Order that PC Bird took photographs at the scene (7th August 1985)?

[mike tesko]

In a witness statement made by PC Bird, dated, 19th December 2001, which he made to the COLP investigators, PC Bird had the following to say:-

"On Tuesday the 18th December 2001 (18/12/2001) I assembled a series of photographs relating to white house farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex. These photographs have been identified by a serial number for each strip of negative film. I have assembled the photographs from each negative film into three groups in the albums. The first group are in  scene order to the best of my recollections, the second are taken by me but not in any particular order, and the final set, to the best of my knowledge were not taken by myself.

The first set contain negative numbers 0020, 0040, 0015, 0034, 0012, 0009, 0037.

The second set contain negative numbers 0023, 0002, 0024, 0039, 0043, 0003, 0021, 0065, 0011, 0014, 0025, 0035, 0028, 0016, 0041, 0033.

The third set contain the negative numbers 0001, 002, 0007, 0006, 0019, 0031, 0036, 0032, 0010, 0030, 0060, 0059, 0018, 0017, 0066, 009, 0026, 0008, 0027, 0005".

[mike tesko]

PC Bird made a further witness statement to the COLP investigators, dated, 21st December 2001:-

"On the 19th December 2001 (19/12/2001), I made a statement in relation to assembling a series of photographs in three groups on 18th December 2001 (18/12/2001). Further to that statement I wish to add the following: the first group was placed in an order which, to the best of my current recollection, the photographs had been taken. All the photographs were then placed in two lever arch folders, with dividers marked with the film serial numbers, described in my previous statement, and separating the prints produced from each uncut film. That process was completed at the request of Alan GOSS, a research officer with the Metropolitan Police murder review group. I have produced the two master folders as DB/100 and DB/101, which I handed to Mr GOSS on  19th December 2001 (19/12/2001). The photographs produced from  strips numbered 0020, 0040, 0015, 0034, 0012, 0009, and 0037 were placed, by me, in an order to represent that in which the photographs were originally taken. I now know that order to be incorrect. Upon reviewing the photographs produced from the negative film number 0034, I find that those photographs should be placed in folder DB/100 after those numbered 0012. I have now repositioned the photographs and the numbered order is now,  0020, 0040, 0034, 0015, 0023, 0013, 0009, and 0037".

Looks like something dodgy has been going on her then involving images on the negative strips, numbered 0012, and 0034, why did PC Bird get the order with which these had been taken? Does it have anything at all to do with when the first photographs taken of the rifle upon Sheila's body, either side of photograph 23 (which showed the rifle leaning up against the bedroom window)?

[mike tesko]

Lets now examine the compilation of negative strips used in this process -  10 photographs to each strip of negatives:-

Photograph numbers referred to, may be imaginary...


(PC Birds first version of events (DB/100) as told to COLP on 18th December 2012)...

Negative strip 0020

Photo' number 01
Photo' number 02
Photo' number 03
Photo' number 04
Photo' number 05
Photo' number 06
Photo' number 07
Photo' number 08
Photo' number 09
Photo' number 10

Negative strip 0045

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

Negative strip 0015

Photo' number 21
Photo' number 22
Photo' number 23
Photo' number 24
Photo' number 25
Photo' number 26
Photo' number 27
Photo' number 28
Photo' number 29
Photo' number 30

Negative strip 0034

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

Negative strip 0012

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

Negative strip 0009

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

Negative strip 0037

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

[mike tesko]

(PC Birds next version of events (DB/100) as told to COLP on 21st December 2012)...

Photograph numbers referred to, may be imaginary...


Negative strip 0020

Photo' number 01
Photo' number 02
Photo' number 03
Photo' number 04
Photo' number 05
Photo' number 06
Photo' number 07
Photo' number 08
Photo' number 09
Photo' number 10

Negative strip 0040

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

Negative strip 0034

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

Negative strip 0015

Photo' number 21
Photo' number 22
Photo' number 23
Photo' number 24
Photo' number 25
Photo' number 26
Photo' number 27
Photo' number 28
Photo' number 29
Photo' number 30

Negative strip 0023

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

Negative strip 0013

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

Negative strip 0009

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

Negative strip 0037

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

[mike tesko]

And finally:-

(PC Birds third version of events (DB/100), the order he took photographs at the scene on 7th August 1985, as told to COLP on 21st December 2012)...

Photograph numbers referred to, may be imaginary...


Negative strip 0020

Photo' number 01
Photo' number 02
Photo' number 03
Photo' number 04
Photo' number 05
Photo' number 06
Photo' number 07
Photo' number 08
Photo' number 09
Photo' number 10

Negative strip 0040

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

Negative strip 0015

Photo' number 21
Photo' number 22
Photo' number 23
Photo' number 24
Photo' number 25
Photo' number 26
Photo' number 27
Photo' number 28
Photo' number 29
Photo' number 30

Negative strip 0012

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

Negative strip 0034

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

Negative strip 0009

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

Negative strip 0037

Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number

[mike tesko]

It seems PC Bird was tying himself in knots trying to keep the lid on what he did, by lying about the sequence with which photographs taken by him at the scene were in fact taken at the scene (his testimony during Jeremy's trial, and later). At the centre of this deception was the timing when photograph 23 was taken - at trial he told the court that he had taken this after he took other photographs (27, 28, 32 and 33) of the rifle on Sheila's body in the bedroom, when in reality he took it (23) beforehand...

[mike tesko]

It seems PC Bird was tying himself in knots trying to keep the lid on what he did, by lying about the sequence with which photographs taken by him at the scene were in fact taken at the scene (his testimony during Jeremy's trial, and later). At the centre of this deception was the timing when photograph 23 was taken - at trial he told the court that he had taken this after he took other photographs (27, 28, 32 and 33) of the rifle on Sheila's body in the bedroom, when in reality he took it (23) beforehand...

Perhaps now would be as good a time as any to re-look at what PC Bird said about the order he took the pictures at the scene (inside whf, from 10am, on 7th August 1985) whilst testifying during the trial? It may well prove to be a useful exercise to compare what he said then, to each of the three versions that he told the COLP investigators in December 2001?

I will be away from the site for a couple of hours (or so) this morning...

Play this for now:-

(1) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CMjS_kxqK0

[mike tesko]

It also remains a distinct possibility that other crime scene photographs could have been taken (by PC Bird, or others), and taken out of the equation, altogether...

[mike tesko]

Here are the contents of another witness statement, made to the COLP investigators, by PC Bird, dated, 20th December 2001 (20/12/2001):-

"On Thursday, 19th December 2001 (19/12/2001) I assembled a set of photographs printed from negatives which have been identified by a series of numbers. I have assembled them in the following order, 0050, 0051, 0040, 0045, 0047, 0046, 0049, 0062, 0064, 0061, 0063, 0052, 0053, 0054, 0055, 0056, 0057.

These photographs relate to the WHITEHOUSE FARM, TOLLESHUNT D'ARCY, murders of the BAMBER and CAFFELL families in 1985.

With regard to my previous statement in relation to the two other albums, I produce the album of photographs taken by myself as DB/100. The second album of photographs which have not been identified as being taken by myself as EX. DB/101, finally the post mortem set as EX. DB/103".

[mike tesko]

Here are the contents of another witness statement, made to the COLP investigators, by PC Bird, dated, 20th December 2001 (20/12/2001):-

"On Thursday, 19th December 2001 (19/12/2001) I assembled a set of photographs printed from negatives which have been identified by a series of numbers. I have assembled them in the following order, 0050, 0051, 0040, 0045, 0047, 0046, 0049, 0062, 0064, 0061, 0063, 0052, 0053, 0054, 0055, 0056, 0057.

These photographs relate to the WHITEHOUSE FARM, TOLLESHUNT D'ARCY, murders of the BAMBER and CAFFELL families in 1985.

With regard to my previous statement in relation to the two other albums, I produce the album of photographs taken by myself as DB/100. The second album of photographs which have not been identified as being taken by myself as EX. DB/101, finally the post mortem set as EX. DB/103".

17 negative strips, (0050, 0051, 0040, 0045, 0047, 0046, 0049, 0062, 0064, 0061, 0063, 0052, 0053, 0054, 0055, 0056, and 0057), each strip containing 10 images, making a total of 170 photographs which formed part of album DB/100...

Of particular interest, are the negative strips mentioned here, 0040 and 0045, which also figure in posts, 2, 3, and 4 (above)...

[mike tesko]

Still not yet fully explained, is that despite some 27 years having already elapsed since the time PC Bird took all his photographs in sequence at the scene, there has still not yet been any schedule to show which order all the photographs were taken in, inside whf by him?

[mike tesko]

How does the information provided here by PC Bird (himself) fit in with the existence of 581 photographs contained in the SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM, or the 223 photographs contained in the MASTER COPY ALBUM, or the 50 photographs which formed part of the COURT ALBUM?

[mike tesko]

You then have the examination  of the disclosed negatives by Mr Sutherst, who discovers that 8 negatives are missing from around the time that PC Bird started to take photographs of Sheila's body in the bedroom - what is not yet clear, is whether these have since gone missing after the three albums ( SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM, MASTER COPY ALBUM, and COURT ALBUM), came into existence, or if they were cut out and disposed of beforehand?

How could the jury be satisfied about the claim that PC Bird took photograph 23 after he had already taken photographs (27, 28, 32 and 33) which show the rifle a top Sheila's body, if the very records upon which PC Bird relied upon whilst testifying were not made available to the court as an exhibit, and the contents had been doctored in any event?

[mike tesko]

This brings us back to the question of the rifle which WPC Jeapes reported seeing that was leaning up against the inside of the bedroom window before the six man raid team set off to get into the premises?
What happened once she spotted the rifle, did the police just simply forget about it being there?

[mike tesko]

This brings us back to the question of the rifle which WPC Jeapes reported seeing that was leaning up against the inside of the bedroom window before the six man raid team set off to get into the premises?
What happened once she spotted the rifle, did the police just simply forget about it being there?

Of course they didn't...