Documentary evidence which proves relatives knew about silencer on 9/8/85...

[Roch]

CCTV footage will confirm that informant and I myself were there at the CCRC, and that he took envelope in, and came back without it...

Imagine that - informant who everybody thinks did not exist is actually on CCTV footage outside CCRC building, together with yours truly...

Well I did notice you had considerably back-tracked on the silencer evidence, regarding the date of discovery.  That did make me question as to whether there was indeed an informant. What you are now saying about the police not informing the relatives that the silencer handed in was not sent to the lab... but instead remained in the keeping of Taff also makes sense.  Especially when I consider how Hartley has fought on here regarding the relatives' version of the finding of the silencer.

[grahameb]

Mike. Not sure if handing the photo to Ewen was the wisest thing to do? If I was in possession of such damning evidence I would rather hand it to Jeremy's defence team.

[mike tesko]

Do you remember , JB's letter to you were he was critical of Ewan Smith , do you remember why ? Or can you put the letter up again ? My memory is not the best but i seem to think ES was aware of some evidence and never revealed it to JB , i could be wrong !!

I have several letters from Jeremy at this critical point of his incarceration and involving some of the reasons why Jeremy dispoised of Ewens services. It came as a shock to me when the split finally came, but looking back I can see why Jeremy did what he did? I think the final straw came when I reported to Jeremy that Ewen had all these additional photographs which Essex police had allowed Ewen to see on the basis that none were to be copied, and that disclosure was on a confidential basis, yet Jeremy wasn`t told anything at all about it, except by me? It also did not help matters that Jeremy knew by that stage that Ewen had applied to join the CCRC...

Soon as Jeremy learned from me that Ewen had got these albums of additional photographs including the one of Sheila on the bed, that appeared to be the final straw and signalled the end of the relationship between them...

[mike tesko]

It is a criminal offence to possess pii material, so considering that how would someone who had possession of such material be able to hand it over to a journalist, or even to Jeremy or those representing his interests? We all know what should be done, and we can all tell somebody what to do and how to set about doing it, but if you are the one in the firing lIne, if you were the one who had to face the dire consequences, what would you really do?

That is the position my informant finds himself in?

[mike tesko]

Anyway...

Now that everyone can see that relatives and police knew about a silencer (1), and that there were talks on the morning of 9th August 1985, between them about the silencer, at a time when police still had the keys to whf (09:45am), the significance of the four exhibits, SBJ/4, SBJ/3, SBJ/2 and SBJ1 (the silencer), should become clear to all and sundry? Since, once DCI 'Taff` Jones, and DS `Stan`Jones, had been along to see Jeremy to speak to him about the silencer (SBJ/1) and telescopic site for the rifle, asking him if either or both were fitted to the rifle on the evening prior to the shootings, and if not who had taken them off, police later handed the keys for whf back to Ann Eaton at the scene that same evening, so there was no further opportunity for DS 'Stan' Jones, to take possession of his four exhibits once keys had been handed over to Ann Eaton on evening of 9th August?

Silencer (1) SBJ/1 was therefore recovered from the scene by `Stan', prior to keys for whf being handed over to Ann Eaton on 9th August, and relatives and 'Taff` and `Stan` had been discussing this silencer (1) on the day before they found the Bamber silencer (2) in the gun cupboard?

[grahameb]

It is a criminal offence to possess pii material, so considering that how would someone who had possession of such material be able to hand it over to a journalist, or even to Jeremy or those representing his interests? We all know what should be done, and we can all tell somebody what to do and how to set about doing it, but if you are the one in the firing lIne, if you were the one who had to face the dire consequences, what would you really do?

That is the position my informant finds himself in?

Yes I can see what you mean if that is the case. Let's hope that this is not the last that we hear of these documents. I have an ominous feeling that they will end up in some inaccessible place and will never be brought to light. I really do think that this body of men are influence by higher authorities and that nothing more will be heard of them?

[mike tesko]

A later claim made by Anthony Pargeter, to the effect that David Boutflour had told him the police had originally found the silencer and handed it back to the family, is partly linked to the fact that Pargeter knew police had his silencer (1) on and by 9th August 1985, hence the discussions on that date, between relatives and police, about such a silencer (1)? Additionally, once the nature of the investigations changed, Pargeter knew that find of silencer by relatives had taken place on 10th August, but that paperwork for the fresh investigation did not come into play until after 5th September, so Boutflour must have been aware of additional documentation suggesting David reported to police he had found a silencer in the gun cupboard on 11th September, and that Ann Eaton had handed it over to the police that same date, so Pargeter for one or all or more reasons he wrongly assumed silencer must have be handed back to the family at some stage?

But it wasn't, the silencer (2) found by relatives was in the possession of (1) `Stan` Jones, (2) `Ron` Cook, (3) Glynis Howrd, (4) `Ron` Cook, (5)`Taff` Jones, (6) `Christopher` Widdon, (7) `Neil` Davidson and DS Eastwood, and (8) `Ron' Cook, again, before it was sent to lab` to be checked for blood and fibres, on 20th September 19
85...

[Newbury1]

Documentary Evidence I have been talking about:-

Mike,

1) Are you presenting the pages as all having come from the Operation Stokenchurch Holmes 2 Account A49 File, as non of the pages are signed, or cross referenced to anything - and that hand writing could be anyones?

2) Why was a set of documents (inc. that infamous picture of SC on the bed), allegedly presented by Z to ES (CCRC), not handed to JB's legal team (S Mck)?

- or does JB's legal team already have all this information?

3) Did your informant give you a copy of the photo of SC on the bed?

4) "informant who everybody thinks did not exist is actually on CCTV footage outside CCRC building" -The existence of Z is still not proved just because you say he is on some CCTV footage somewhere - which we will never get to see!

However; IF JB's case is now supported by strong new scientific evidence relating the the non use of a silencer and JB's legal team has a copy of that "photo", plus, lets say, additional new material, the case will have to be referred.

- if it is not referred; them some will lose a lot of face!

I look forward to your replies to my questions above - thanks.

[mike tesko]

Mike,

1) Are you presenting the pages as all having come from the Operation Stokenchurch Holmes 2 Account A49 File, as non of the pages are signed, or cross referenced to anything - and that hand writing could be anyones?

2) Why was a set of documents (inc. that infamous picture of SC on the bed), allegedly presented by Z to ES (CCRC), not handed to JB's legal team (S Mck)?

- or does JB's legal team already have all this information?

3) Did your informant give you a copy of the photo of SC on the bed?

3) "informant who everybody thinks did not exist is actually on CCTV footage outside CCRC building" -The existence of Z is still not proved just because you say he is on some CCTV footage somewhere - which we will never get to see!

However; IF JB's case is now supported by strong new scientific evidence relating the the non use of a silencer and JB's legal team has a copy of that "photo", plus, lets say, additional new material, the case will have to be referred.

- if it is not referred; them some will lose a lot of face!

I look forward to your replies to my questions above - thanks.

(1) - I have lots of documents from many prosecution witnesses which have not been signed, yet prosecution ask us to accept what all these witnesses have said, or say, providing whatever they say, or purport to say, supports the prosecutions case or arguments - in some instances some of these prosecution witnesses didn`t even make their own witness statements, I will rephrase that because some of the witnesses were not even present when someone else made statements for them in their absence, or they were edited, or paraphrased to change the meaning of what needed to be said, or excluded because it cast the prosecutions case in a bad light...

[mike tesko]

(1) - I have lots of documents from many prosecution witnesses which have not been signed, yet prosecution ask us to accept what all these witnesses have said, or say, providing whatever they say, or purport to say, supports the prosecutions case or arguments - in some instances some of these prosecution witnesses didn`t even make their own witness statements, I will rephrase that because some of the witnesses were not even present when someone else made statements for them in their absence, or they were edited, or paraphrased to change the meaning of what needed to be said, or excluded because it cast the prosecutions case in a bad light...

On the flip side of the coin, I have got documents and witness statements which have been signed by witnesses which are false...

So, which is it...

What are we expected to believe and accept?

[Newbury1]

(1) - I have lots of documents from many prosecution witnesses which have not been signed, yet prosecution ask us to accept what all these witnesses have said, or say, providing whatever they say, or purport to say, supports the prosecutions case or arguments - in some instances some of these prosecution witnesses didn`t even make their own witness statements, I will rephrase that because some of the witnesses were not even present when someone else made statements for them in their absence, or they were edited, or paraphrased to change the meaning of what needed to be said, or excluded because it cast the prosecutions case in a bad light...

Mike, Thanks for your answer to 1).

Are you able to answer, or comment on, 2), 3) & 4)?

[curiousessex]

It is a criminal offence to possess pii material, so considering that how would someone who had possession of such material be able to hand it over to a journalist, or even to Jeremy or those representing his interests? We all know what should be done, and we can all tell somebody what to do and how to set about doing it, but if you are the one in the firing lIne, if you were the one who had to face the dire consequences, what would you really do?

That is the position my informant finds himself in?

Well it looks like 'Z' has just blown his cover if he is on CCTV footage at the CCRC.

If it is a criminal offence to possess PII material then 'Z' is now open to potentially being arrested and charged if what you have stated is true.

In my opinion if there is a massive conspiracy of all the authorities, as is often suggested in this case, then I am sure the authorities will have the where with all and ability to conspire to deal with 'Z' and the envelope in their own way. Surely, if one truely believes ones own suspicions why would one not release / provide copy of the alleged photograph of Sheila on the bed with a single gun shot wound to the neck to a trusted contact in the press. Or even Simon McKay.

With regard to the press they will protect their sources and would no doubt publish such a photograph. Most particulary, as such a photograph would be a MASSIVE scoop for them which would translate to big bucks. The alleged photograph, if it exists, would totally discredit PII as it would demonstrate PII is being used in quite the opposite manner for which it was initially intended.

Instead 'Z' reveals himself on the CCTV footage of those who are perceived as being the enemy.... I am afraid, in my opinion, this does not currently make sense.

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

You make some good points there curiousessex.

[curiousessex]

You make some good points there curiousessex.

Thank you

As mentioned 'Z' could easily provide copy of the alleged photograph anonymously to a trusted contact in the press or even anonymously to Simon McKay.

As such, in the case of Simon McKay he could not be prosecuted because he has an obliged duty to defend his client. Besides, whilst Mike has stated Essex Police provided such a photograph album to Ewen Smith under a confidentiality agreement, Simon McKay will not be bound by the same agreement if it was a conditional agreement with Ewen Smith.

[curiousessex]

As for the 'Documentary evidence which proves relatives knew about silencer on 9/8/85...' and reading the report that has been posted in this thread all that is noted against the 9/8/85 entry is as follows;

'Asked pertinent questions regarding gun, silencer and telescopic sight.'

In my opinion, all this proves is nothing more than members of the family knew the gun had a silencer and a telescopic sight. It does not pove they knew Sheila had been shot with a gun that at the time had a silencer and telescopic sight fitted / not fitted.