The last ultimate test of gun, to prove sound moderator was not used in shooting

[mike tesko]

During Glynis Howards examination of the silencer on 13th August 1985, the silencer was turned around, this way, and that way...

Had the small flake of dtied blood already been inside the silencer by that stage, it had the potentisl to move around to different parts inside the silencer, because the flake was much smaller that the holes or bore of component internal parts of the silencer...

It is important to remember that the small flake of unique dried blood had this potential for movement inside the silencer because of its size...

[mike tesko]

No sooner does Howard complete her examination of the silencer on 13th August 1985, than she hands it back to Cook...

[mike tesko]

No sooner does Howard complete her examination of the silencer on 13th August 1985, than she hands it back to Cook...

Yet another opportunity to disturb the position of the small flake of blood inside the silencer, if it was already present inside the silencer by that point...

[mike tesko]

What I am going to say next, beggars belief, and I make mention of this, because this is precisely what Cook told the COLP investigators when interviewed as part of their 1991 / 92 investigation:.

He told COLP investigators, that after the silencer was returned to him by Glynis Howard on 13th August 1985, he did not put the silencer in question into any property store at any police station, but instead he kept the silencer in his coat pocket for the next 17 days and nights, until he returned it back to the lab' to be re-examined on the 30th August 1985...

[mike tesko]

What I am going to say next, beggars belief, and make mention of this, because this is precisely what Cook told the COLP investigators when interviewed as part of their 1991 / 92 investigation:.

He told COLP investigators, that after the silencer was returned to him by Glynis Howard on 13th August 1985, he did not put the silencer in question into any property store at any police station, but instead he kept the silencer in his coat pocket for the next 17 days and nights, until he returned it back to the lab' to be re-examined on the 30th August 1985...

Pity the jury weren't told all of this during the trial...

[mike tesko]

In any event, cook lied to the COLP investigators, because based upon information elsewhere in the disclosed police file, Cook fingerprinted the silencer on the 15th August 1985, so obviously he must have taken the silencer out of his pocket in order to fingerprint it by way of oblique light technique, and presumeably returned it back to his pocket...

Think of all the movement of the silencer as all of this was unfolding, again the small loose flake of blood had the capacity to get into and move around inside the silencer. It is even possible that the small flake of unique blood got into the silencer from inside Cooks pocket that it was being carried around in everywhere...

[mike tesko]

On the previous day (14th August) Cook had gone along to whf in the company of Ann Eaton, and PI Miller, and had taken the paint sample (RWC/1) from underneath the aga mantlepiece - he had the silencer in his pocket all the while of course....

Imagine all the movement of the silencer inside Cooks coat pocket traveling to and from the scene. Why did he take that paint sample from the aga on that occasion, because no-one at the lab' had said there was any red paint on the end of the silencer by that stage? So what we have then is Cook with the silencer in his pocket at the scene on 14th August, and he takes a paint sample (RWC/1) from the aga, which is eventually used to match paint ingrained into the end of the silencer once the silencer is returned back to the lab' on 30th August 1985...

Presumeably, Cook didn't get the silencer out of his picket whilst at the scene to compare any paint found on the silencer, against the red paint on the aga...

[scipio_usmc]

To recap thus far...

Silencer exhibit referencing is dodgy to say the least - silencer starts off as SBJ/1, then becomes DB/1, and eventually changes into DRB/1...

It first of all has a lab' item number of 22, then becomes 23, and is later changed back to 22...

The reasoning of which was easily explained and failed miserably at trying to establish the blood found by the defense and prosecution that was group A was sprayed there by someone not back spatter.

[mike tesko]

On the 29th August 1985, Cook removed the silencer from his pocket once again, and proceeded to dismantle it, by unscrewing the silencers end cap, removing the top washer, and all 17 baffle plates laying them out on a worktop, before separating the silencers end cap, top washer, and the first 5 of the 17 baffle plates so that there was a gap between them, without a trace of the loose flake of dried blood...

I wonder where the loose flake of dried blood was when Cook was dismantling the silencer?

[scipio_usmc]

On the 29th August 1985, Cook removed the silencer from his pocket once again, and proceeded to dismantle it, by unscrewing the silencers end cap, removing the top washer, and all 17 baffle plates laying them out on a worktop, before separating the silencers end cap, top washer, and the first 5 of the 17 baffle plates so that there was a gap between them, without a trace of the loose flake of dried blood...

I wonder where the loose flake of dried blood was when Cook was dismantling the silencer?

What loose flake?  The flake of blood that was removed wasn't loose it was stuck to the metal and had to be scraped off.

The prosecution tested the flake of blood tha twas scraped from the end as well as blood that was removed from the baffles.  The flake tested group A as did the blood on the baffles.

After all visible blood was removed the defense tested it finding that the inital 8 baffles tested positive for blood.  Microscopic drops of blood had bee found on these 8 baffles and they tested group A.

The microscopic drops are consistent with high velocity spatter.  It leaves fine microscopic drops not just visible blood.  These microscopic drops invariably do criminals in because they do not know such drops are on their clothing and thus don't change or launder clothing that they should. In this case the fine drops helped seal the deal that the suppressor had been used to shoot someone with group A blood.  There are no known humans shot previously with said gun/suppressor so obviously the back spatter was from this event and Sheila was the only one with group A blood and she had the only wound that definitely would result in back spatter being drawn into the weapon.

Which means that in order to carry out the planting alleged all of the following had to occur:

1) recognizing that spatter would definitely end up in the weapon

2) remove spatter from the weapon

3) figure out Sheila's blood type or obtain blood that wa shers that coudl then be planted

4) plant blood in the suppressor and to recognize that just using a dropper or tiny vial to pour it in would not mimick back spatter so appreciating the need to spray it inside and finding a way to spray it inside in a manner that distributed it as found.

5) get various police and lab personnel to assist and lie in this endeavor.

Most police had no idea of the implications of the suppressor even after the lab declared it had found group A blood.  It was the lab personnel acting together who determined the significance by tying the fact that Sheila's fatal wound would definitely result in back spatter in the weapon (drawback) no back spatter being found in the wepaon but her blood type being found in the suppressor and that no other victims had group A blood to establish conclusively that the suppressor was used to fire the fatal shot.

So unless you can prove the lab planted it and eliminated blood found in the muzzle of the weapon ther eis no way to discount the suppressor evidence.

In the meantime there is other evidence proving Sheila's body was moved shortly after she died and the bible opened and closed repeatedly shortly after she died.  Which is why you allege police shot her or that someone else shot her.

So on one hand you devote a great deal of time claiming the suppressor evidence was faked to pretend she didn't kill herself but on the other hand you admit she didn't kill herself and suggest police or someone else did it. 

You undercut your own position with contradictions like that.

[mike tesko]

Loose flake of dried blood, trapped between the first two baffles when Fletcher recovered it...

[mike tesko]

Loose flake of dried blood, trapped between the first two baffles when Fletcher recovered it...

Fletcher recovered the loose flake of dried blood on 11th September 1985, which was subsequently tested between 12th and 19th September 1985 - yet when Ron Cook dismantled the silencer on 29th August 1985, he did not report seeing any blood at all on any surface of the five separated baffle plates...

If there had been any blood on any of the baffle plates when Cook dismantled it on the 29th August 1985, he would have been the witness who discovered it, not Fletcher on the 11th September 1985, so where did the blood on the surfaces of the baffle plates come from in the interim period?

[mike tesko]

If you are Cook, the first thing you do not do is carry a bloodstained silencer around in your pocket for 17 days without booking it into a police property store. Secondly, you do not notice blood on baffle plates of the silencer after you dismantle it on 29th August 1985, and do not tell anyone at all about it. Such a bloodstained silencer would not be rebuilt by Cook and sent back to the lab' on 30th August 1985, without the lab' being told that Cook had disturbed the inner component parts of the silencer, and exposed the internal parts of it to the risk of contamination...

[mike tesko]

Lets talk about the risk of contamination which Cook exposed the silencer to on 29th August 1985, when he dismantled it, laid the baffle plates exposed on the same worktop that the bloodstained anshuzt rifle was laid on, and then Cook rebuilt the dismantled silencer and screwed it directly onto the barrel of the gun...

Lets just recap at this point...

The external screw thread on the end of the rifles barrel had not by that stage been tested for the presence of blood upon it...

Therefore, as Cook screwed the rebuilt silencer back onto the barrel of the bloodstained rifle, any dried blood which had set upon the external thread on the guns barrel, was forced into the bottom end of the silencer and potentially became deployed into the silencer at this point....

[mike tesko]

Lets talk about the risk of contamination which Cook exposed the silencer to on 29th August 1985, when he dismantled it, laid the baffle plates exposed on the same worktop that the bloodstained anshuzt rifle was laid on, and then Cook rebuilt the dismantled silencer and screwed it directly onto the barrel of the gun...

Lets just recap at this point...

The external screw thread on the end of the rifles barrel had not by that stage been tested for the presence of blood upon it...

Therefore, as Cook screwed the rebuilt silencer back onto the barrel of the bloodstained rifle, any dried blood which had set upon the external thread on the guns barrel, was forced into the bottom end of the silencer and potentially became deployed into the silencer at this point....

During the process of Cook dismantling and rebuiding the silencer, and leaving the internal component parts exposed to the risk of contamination from dried blood flakes which may had been detached from the rifle during mishandling by Cook, or simply picked up off the worktop upon which the same individual baffle plates had been placed, before being put back into the tube of the silencer...

Once Cook had rebuilt the silencer and exposed it to the prospect of contamination, he sent the rebuilt silencer and the bloodstained rifle back to the lab' on 30th August 1985...