Rifle flush with body, gun barrel under chin, clue...

[Bridget]

This one?

Yes, that's the one, thanks Harters. I was wondering if some of the fragments shown in the x-ray could have come from PV19 but apparently not?

[mike tesko]

Ok, thanks. Do you know where those lists are which described each one and whether or not they could be associated with the Anschultz? I think they were MDF's.

Try here for starters, lab' reords for bullets PV/19 and PV/20:-

(1) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2506.0;attach=13765;image
(2) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4348;image

For all other information visit following thread link in the forum at :-

(3) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2506.0.html

How can bullet PV/20 referred to in these lab' records be described as a fragmented piece of bullet by Venezis in his witness statement / reports, and which corresponds in shape and size to anyone of the three main pieces of the fragmented bullet shown insitu inside Sheila's neck by reference to the X-ray?

[Roch]

You need to ask yourself, who is actually doing the goading?

Your response does not appear to relate to my post, in fact you appear to be trying to be confrontational just for the sake of it. I'm very clear in giving my opinion, I am not asking you to agree.

I do however find it somewhat ironic that the BIBS are accusing the prosecution as being underhanded, it's a bit like Joey Barton accusing Gandhi of being aggressive.

Here is my opinion again, it is still current:

You've got a track record as long as Joey barton's punching arm, for accusing other posters of not  responding to your posts in a relevant way.  We must all have irrelaventits when you enter the arena!  My opinion is that where anything omitted from a final typed statement, that statement is by default edited.   You have asked for proof of wrongdoing for edited statements, for example what Mike has previously alleged about woodcocks' statement.  I'm afraid I'm not a forensic scientist currently in possession of genuine documents.  But yes, I agree with you, it would be nice to see more info from the defence or supporters as to why they believe statements have been edited or re-written.  I have now twice referred you to Bambertwitpics which contains excerpts previously not seen, including one document which has been crossed out and the word "No" written next to it, so I wont direct you a third time

I'll do a deal with you.  I'll get you Myall's and Bews' statements and you arrange a polygraph for them.    Fair do's?

[-Harters-]

Yes, that's the one, thanks Harters. I was wondering if some of the fragments shown in the x-ray could have come from PV19 but apparently not?

Is it documented anywhere that the xrays actually show fragments? In the past people have suggested that it's broken bone, teeth or displaced tissue.

If it is as described by Mike, then I'd have expected this to have been put forward as a ground of appeal at some stage, the fact that it hasn't makes me suspect deception on Mikes part. IMHO.

[mike tesko]

Fragmented pieces of original bullet PV/20 as shown in X-ray, appear to suggest that the three main pieces of the fragmented bullet were generally similar in size  to one another:-

(1) - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4509;image

How is it possible to describe one of these three pieces of the original fragmented bullet (PV/20) as whole?

[mike tesko]

Is it documented anywhere that the xrays actually show fragments? In the past people have suggested that it's broken bone, teeth or displaced tissue.

If it is as described by Mike, then I'd have expected this to have been put forward as a ground of appeal at some stage, the fact that it hasn't makes me suspect deception on Mikes part. IMHO.

Idiot - and so Venezis has lied as well, stop being a complete fool, think before you open your gob...

[mike tesko]

Whilst on the subject of people who have deceived in this case, we are still awaiting public confirmation that David Boutflour tampered with the silencer by physically trying to unscrew the top off the it with his bare hands and the fact that he tampere with the integrity of the silencer / blood evidence by using a razor blade to scrape off a small piece of dried blood which he retained because it fascinated him? I should think Bamber and his legal team, and the jury which tried the case would also have been fascinated to hear about these antics, and more importantly what Boutflour did with the blood he removed, and which Essex police officers he told about it, and what if any action they took upon being told by Boutflour regarding what he did?

Still waiting with bated breath for relatives and their supporters to get back to us on that matter...

So, if anyone has been / is being deceptive you need look no further than these feature's, and what the police / relatives and thier supporters got up to, and continue to be getting up to...

It seems to be al-right for one of the relatives to physically tampered with the silencer and blood evidence, and they carry on as if Boutflour and the police did nothing wrong which has no bearing on the integrity of the silencer evidence - this just goes to show how unfair and corrupted the criminal justice system can be when it wants to be. Criminals interfering with exhibits and the courts turning its face away as if to say, nothing wrong with that, he, they did nothing wrong, so what?

Back in the mid 1980's this is how justice was dished out to the victims of MOJ...

[-Harters-]

You've got a track record as long as Joey barton's punching arm, for accusing other posters of not  responding to your posts in a relevant way.  We must all have irrelaventits when you enter the arena!  My opinion is that where anything omitted from a final typed statement, that statement is by default edited.   You have asked for proof of wrongdoing for edited statements, for example what Mike has previously alleged about woodcocks' statement.  I'm afraid I'm not a forensic scientist currently in possession of genuine documents.  But yes, I agree with you, it would be nice to see more info from the defence or supporters as to why they believe statements have been edited or re-written.  I have now twice referred you to Bambertwitpics which contains excerpts previously not seen, including one document which has been crossed out and the word "No" written next to it, so I wont direct you a third time

I'll do a deal with you.  I'll get you Myall's and Bews' statements and you arrange a polygraph for them.    Fair do's?

Bambertwitpics is not evidence, if there was evidence then as per the fragmented bullet scenario, I would have expected it to have been put to the CCRC. I believe ot is spin which is readily and gleefully wolfed down in double helpings by Bambers supporters.

Crossed out words etc are all very wonderful for a conspiracy, but there are a hundred and one possible reasons for it, I'd suggest the sneaky editing of statements to be one of the less likely, yet it's clung to as hard proof by yourself and referred to (twice, as you say) as some sort of corroboration that something sinister has taken place.

Lot's of people, yourself included, have a long track record of answering questions with questions when it becomes clear that their original arguments based on sweeping unsubstantiated theories are baseless. This is usually in the form of an encore to suggestions that I am goading in some manner simply because I share the opinion that your reasoning is illogical in the extreme, of course I'm the rose tinted spectacle wearer? If you say so.

The point that you are really missing, is that I am not stating that statements were not edited, I have no idea, but I'm not the one making allegations, I am asking for the reasons why these allegations are being made, if it is simply down to what is shown on Bambertwitpics, then I'm astonished that you can continue this argument without blushing.

But as I have pointed out to you on many, many occasions, and will do so again: I am not asking you to agree with me.

[Bridget]

Is it documented anywhere that the xrays actually show fragments? In the past people have suggested that it's broken bone, teeth or displaced tissue.

If it is as described by Mike, then I'd have expected this to have been put forward as a ground of appeal at some stage, the fact that it hasn't makes me suspect deception on Mikes part. IMHO.

From the general examination records Mike posted a link to those bullets which were virtually intact (one from Ralph's arm for example) weigh approx 2.4g, whereas PV19 weighs only 2.16g and PV20 1.54g. That doesn't seem inconsistant with what's shown in the x-ray.

[mike tesko]

Bambertwitpics is not evidence, if there was evidence then as per the fragmented bullet scenario, I would have expected it to have been put to the CCRC. I believe ot is spin which is readily and gleefully wolfed down in double helpings by Bambers supporters.

Crossed out words etc are all very wonderful for a conspiracy, but there are a hundred and one possible reasons for it, I'd suggest the sneaky editing of statements to be one of the less likely, yet it's clung to as hard proof by yourself and referred to (twice, as you say) as some sort of corroboration that something sinister has taken place.

Lot's of people, yourself included, have a long track record of answering questions with questions when it becomes clear that their original arguments based on sweeping unsubstantiated theories are baseless. This is usually in the form of an encore to suggestions that I am goading in some manner simply because I share the opinion that your reasoning is illogical in the extreme, of course I'm the rose tinted spectacle wearer? If you say so.

The point that you are really missing, is that I am not stating that statements were not edited, I have no idea, but I'm not the one making allegations, I am asking for the reasons why these allegations are being made, if it is simply down to what is shown on Bambertwitpics, then I'm astonished that you can continue this argument without blushing.

But as I have pointed out to you on many, many occasions, and will do so again: I am not asking you to agree with me.

You don't have to agree with me, just get David Boutflour to sign a witness statement bearing the following contents...

I have prepared the contents of a witness statement for David Boutflour to sign:-

" I am the person who with my bare hands tried to unscrew the end cap off the silencer after I found it, but it was so tight that I could not do it. I then noticed a small flake of dried blood on the silencer where my hand had been gripping it and I found a razor blade nearby that I used to scrape off the flake which I retained because it fascinated me. I later took away the silencer and the flake of blood along with the razor blade which I retained. Later on I told Essex police officers what I had done, and they asked me for the flake of blood and razor blade which I handed over to them. I later learned that this flake was dropped into the silencer through the small aperture on the end cap and sent off to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres. As far as I know the blood flake I removed from the silencer has been attributed as having been found inside the silencer at the lab' and I have been told to say nothing about what I did, or who I told, or anything about handing it over to the police, on the basis that if the truth came out the silencer / blood evidence would be rejected on the proviso that its integrity had been violated and rendered worthless"...

[-Harters-]

Idiot - and so Venezis has lied as well, stop being a complete fool, think before you open your gob...

Has anybody else (apart from yourself) ever described the xray as showing a fragmented bullet? It's a simple enough questionand quite relevant in my opinion, particularly when you are using these xrays to support a theory.

[-Harters-]

From the general examination records Mike posted a link to those bullets which were virtually intact (one from Ralph's arm for example) weigh approx 2.4g, whereas PV19 weighs only 2.16g and PV20 1.54g. That doesn't seem inconsistant with what's shown in the x-ray.

No I suppose not, and there is inconsistancy, however it's a bit of a leap to suggest that the police swapped bullets around to try and link them to the Anshutz rifle.

[Bridget]

No I suppose not, and there is inconsistancy, however it's a bit of a leap to suggest that the police swapped bullets around to try and link them to the Anshutz rifle.

So what is the inconsistancy, just that a bullet weighing 1.54g has been decribed as whole?

[Roch]

Bambertwitpics is not evidence, if there was evidence then as per the fragmented bullet scenario, I would have expected it to have been put to the CCRC. I believe ot is spin which is readily and gleefully wolfed down in double helpings by Bambers supporters.

Crossed out words etc are all very wonderful for a conspiracy, but there are a hundred and one possible reasons for it, I'd suggest the sneaky editing of statements to be one of the less likely, yet it's clung to as hard proof by yourself and referred to (twice, as you say) as some sort of corroboration that something sinister has taken place.

Lot's of people, yourself included, have a long track record of answering questions with questions when it becomes clear that their original arguments based on sweeping unsubstantiated theories are baseless. This is usually in the form of an encore to suggestions that I am goading in some manner simply because I share the opinion that your reasoning is illogical in the extreme, of course I'm the rose tinted spectacle wearer? If you say so.

The point that you are really missing, is that I am not stating that statements were not edited, I have no idea, but I'm not the one making allegations, I am asking for the reasons why these allegations are being made, if it is simply down to what is shown on Bambertwitpics, then I'm astonished that you can continue this argument without blushing.

But as I have pointed out to you on many, many occasions, and will do so again: I am not asking you to agree with me.

You've hit the nail on the head.  Whatever is provided, for example previously unseen excerpts of witness statements, crossed out dates, crossed out exhibit references, passages of original statements not helpful to the prosecution's case crossed out with NO written on them, bodies found downstairs UPON ENTRY with the CORRECT number of corresponding bodies later found upstairs, photographs with oxygenated blood, photographs with mat blood, photographs with the rifle here there and everyfuckingwhere, etc etc etc ... will never be good enough for you.  You talk about double helpings.  I think it's more a case of you and others swallowing a certain prosecution witness's anecdotes like mother's milk.

Carry on posting in the supercilious, haughty manner that you are famous for, I can guarantee you I'm not blushing in any way whatsoever.

[-Harters-]

So what is the inconsistancy, just that a bullet weighing 1.54g has been decribed as whole?

I suppose so yes, although I'd suggest that a description of "whole in appearance" may be more accurate.

For example PV/29 weighed 2.13g, so did PV/19, PV/4 weighed 2.09g, PV/2 weighed 2.42g and DRH/9 weighed 1.67g, yet all are described as whole.

Were these other bullets also swapped around?