]

In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?

"I think not"...

But...

"others may take a different view"...

I agree with you Mike.  So called "noble cause corruption" is dangerous because it is based upon the opinions of the police about an individual and it denies the accused a fair trial.  The police are not objective and should never take it upon themselves to falsify evidence where they do not believe they have sufficient legitimate evidence to prosecute.  I have seen this happen in many cases where the police have been convinced that a defendant  committed a specific crime and have beefed up the case with false evidence to secure the conviction.  That is bad enough, but even worse is the case where the police do not even believe the defendant has committed the offence with which he is charged, but fabricate evidence because the defendant is regarded as a "target criminal", usually based upon information provided by a paid police informant, and the defendant is "about due" to be convicted.  From what I have read of your own case Mike it is clear that you were a victim of this type of police corruption.  I do not use the words "noble cause" in describing it, corruption is what it is and it is disgraceful and unacceptable whenever it occurs.  I cannot stand bent police.

There is a part of me, that says that if a person did commit the crime alleged, it does not matter if the police falsified the evidence, to get him/her convicted of the offences for which they end up becoming convicted of, but at the the end of the day, I am utterly opposed to, any reliance upon falsifisd evidence, whether or not, it amounts to so called "noble cause corruption"...

What matters to me...

is whether or not "a defendant, any defendant, receives a just, and a fair trial"...

Amen...

[mike tesko]

In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?

"I think not"...

But...

"others may take a different view"...

I agree with you Mike.  So called "noble cause corruption" is dangerous because it is based upon the opinions of the police about an individual and it denies the accused a fair trial.  The police are not objective and should never take it upon themselves to falsify evidence where they do not believe they have sufficient legitimate evidence to prosecute.  I have seen this happen in many cases where the police have been convinced that a defendant  committed a specific crime and have beefed up the case with false evidence to secure the conviction.  That is bad enough, but even worse is the case where the police do not even believe the defendant has committed the offence with which he is charged, but fabricate evidence because the defendant is regarded as a "target criminal", usually based upon information provided by a paid police informant, and the defendant is "about due" to be convicted.  From what I have read of your own case Mike it is clear that you were a victim of this type of police corruption.  I do not use the words "noble cause" in describing it, corruption is what it is and it is disgraceful and unacceptable whenever it occurs.  I cannot stand bent police.

There is a part of me, that says that if a person did commit the crime alleged, it does not matter if the police falsified the evidence, to get him/her convicted of the offences for which they end up becoming convicted of, but at the the end of the day, I am utterly opposed to, any reliance upon falsifisd evidence, whether or not, it amounts to so called "noble cause corruption"...

What matters to me...

is whether or not "a defendant, any defendant, receives a just, and a fair trial"...

Amen...

When a defendant receives such a fair trial, he/she can have no complaint, and must accept the reality and lawfullness, of such a coviction ...

(1) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890829&id=fDNAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RVkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1566,4680623

(2) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890824&id=gBI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6860,3270418

(3) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890830&id=hRI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6539,5101124

(4) https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=834518

(5) http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-283104.html

[Roch]

Snapshot, of who is on line at any moment in time:-

1 - (between 5;18 and 5;32pm, on 26th November 2011)...

2 - (between 5;29 and 5;40pm, on 26th November 2011)..

You can view who is on line at any moment, by clicking on " Jeremy Bamber Forum", and then clicking on the subheading, "Guests"...

Mike, two questions please.  Firstly, how can guests post on topics?  Secondly, you have posted some of the diagrams regarding the trajectories of head shots to Nevill.  Are you able to locate the diagram which portrays Nevill sitting up right in the chair with the kitchen door ajar behind him and the trajectory of head shots?

p.s. Everyone's IP number is visible on your screen grabs.

[mike tesko]

In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?

"I think not"...

But...

"others may take a different view"...

I agree with you Mike.  So called "noble cause corruption" is dangerous because it is based upon the opinions of the police about an individual and it denies the accused a fair trial.  The police are not objective and should never take it upon themselves to falsify evidence where they do not believe they have sufficient legitimate evidence to prosecute.  I have seen this happen in many cases where the police have been convinced that a defendant  committed a specific crime and have beefed up the case with false evidence to secure the conviction.  That is bad enough, but even worse is the case where the police do not even believe the defendant has committed the offence with which he is charged, but fabricate evidence because the defendant is regarded as a "target criminal", usually based upon information provided by a paid police informant, and the defendant is "about due" to be convicted.  From what I have read of your own case Mike it is clear that you were a victim of this type of police corruption.  I do not use the words "noble cause" in describing it, corruption is what it is and it is disgraceful and unacceptable whenever it occurs.  I cannot stand bent police.

There is a part of me, that says that if a person did commit the crime alleged, it does not matter if the police falsified the evidence, to get him/her convicted of the offences for which they end up becoming convicted of, but at the the end of the day, I am utterly opposed to, any reliance upon falsifisd evidence, whether or not, it amounts to so called "noble cause corruption"...

What matters to me...

is whether or not "a defendant, any defendant, receives a just, and a fair trial"...

Amen...

When a defendant receives such a fair trial, he/she can have no complaint, and must accept the reality and lawfullness, of such a coviction ...

(1) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890829&id=fDNAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RVkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1566,4680623

(2) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890824&id=gBI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6860,3270418

(3) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890830&id=hRI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6539,5101124

(4) https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=834518

I was on the very same wing (B wing, HMP Full Sutton), as "CAPTAIN", who was convicted of being the courier rider, who delivered the parcel bomb, that blew off Eileen Caultons, hand...

I had an opportunity to speak to him, over a long period of time, about the offences for which he was/had been convicted, and I managed to provide him with reasonable grounds for getting his conviction, quashed on appeal...

[mike tesko]

Snapshot, of who is on line at any moment in time:-

1 - (between 5;18 and 5;32pm, on 26th November 2011)...

2 - (between 5;29 and 5;40pm, on 26th November 2011)..

You can view who is on line at any moment, by clicking on " ", and then clicking on the subheading, "Guests"...

Mike, two questions please.  Firstly, how can guests post on topics?  Secondly, you have posted some of the diagrams regarding the trajectories of head shots to Nevill.  Are you able to locate the diagram which portrays Nevill sitting up right in the chair with the kitchen door ajar behind him and the trajectory of head shots?

p.s. Everyone's IP number is visible on your screen grabs.

Firstly, Guests cannot post replies - they need to become members of the forum, in order to be able to do that...

Secondly...

Every bodies IP address, is visible on screen grabs, but at the same time, so are the IP addresses of the guests...

At the end of the day, all forum members need to know, who these guests are, and the only way of doing this, to be transparent, was for me to post the IP addresses of everybody, at a given moment, or point in time...

Sorry if this upset anybody...

[Roch]

Snapshot, of who is on line at any moment in time:-

1 - (between 5;18 and 5;32pm, on 26th November 2011)...

2 - (between 5;29 and 5;40pm, on 26th November 2011)..

You can view who is on line at any moment, by clicking on " ", and then clicking on the subheading, "Guests"...

Mike, two questions please.  Firstly, how can guests post on topics?  Secondly, you have posted some of the diagrams regarding the trajectories of head shots to Nevill.  Are you able to locate the diagram which portrays Nevill sitting up right in the chair with the kitchen door ajar behind him and the trajectory of head shots?

p.s. Everyone's IP number is visible on your screen grabs.

Firstly, Guests cannot post replies - they need to become members of the forum, in order to be able to do that...

Secondly...

Every bodies IP address, is visible on screen grabs, but at the same time, so are the IP addresses of the guests...

At the end of the day, all forum members need to know, who these guests are, and the only way of doing this, to be transparent, was for me to post the IP addresses of everybody, at a given moment, or point in time...

Sorry if this upset anybody...

Thanks Mike, but it does state that guest are posting.  I can only assume this to be a glitch?  Another glitch is when it shows guests printing?  The topics being printed sometimes have specific relevance to the case while at other times, do not.  It's very strange. 

[mike tesko]

Snapshot, of who is on line at any moment in time:-

1 - (between 5;18 and 5;32pm, on 26th November 2011)...

2 - (between 5;29 and 5;40pm, on 26th November 2011)..

You can view who is on line at any moment, by clicking on " ", and then clicking on the subheading, "Guests"...

Mike, two questions please.  Firstly, how can guests post on topics?  Secondly, you have posted some of the diagrams regarding the trajectories of head shots to Nevill.  Are you able to locate the diagram which portrays Nevill sitting up right in the chair with the kitchen door ajar behind him and the trajectory of head shots?

p.s. Everyone's IP number is visible on your screen grabs.

Firstly, Guests cannot post replies - they need to become members of the forum, in order to be able to do that...

Secondly...

Every bodies IP address, is visible on screen grabs, but at the same time, so are the IP addresses of the guests...

At the end of the day, all forum members need to know, who these guests are, and the only way of doing this, to be transparent, was for me to post the IP addresses of everybody, at a given moment, or point in time...

Sorry if this upset anybody...

One way in which guests could make replies on the forum, is for them to temporarily become a member of the forum, and then after they have made a comment, unsuscribe, and simply become a guest, again...

[mike tesko]

Snapshot, of who is on line at any moment in time:-

1 - (between 5;18 and 5;32pm, on 26th November 2011)...

2 - (between 5;29 and 5;40pm, on 26th November 2011)..

You can view who is on line at any moment, by clicking on " ", and then clicking on the subheading, "Guests"...

Mike, two questions please.  Firstly, how can guests post on topics?  Secondly, you have posted some of the diagrams regarding the trajectories of head shots to Nevill.  Are you able to locate the diagram which portrays Nevill sitting up right in the chair with the kitchen door ajar behind him and the trajectory of head shots?

p.s. Everyone's IP number is visible on your screen grabs.

Firstly, Guests cannot post replies - they need to become members of the forum, in order to be able to do that...

Secondly...

Every bodies IP address, is visible on screen grabs, but at the same time, so are the IP addresses of the guests...

At the end of the day, all forum members need to know, who these guests are, and the only way of doing this, to be transparent, was for me to post the IP addresses of everybody, at a given moment, or point in time...

Sorry if this upset anybody...

Thanks Mike, but it does state that guest are posting.  I can only assume this to be a glitch?  Another glitch is when it shows guests printing?  The topics being printed sometimes have specific relevance to the case while at other times, do not.  It's very strange.

I assume...

that if a guest temporarily joins as a member, and as such is able to make a post, (as you are suggesting), once they post a reply, they then unsuscribe, the software must be picking up the IP Address of the guest, and recording the fact that they have been able to post a reply...

[mike tesko]

In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?

"I think not"...

But...

"others may take a different view"...

I agree with you Mike.  So called "noble cause corruption" is dangerous because it is based upon the opinions of the police about an individual and it denies the accused a fair trial.  The police are not objective and should never take it upon themselves to falsify evidence where they do not believe they have sufficient legitimate evidence to prosecute.  I have seen this happen in many cases where the police have been convinced that a defendant  committed a specific crime and have beefed up the case with false evidence to secure the conviction.  That is bad enough, but even worse is the case where the police do not even believe the defendant has committed the offence with which he is charged, but fabricate evidence because the defendant is regarded as a "target criminal", usually based upon information provided by a paid police informant, and the defendant is "about due" to be convicted.  From what I have read of your own case Mike it is clear that you were a victim of this type of police corruption.  I do not use the words "noble cause" in describing it, corruption is what it is and it is disgraceful and unacceptable whenever it occurs.  I cannot stand bent police.

There is a part of me, that says that if a person did commit the crime alleged, it does not matter if the police falsified the evidence, to get him/her convicted of the offences for which they end up becoming convicted of, but at the the end of the day, I am utterly opposed to, any reliance upon falsifisd evidence, whether or not, it amounts to so called "noble cause corruption"...

What matters to me...

is whether or not "a defendant, any defendant, receives a just, and a fair trial"...

Amen...

When a defendant receives such a fair trial, he/she can have no complaint, and must accept the reality and lawfullness, of such a coviction ...

(1) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890829&id=fDNAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RVkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1566,4680623

(2) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890824&id=gBI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6860,3270418

(3) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890830&id=hRI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6539,5101124

(4) https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=834518

I was on the very same wing (B wing, HMP Full Sutton), as "CAPTAIN", who was convicted of being the courier rider, who delivered the parcel bomb, that blew off Eileen Caultons, hand...

I had an opportunity to speak to him, over a long period of time, about the offences for which he was/had been convicted, and I managed to provide him with reasonable grounds for getting his conviction, quashed on appeal...

An appeal which proved to be successful...

[mike tesko]

In many of the cases, I have personal knowledge of, relating to convictions, where at the end of the day, a defendant was responsible for the commissioning of such a crime, (whatever that crime was/is) but where police had falsified the evidence, does it make it right, that police should be allowed to falsify such evidence, for the purpose of achieving a conviction?

"I think not"...

But...

"others may take a different view"...

I agree with you Mike.  So called "noble cause corruption" is dangerous because it is based upon the opinions of the police about an individual and it denies the accused a fair trial.  The police are not objective and should never take it upon themselves to falsify evidence where they do not believe they have sufficient legitimate evidence to prosecute.  I have seen this happen in many cases where the police have been convinced that a defendant  committed a specific crime and have beefed up the case with false evidence to secure the conviction.  That is bad enough, but even worse is the case where the police do not even believe the defendant has committed the offence with which he is charged, but fabricate evidence because the defendant is regarded as a "target criminal", usually based upon information provided by a paid police informant, and the defendant is "about due" to be convicted.  From what I have read of your own case Mike it is clear that you were a victim of this type of police corruption.  I do not use the words "noble cause" in describing it, corruption is what it is and it is disgraceful and unacceptable whenever it occurs.  I cannot stand bent police.

There is a part of me, that says that if a person did commit the crime alleged, it does not matter if the police falsified the evidence, to get him/her convicted of the offences for which they end up becoming convicted of, but at the the end of the day, I am utterly opposed to, any reliance upon falsifisd evidence, whether or not, it amounts to so called "noble cause corruption"...

What matters to me...

is whether or not "a defendant, any defendant, receives a just, and a fair trial"...

Amen...

When a defendant receives such a fair trial, he/she can have no complaint, and must accept the reality and lawfullness, of such a coviction ...

(1) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890829&id=fDNAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RVkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1566,4680623

(2) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890824&id=gBI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6860,3270418

(3) http://news..com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19890830&id=hRI1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=waULAAAAIBAJ&pg=6539,5101124

(4) https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=834518

I was on the very same wing (B wing, HMP Full Sutton), as "CAPTAIN", who was convicted of being the courier rider, who delivered the parcel bomb, that blew off Eileen Caultons, hand...

I had an opportunity to speak to him, over a long period of time, about the offences for which he was/had been convicted, and I managed to provide him with reasonable grounds for getting his conviction, quashed on appeal...

An appeal which proved to be successful...

Successful because. jury returned a "Not Guilty" verdict, on count 1, (that he conspired to murder Eileen Caulton), but that he was convicted on count 2, that he attempted to murder her...