Missing photographs, by reference to missing negatives in Strips of ten(10)...

[mike tesko]

Alarm bells, are ringing...

[mike tesko]

Mr Suthersts film strip analysis also does not correspond with the COLP (1991 / 1992) photographic schedule, which highlights a serious discrepancy regarding at what stage police photographed Sheila Caffells body, since in Mr Suthersts film strip analysis police photographed Sheila before they photographed June Bamber, whereas, in COLPS photograph schedule, police did not photograph Sheila until after they had photographed June Bamber...

How could there exist such a discrepancy regarding the sequence with which PC Bird photographed the body of Sheila Caffell, before or after he photographed the body of June Bamber?

[mike tesko]

Careful study of the information contained in Mr Suthersts film strip presentation, shows that Sheila Caffell was photographed before June Bamber, and that police tamperd with the sequence of the film strips, from negative strip 9/15, through to negative strip 15/14 - film negatives 1 through to 8, and film negative 16 through to 18, being identical, in Mr Suthersts, and police account...

[mike tesko]

Careful study of the information contained in Mr Suthersts film strip presentation, shows that Sheila Caffell was photographed before June Bamber, and that police tamperd with the sequence of the film strips, from negative strip 9/15, through to negative strip 15/14 - film negatives 1 through to 8, and film negative 16 through to 18, being identical, in Mr Suthersts, and police account...

This is very interesting...

It would appear that police have deliberately set out to alter the sequence of events relating to the taking of photographs of Sheila Caffell, and that this has got something to do with the time PC Bird took photograph 23, of the rifle leaning up against the bedroom window, as viewed from the vantage point of the middle landing of the main stairs, which was taken according to PC Birds trial testimony, before his second visit to the main bedroom to photograph Sheila's body, whereas, he appears to have taken three separate sets of photographs of Sheila, for example, one set of images before he photographed June Bamber, a second set of images taken of Sheila after he had taken photographs of June Bamber, and a third set of photographs of Sheila, after he had taken photograph 23 showing the rifle at the window from the vantage point of the middle landing of the main stair...

[mike tesko]

Why has PC Bird made out a false case that he only paid two visits to the bedroom to take photographs of Sheila Caffell, when in fact he paid three separate visits to photograph her body there...

Why have Essex police falsified the photographic records to deliberately conceal for the fact that PC Bird spent three separate sessions in the main bedroom filming Sheila Caffells body?

What was so sensitive, at the time PC Bird took photographs on one of those three occasions, that it required the police to try and eradicate it from the photographic records disclosed to Bambers legal team, and the court which tried the matter - well, I know the answer, do you...

[mike tesko]

(1) - Sheila photographed *
(2) - June photographed
(3) - Sheila photographed
(4) - rifle photographed at bedroom window from vantage point of middle landing of main stairs
(5) - Sheila photographed with rifle from (4) on her body in different poitions...

[mike tesko]

(1) - Sheila photographed *
(2) - June photographed
(3) - Sheila photographed
(4) - rifle photographed at bedroom window from vantage point of middle landing of main stairs
(5) - Sheila photographed with rifle from (4) on her body in different poitions...

* At this stage, Sheila's body was on the bed, training exercise under way, PC Bird then concentrated on filming June Bamber...

[mike tesko]

COLP had access to all the miissing photographs, which they refused to copy:-

BOX 60/1

Albums not copied.....

[mike tesko]

Yes Sir, police sure did shoot Sheila Caffell under the chin, by use of the rifle from the bedroom window....

Sure did...

[mike tesko]

(1) - Sheila photographed *
(2) - June photographed
(3) - Sheila photographed
(4) - rifle photographed at bedroom window from vantage point of middle landing of main stairs
(5) - Sheila photographed with rifle from (4) on her body in different poitions...

 sheila photographed at (5) during third session of PC Bird photographing her body...

[mike tesko]

I am reliably informed that Sheila was wearing a pair of light blue leggings, which police removed whilst her body was on the bed, and these were placed hanging over the bannister at the top of the mainstairs, before they took rifle from against the bedroom window and put it to Sheila's body. Removal of the light blue leggings took place whilst her body was laid a topthe bed, and police took soft porn images of Sheila, on the bed with the hem of her nightdress ridden up...

Here is some photographic evidence to support that this took place, light blue leggings shown hanging over bannister in photo' 23, but missing in photograph which shows rifle that has been moved from window onto Sheila's body...

[mike tesko]

What exhibit reference was given to these wet light blue leggings placed over bannister?

[lookout]

Mike,,this is horrendous. Absolutely sickening and unforgiveable.If this is what happened,,they should be jailed.! It's unimaginable. Heartbreaking and upsetting. Poor woman.
Who put those clothes in soak,,as Sheila clearly wasn't able to.?

[Roch]

Mike,,this is horrendous. Absolutely sickening and unforgiveable.If this is what happened,,they should be jailed.! It's unimaginable. Heartbreaking and upsetting. Poor woman.
Who put those clothes in soak,,as Sheila clearly wasn't able to.?

The 'soft porn' photographs claim is a strong allegation that is likely to cause offence. 

[Jane]

The 'soft porn' photographs claim is a strong allegation that is likely to cause offence.

And do we know for certain that those leggings were wet and if they were, which particular big burly policeman suddenly turned housewife to wash them, and why? I expect you can hear that even if I end up HAVING to believe it, I really don't want to.