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

[vidvic]

I've wanted to know this also.  As the defence seem at odds with Mike Tesko, re the crime being a one gun crime.  Maybe Neil can shed some further light on this?

Maybe you should be asking why hardly any of mike's theories are adopted by the defence?

[Roch]

Maybe you should be asking why hardly any of mike's theories are adopted by the defence?

As far as I am aware, he is regarded as having done sterling work on the silencer issue.  1066 has had previous involvement with the defence, the campaign team and of course retains involvement with this forum.  He describes this forum as the best source of information about the case, yet does not prescribe to every theory on here.  Reading between the lines, I think that the defence has been on a long journey to piece together what happened.  There are differences between all factions who have taken part in this quest.  And there is common ground also.  The defence need a breakthrough.  If they get one, I think the floodgates will open and then we will eventually see who's theory was closest to the truth.

[vidvic]

No, I don't believe he did. He had a professional interest but was never involved.

Do you believe in 'z' rochford?

[mike tesko]

The other odd feature surrounding the cloth pull through concerns its exhibit reference (MDF/100) and corresponding lab' reference number (135) which do not seem to fit in sequence with other exhibits bearing MDF`s identifying mark, or the sequential numbering given to items of evidential value at the lab' - because the only other exhibits bearing MDF`s identifying mark are 14 spent bullet cases (MDF/100) without any corresponding lab` item number...

Lab` item numbers 134 and 136 came into play in October 1985, so the cloth pull through test of the rifles barrel could not have come into existence in mid september as MDF would have us believe?

[Roch]

No, I don't believe he did. He had a professional interest but was never involved.

Do you believe in 'z' rochford?

I like to back Mike where I can.  On 'Z' I find this difficult.  When Mike first introduced 'Z' he stated that the informant had suggested the logs re female body found downstairs and shooting in kitchen report 1612 has been faked in order to account for the two gunshot wounds.  This seemed to completely contradict months worth of Mike's previous arguments.  As a consequence of this, I did feel there was a ring of truth to the informant scenario, since the informant was in effect undermining Mike.  I asked my self why Mike would undermine him self?  Since then I have seen the damage that 'Z' has done and how the doubts of others has eaten away at some of Mike's perceived credibility.

I do not wish to accuse Mike of being a liar but I do have my doubts about 'Z'.

[ngb1066]

Maybe you should be asking why hardly any of mike's theories are adopted by the defence?

Most of the arguments presented on the forum by Mike are accepted by the defence.  There are some where the defence have a different view, but it should be remembered that the defence do not claim to have a definitive view on every point of detail.

 

[Roch]

Most of the arguments presented on the forum by Mike are accepted by the defence.  There are some where the defence have a different view, but it should be remembered that the defence do not claim to have a definitive view on every point of detail.

I think Mike is becoming a victim of character assasination because he is not cautious in advancing theories which can be attacked or which cause offence.  He is also placing himself right up there as a target.  And he is naming names.  And because he is apt to undermine his own position anyway. 

[ngb1066]

I think Mike is becoming a victim of character assasination because he is not cautious in advancing theories which can be attacked or which cause offence.  He is also placing himself right up there as a target.  And he is naming names.  And because he is apt to undermine his own position anyway.

Mike is a focus for attack mainly because he has fearlessly promoted Jeremy's cause on the internet, through this forum and elsewhere.  He has very extensive knowledge of the case and he uses that knowledge to advance theories about aspects of the evidence.  Mike can speak for himself but I believe Mike advances theories partly because he believes them but mainly because he wants to generate debate about the case and raise awareness of the issues.  People are free to disagree with Mike and I do not see that any of the theories Mike has advanced harm the defence.  He has made it clear (and the disclaimer here makes it clear) that the views expressed on the forum are not necessarily those of Jeremy or of his defence team.  In fact most of Mike's arguments are in line with the defence position, but it does not matter that some are not.  Open debate is healthy.

 

[mike tesko]

Since the cloth pull through (MDF/1) and the 14 spent bullet cases (MDF/100) are the only disclosed/admitted exhibits in the case referred to by MDF, one is left to wonder if there are other exhibits not spoken about bearing identifying marks MDF/2 through consecutively to MDF/99?

[mike tesko]

Since the cloth pull through (MDF/1) and the 14 spent bullet cases (MDF/100) are the only disclosed/admitted exhibits in the case referred to by MDF, one is left to wonder if there are other exhibits not spoken about bearing identifying marks MDF/2 through consecutively to MDF/99?

I think not...

[mike tesko]

My take on the relevance of the exhibit references, MDF/1 (135)  and MDF/100, is that the original exhibit MDF/1 was the 14 spent bullet cases (135) and that once Fletcher realized he needed to introduce a cloth pull through to make the point that the inside of the rifle barrel was blood free, he simply added two (0's) to the end of the original exhibit MDF/1 altering it into MDF/100, to allow him to introduce the cloth pull through evidence as MDF/1, bearing a lab' item number 135...

[ngb1066]

As far as I am aware, he is regarded as having done sterling work on the silencer issue.  1066 has had previous involvement with the defence, the campaign team and of course retains involvement with this forum.  He describes this forum as the best source of information about the case, yet does not prescribe to every theory on here.  Reading between the lines, I think that the defence has been on a long journey to piece together what happened.  There are differences between all factions who have taken part in this quest.  And there is common ground also.  The defence need a breakthrough.  If they get one, I think the floodgates will open and then we will eventually see who's theory was closest to the truth.

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

[mike tesko]

My take on the relevance of the exhibit references, MDF/1 (135)  and MDF/100, is that the original exhibit MDF/1 was the 14 spent bullet cases (135) and that once Fletcher realized he needed to introduce a cloth pull through to make the point that the inside of the rifle barrel was blood free, he simply added two (0's) to the end of the original exhibit MDF/1 altering it into MDF/100, to allow him to introduce the cloth pull through evidence as MDF/1, bearing a lab' item number 135...

By adopting this approach, it left Fletcher with a cloth pull through exhibit, with the exhibit reference MDF/1 and a lab' item number 135, and 14 spent bullet cases with an altered exhibit reference MDF/100, without a corresponding lab' item number. The cloth pull through evidence  was produced as though it had been dragged through the barrel of the rifle before the commencement of the official test fiere of the rifle, silencer and control ammunition commencing on 25th September 1985, yet the corresponding lab' item number 135 could not have come into oplay until October 1985?

[ngb1066]

No, I don't believe he did. He had a professional interest but was never involved.

Just to clarify the position, as I have explained before I have never been part of the campaign team but I have had some dealings with them.  I am no longer practising as a barrister so it follows that I am not part of the legal team.  I have given some assistance and continue to do so.



 

[vidvic]

Mike is a focus for attack mainly because he has fearlessly promoted Jeremy's cause on the internet, through this forum and elsewhere.  He has very extensive knowledge of the case and he uses that knowledge to advance theories about aspects of the evidence.  Mike can speak for himself but I believe Mike advances theories partly because he believes them but mainly because he wants to generate debate about the case and raise awareness of the issues.  People are free to disagree with Mike and I do not see that any of the theories Mike has advanced harm the defence.  He has made it clear (and the disclaimer here makes it clear) that the views expressed on the forum are not necessarily those of Jeremy or of his defence team.  In fact most of Mike's arguments are in line with the defence position, but it does not matter that some are not.  Open debate is healthy.

 

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?.....