cloth pull through of guns barrel - unreliable in view of tests

[mike tesko]

There are clear indications that the cloth pull through evidence (MDF/1 - lab' item 135) is not genuine, but has been introduced to try and bolster up the suggestion that a silencer was fitted to the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot by use of the rifle which was photographed on Sheila's body from around 10am, onwards on 7th August 1985?

It appears to be nothing but a ploy to convince the jury that the silencer must have been fitted to the guns barrel at the time Sheila was shot because there was no blood found inside the barrel of the rifle by a reliance upon this cloth pull through, in the same way that paint from the aga found on one of the silencers (2) helped the prosecution persuade the jury that a silencer must have been fitted to the guns barrel at the time of a purported struggle in the kitchen, involving Ralph Bamber, and his killer...

[ngb1066]

So when Mike says that he's seen a photo of Sheila on the bed with only one wound, this is a theory? Or is this to promote debate?..... When Mike says he has itemised billing of WHF upto July 1985, this is a theory? Or is this to promote debate?....When Mike says that he has met 'Z' in a wood and at various points all over the country to see a photograph which he's already seen(?) and to avoid detection from unnamed secret services (Hope they don't read the forum as they'd know when he was going out!!!!?) this is a theory or to promote debate?.....

Obviously these are all statements of fact by Mike.  I am not sure what point you are making here Vic?

[Roch]

David, that is a very good post and I agree.

Neil, maybe there will be some issues in which Hartley / Vic are the winners.  The infamous Sawdust v Sunlight argument springs to mind.

[ngb1066]

Neil, maybe there will be some issues in which Hartley / Vic are the winners.  The infamous Sawdust v Sunlight argument springs to mind.

Yes, that is fair enough.  Arguments are presented and they can sometimes be effectively countered.  We can then move on to other parts of the case.  I would never suggest that the "pro Bamber" camp have all the answers and can win every point.  I have said before that if we are honest, whatever our viewpoint we should accept that there are some aspects of the evidence which favour the prosecution and others which favour the defence.  We have to decide the weight we attach to each piece of evidence to reach an overall conclusion on the case. 

   

[mike tesko]

So when Mike says that he's seen a photo of Sheila on the bed with only one wound, this is a theory? Or is this to promote debate?..... When Mike says he has itemised billing of WHF upto July 1985, this is a theory? Or is this to promote debate?....When Mike says that he has met 'Z' in a wood and at various points all over the country to see a photograph which he's already seen(?) and to avoid detection from unnamed secret services (Hope they don't read the forum as they'd know when he was going out!!!!?) this is a theory or to promote debate?.....

So when the police surgeon (Dr Craig) says that he saw Sheila at 8:44am, with a solitary wound to her neck, and when Pi 'Bob' Miller, who accompanied the police surgeon says that when he saw Sheila on the far side of the bed, with a solitary wound to her neck, and the same police officer tells the Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, at the opening of the inquest, on 14th August 1985, that Sheila killed the others, and that she then took her own life by way of a solitary shot to the neck, I suppose these references which are contained in their witness statements, are just their theories?

[vidvic]

So when the police surgeon (Dr Craig) says that he saw Sheila at 8:44am, with a solitary wound to her neck, and when Pi 'Bob' Miller, who accompanied the police surgeon says that when he saw Sheila on the far side of the bed, with a solitary wound to her neck, and the same police officer tells the Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, at the opening of the inquest, on 14th August 1985, that Sheila killed the others, and that she then took her own life by way of a solitary shot to the neck, I suppose these references which are contained in their witness statements, are just their theories?

Maybe you could answer my specific points rather than making a new one?

I'll give you another example of things that don't ring true for me;

Last year you pushed a 'theory' that Bamber called the Police at 3.36, and that Nevill rang police first at 2.26. I pointed out that for Jeremy to call the Police at 3.36 and still get to WHF at 4.48 was virtually impossible without powered flight. In the past couple of days I see that you now claim that the defence have itemised bills from WHF showing a call to Jeremy's house from WHF at 3.15 and a call to the Police at 3.16. This post was from March last year if I remember correctly. You said that all would be revealed after the CCRC made their decision. This itemised billing would be dynamite for the defence if it existed, yet didn't appear to be any part of the submission to the CCRC. Why not? Did it really exist?

[vidvic]

Another point Mike.

What IS the reason for the ridiculous secrecy around the 'Z' meetings? Who on earth would be interested in following you and if there was a threat, why publicise that you're off for a meeting. Anyone THAT interested would simply have you followed from your house and eventually see the elusive 'Z'.

[mike tesko]

So when the police surgeon (Dr Craig) says that he saw Sheila at 8:44am, with a solitary wound to her neck, and when Pi 'Bob' Miller, who accompanied the police surgeon says that when he saw Sheila on the far side of the bed, with a solitary wound to her neck, and the same police officer tells the Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, at the opening of the inquest, on 14th August 1985, that Sheila killed the others, and that she then took her own life by way of a solitary shot to the neck, I suppose these references which are contained in their witness statements, are just their theories?

And when that police officer told Ann Eaton on the morning of 7th August 1985, whilst both were present at Jeremy' cottage, that Sheila had been found on the bed, I suppose that was just a theory as well

[vidvic]

And when that police officer told Ann Eaton on the morning of 7th August 1985, whilst both were present at Jeremy' cottage, that Sheila had been found on the bed, I suppose that was just a theory as well

Depends if that is from where she heard it and who told her.

Any answers on 'Z' or the moving phone call times?

[Buddy]

Depends if that is from where she heard it and who told her.

Any answers on 'Z' or the moving phone call times?

Surely you are not trying to change the subject Vic. We all have our opinions of Z, but seem to remain on topic if we can.
Just to humour you I will confess that I think Z is a figment of the imaginatioin.
I pay no heed to him, in fact Z detracts from the debate. However I would love to be proved wrong.

[vidvic]

To be accurate Buddy, It was Mike that changed the subject. I listed some points which he answered with another question. He still hasn't answered my points. He rarely does.

[mike tesko]

Maybe you could answer my specific points rather than making a new one?

I'll give you another example of things that don't ring true for me;

Last year you pushed a 'theory' that Bamber called the Police at 3.36, and that Nevill rang police first at 2.26. I pointed out that for Jeremy to call the Police at 3.36 and still get to WHF at 4.48 was virtually impossible without powered flight. In the past couple of days I see that you now claim that the defence have itemised bills from WHF showing a call to Jeremy's house from WHF at 3.15 and a call to the Police at 3.16. This post was from March last year if I remember correctly. You said that all would be revealed after the CCRC made their decision. This itemised billing would be dynamite for the defence if it existed, yet didn't appear to be any part of the submission to the CCRC. Why not? Did it really exist?

Your tunnel vision approach needs to be revised, if one or other clock was 10 minutes fast, the 3:36am reference could be 3:26am, and the 3:26am reference could be 3:16am. By the same token, the arrival of Jeremy at the scene of 3:48am, could be 3:28am, or 4:08am...

The trouble with your argument, is that all these different timed references are contained in prosecution witnesses statements, and cannot all be right, but you are now trying to suggest that because I have made reference to one or other of these timed references which prosecution witnesses have made as part of their evidence, that I am in some way to blame for referring to them myself...

You should think more carefully before you start making allegations of this nature, and ask yourself why I made these different references to timed events, do you think I just made them up out of thin air? I can say what I want about what another witness has said in this case, I don't need your permission or consent to think or speak or do anything...

Just to be specific, and relying upon the principle that one or other clocks were up to 10 minutes fast, Jeremy arrived at the farmhouse at 3:48am, 3;28am; and 4:08am. You can choose to make of this what you will, but at the end of the day Jeremy arrived at the farm when he did...

Now...

back to the police surgeon and PI Miller stating that when they viewed Sheila's body on the far side of the bed, she only had a solitary wound to her neck - and when Miller spoke to the Deputy coroner he said that Sheila killed the others, and that she then took her own life by way of a solitary shot, and what about the copper who told Ann that Sheila's body on the bed, how dare you question the existence of my informant who has shown me a photograph of Sheila on the bed with only one such wound - look at yourself and what the prosecution witnesses who gave evidence to help convict Jeremy for these murders ahve said and what they have all gained by and from succeeding in getting him convicted of these murders which he could not and did not commit...

You are very selective about what type of evidence you choose to rely on, but ignore anything which points to Jeremy's innocence...

Lets get the facts right - it was prosecution witnesses who first introduced the claim that Sheila only had a solitary wound to her neck, and it was prosecution witnesses who said Sheila's body had been found on the bed, and you have the cheek to criticize the informant for confirming that which these prosecution witnesses have said, and declared through t the medium of their evidence in the form of statements, and their testimony...

[mike tesko]

Depends if that is from where she heard it and who told her.

Any answers on 'Z' or the moving phone call times?

Again...

Stop trying to imply that I am responsible for moving or changing the times of these phone calls, that was the police and other prosecution witnesses, most of whom were druggies and probably spaced out of their minds, and would n't have a clue what they were taking about whilst under the influence...

[vidvic]

Again...

Stop trying to imply that I am responsible for moving or changing the times of these phone calls, that was the police and other prosecution witnesses, most of whom were druggies and probably spaced out of their minds, and would n't have a clue what they were taking about whilst under the influence...

And Jeremy..... He's changed the times too....

[vidvic]

Again...

Stop trying to imply that I am responsible for moving or changing the times of these phone calls, that was the police and other prosecution witnesses, most of whom were druggies and probably spaced out of their minds, and would n't have a clue what they were taking about whilst under the influence...

You have absolutely no evidence that anyone in Julie's household had taken drugs that night.