Suspicious death of DCI Jones - motives for murder?

[mike tesko]

What is the date of the report you have loaded Mike?

I have been informed that the date of this report is dated after the nature of the investigation altered from SC/688/85 to SC/786/85, after DCS 'Mick' Ainsley took over as head of the new investigation. I have not yet seen the actual report, I have only been told about it, and I have looked for and found the reference to it, which my informant told me should exist in the file...

Obviously...

Those representing Jeremy and the CCRC will have to request not only the exerts from this report that are mentioned, but also the full report since its contents may have a significant bearing upon the credibility and integrity of the silencer evidence and how scenes of crime officers deliberately contaminated the crime scene by scratching the aga surround inside the kitchen at whf on 12th September 1985...

Are you trying to suggest that no such report exists?

[tonyb]

That information, should be in the possession of those representing Jeremy's interests, There are two photographs which show the silencer fitted to the barrel of the rifle, one which was taken by DI 'Ron' Cook, on 29th August 1985, and the other when PC Whiddon took the silencer from the desk of DCI ;'Taff' Jones along to the force armoury to screw it onto9 the barrel of the rifle...

To date...

neither Di 'Ron' Cook, nor PC 'Chris' Whiddon, have denied taking the silencer and screwing it onto the barrel of the gun in the circumstances which my informants have said they undertook such action...

If that's the case, JB defence team must of been shockingly bad. Photographic evidence that showed silencer and rifle connected would of shown to any jury member the possibility of contamination. That is of course if it is the "case" silencer and not an example silencer, which would also explain no exhibit label,I would suggest. Of course,common sense would have you paint it yellow to identify it as such, but as we know, not a lot of common sense in this case....

[tonyb]

"no report" Mike.
I don't know mike,so I couldn't say.
I dont think it's going to make any diference however
To little,Much to late

[mike tesko]

If that's the case, JB defence team must of been shockingly bad. Photographic evidence that showed silencer and rifle connected would of shown to any jury member the possibility of contamination. That is of course if it is the "case" silencer and not an example silencer, which would also explain no exhibit label,I would suggest. Of course,common sense would have you paint it yellow to identify it as such, but as we know, not a lot of common sense in this case....

Silencer sent to lab' on 13th August 1985, was the same silencer which DI 'Ron' Cook, dismantled, rebuilt ans screwed onto the barrel of the gun on 29th August 1985, you can tell this by the marks on the end of its end cap, as shown in the lab' general Examination Record, dated, 13th August 1985, and the photographs of the exercises performed by 'Ron' Cook on 29th August 1985...

The photographs taken by Cook of his exercises on 29th August 1985, were not made available in time for the jury to be shown them - and so your point would then be?

[tonyb]

Silencer sent to lab' on 13th August 1985, was the same silencer which DI 'Ron' Cook, dismantled, rebuilt ans screwed onto the barrel of the gun on 29th August 1985, you can tell this by the marks on the end of its end cap, as shown in the lab' general Examination Record, dated, 13th August 1985, and the photographs of the exercises performed by 'Ron' Cook on 29th August 1985...

The photographs taken by Cook of his exercises on 29th August 1985, were not made available in time for the jury to be shown them - and so your point would then be?

No mike. The photo of wittam(?) with rifle and silencer. You said it doesn't show an exhibit label. Surely the jury saw this photo. This is the photo to which I refer. No other

[tonyb]

No mike. The photo of wittam(?) with rifle and silencer. You said it doesn't show an exhibit label. Surely the jury saw this photo. This is the photo to which I refer. No other

Sorry. Widdon

[mike tesko]

No mike. The photo of wittam(?) with rifle and silencer. You said it doesn't show an exhibit label. Surely the jury saw this photo. This is the photo to which I refer. No other

No, they didn't...

Police did not make this picture available to the defence or to the jury who tried this case...

[mike tesko]

No, they didn't...

Police did not make this picture available to the defence or to the jury who tried this case...

PC Whiddons involvement with the silencer did not come to light until 2003 when Ewen Smith's informant (named Dave, or David) came forward...

[mike tesko]

PC Whiddons involvement with the silencer did not come to light until 2003 when Ewen Smith's informant (named Dave, or David) came forward...

If it had been known that PC 'Christopher Whiddon, had been involved with the possibility of contaminating the silencer by him screwing that silencer directly onto the barrel of the rifle which had been photographed at the scene resting against the bloodstained neck/throat of Sheila, then of course that would have been dynamite, it would have enabled the defence or those representing Jeremy at the time of his trial to give a perfectly reasonable or acceptable account for how a small flek of dried blood which had to all intents and purposes been found inside the silencer which belonged exclusively to Sheila, had got into the silencer - by a process of contamination, attributable to the actions of PC Whiddon, as described...

[mike tesko]

If it had been known that PC 'Christopher Whiddon, had been involved with the possibility of contaminating the silencer by him screwing that silencer directly onto the barrel of the rifle which had been photographed at the scene resting against the bloodstained neck/throat of Sheila, then of course that would have been dynamite, it would have enabled the defence or those representing Jeremy at the time of his trial to give a perfectly reasonable or acceptable account for how a small flek of dried blood which had to all intents and purposes been found inside the silencer which belonged exclusively to Sheila, had got into the silencer - by a process of contamination, attributable to the actions of PC Whiddon, as described...

There would have been no need for the defence to argue that the blood found in the silencer could have been an intimate mixture of the parents blood types, they would almost certainly have argued that Sheila's blood got into the silencer as a result of contamination, brought about by the actions of PC Whiddon...

[tonyb]

PC Whiddons involvement with the silencer did not come to light until 2003 when Ewen Smith's informant (named Dave, or David) came forward...

You sure this isn't a Press Confrence photo Mike
Looks like a camera lens in the top left corner?

[tonyb]

If it had been known that PC 'Christopher Whiddon, had been involved with the possibility of contaminating the silencer by him screwing that silencer directly onto the barrel of the rifle which had been photographed at the scene resting against the bloodstained neck/throat of Sheila, then of course that would have been dynamite, it would have enabled the defence or those representing Jeremy at the time of his trial to give a perfectly reasonable or acceptable account for how a small flek of dried blood which had to all intents and purposes been found inside the silencer which belonged exclusively to Sheila, had got into the silencer - by a process of contamination, attributable to the actions of PC Whiddon, as described...

that must be why there's no exhibit label. It's a 4th silencer. For press photo purposes ?

[mike tesko]

You sure this isn't a Press Confrence photo Mike
Looks like a camera lens in the top left corner?

Well, fact of the matter is, Ewen Smiths informant told him in 2003 that PC Whiddon had gione a,long to the desk of DCI 'Taff' Jones, and took possession of a silencer which 'Taff' had been keeping and using as a paper weight and that Whiddon took it along to the force armoury to see if it fitted the guns barrel,and when he carried that exercise out and he found that it did fit, the silencer in question along with the rifle were sent off to the lab' on 20th September 1985...

Now, you only have to use a little bit of common sense, and you must surely realize that Whiddon did screw the rifle onto the barrel of the gun at that time, on that occasion, and that this action could have been the source from which a small flek of Sheila's blood got into the silencer. Whiddon has not yet denied that he did it...

[tonyb]

that must be why there's no exhibit label. It's a 4th silencer. For press photo purposes ?

You see. That's the answer to any questions relating to this photo. It's a press photo with example firearm & silencer Judge."are you sure officer Widdon"
Widdon."certainly your honour,otherwise there would be an exhibit label"

[mike tesko]

that must be why there's no exhibit label. It's a 4th silencer. For press photo purposes ?

Whiddon took possession of the silencer from 'Taff' Jones desk, and he took it along to the force armoury where he screwed it onto the barrel of the rifle - that is what Ewen Smiths informant told Ewen Smith in 2003, you are free to make of that what you will...

Are you also going to be suggesting that the silencer which DI ;'Ron' Cook dismantled and rebuilt which he then screwed onto the barrel of the rifle, which also does not have a signed exhibit label attached to it, was also a duplicate?

You can believe what you want to, but use a bit of common sense...