Very disturbing new developments...

[mike tesko]

B. Taylor, worked at DHQ force Amory, and he carried out the unofficial test firing there, before the crime scene ammunition, rifle and silencer, was sent to the Lab' to be checked and examined by Malcolm Fletcher, on 20th September 1985...

The testing done by B. Taylor at the force armory, was known about by Fletcher, despite the fact that Fletcher made a witness statement saying that prior to the official test firing of the weapon, and control ammunition on and after 20th September 1985, that he did not know when the gun had last been fired...

Fletcher lied...

He signed the same general examination records that were signed by B. Taylor and would have known that he fired the gun with control ammunition on dates before 20th September 1985...

Great work Mike , clear as day he is innocent , but every now and again a fool like Tut Tut or The Baggotman will turn up and tell us otherwise you know them Little Dickie 

That means absolutely nothing in real terms. 

So what if the gun was tested several times, that in itself is of no benefit to any claims of innocence.  talk about grasping at straws!   

-----------

Listen very carefully, and take notice, I can only put up with so much nonsense, and unless you are prepared to talk reasonably I will have no choice but to ban you - I will debate any aspect of this case with anyone, even the relatives or the police involved, but please stop taking the piss, or in other words "FUCK OFF"...

Its always the same when people have a little bit of power and lose an argument.

God help Jeremy Bamber if this is the best his advocates can come up with.   

hope they all stick with him just makes his campaign a laughing stock with all the new fantastic evidence they come up with and did you see the James Bond spook they came up with too.lol
Mikey even went to Portugal where little Maddie was taken and knows where she is buried and that the parents killed her. He did take 100's of photos though
 

--------------

Please don't make me ban you, either debate reasonably or "fuck off"...

[John]

The expert evaluation of the ballistics, is now severely undermined, because it can now be proven that Malcolm Fletcher, and B. Taylor, decieved the court by presenting misleading ballistics findings, as undisputed fact...

Even if true just one part of the case and there is more than enough to prove him guilty. Once again we wait for this fantastic new evidence.

-------------

Stop being ridiculous, if the ballistic evidence was fabricated it means th e case against him collapses...

Get a life...

Stop being absolutely pathetic...

Not at all Mike.  The court of appeal are not particularly interested in irregular goings on. they are only concerned with whether there is a real possibility that Jeremy could be innocent.

The Court of Appeal are very interested in "irregular goings on", if they undermine a key part of the prosecution case at trial and therefore render the conviction unsafe.

You apparently don't understand that any court of appeal is only interested if there is a reasonable doubt in relation to a conviction.

The court of appeal will not overturn a conviction on any technicality if they still feel that the individual is culpable.

I am debating with you but you cannot reciprocate, why is that??

Are your arguments so feeble that they cannot stand without making vulgar profanities?

[mike tesko]

B. Taylor, worked at DHQ force Amory, and he carried out the unofficial test firing there, before the crime scene ammunition, rifle and silencer, was sent to the Lab' to be checked and examined by Malcolm Fletcher, on 20th September 1985...

The testing done by B. Taylor at the force armory, was known about by Fletcher, despite the fact that Fletcher made a witness statement saying that prior to the official test firing of the weapon, and control ammunition on and after 20th September 1985, that he did not know when the gun had last been fired...

Fletcher lied...

He signed the same general examination records that were signed by B. Taylor and would have known that he fired the gun with control ammunition on dates before 20th September 1985...

Great work Mike , clear as day he is innocent , but every now and again a fool like Tut Tut or The Baggotman will turn up and tell us otherwise you know them Little Dickie 

That means absolutely nothing in real terms. 

So what if the gun was tested several times, that in itself is of no benefit to any claims of innocence.  talk about grasping at straws!   

-----------

Listen very carefully, and take notice, I can only put up with so much nonsense, and unless you are prepared to talk reasonably I will have no choice but to ban you - I will debate any aspect of this case with anyone, even the relatives or the police involved, but please stop taking the piss, or in other words "FUCK OFF"...

Its always the same when people have a little bit of power and lose an argument.

God help Jeremy Bamber if this is the best his advocates can come up with.   

-----------------

I am a reasonable chap - don't take the piss...

[mike tesko]

The expert evaluation of the ballistics, is now severely undermined, because it can now be proven that Malcolm Fletcher, and B. Taylor, decieved the court by presenting misleading ballistics findings, as undisputed fact...

Even if true just one part of the case and there is more than enough to prove him guilty. Once again we wait for this fantastic new evidence.

-------------

Stop being ridiculous, if the ballistic evidence was fabricated it means th e case against him collapses...

Get a life...

Stop being absolutely pathetic...

Not at all Mike.  The court of appeal are not particularly interested in irregular goings on. they are only concerned with whether there is a real possibility that Jeremy could be innocent.

The Court of Appeal are very interested in "irregular goings on", if they undermine a key part of the prosecution case at trial and therefore render the conviction unsafe.

You apparently don't understand that any court of appeal is only interested if there is a reasonable doubt in relation to a conviction.

The court of appeal will not overturn a conviction on any technicality if they still feel that the individual is culpable.

I am debating with you but you cannot reciprocate, why is that??

---------------

I agree that the court of appeal might not overturn a conviction if it was merely on a technicality, but their main concern is whether a defendant received a fair trial, or not?

In my opinion...

[John]

It is quite simple Mike, if they believe him to be guilty he will not be released.  I thought you would have been told this by the CCRC by now.

[ngb1066]

The expert evaluation of the ballistics, is now severely undermined, because it can now be proven that Malcolm Fletcher, and B. Taylor, decieved the court by presenting misleading ballistics findings, as undisputed fact...

Even if true just one part of the case and there is more than enough to prove him guilty. Once again we wait for this fantastic new evidence.

-------------

Stop being ridiculous, if the ballistic evidence was fabricated it means th e case against him collapses...

Get a life...

Stop being absolutely pathetic...

Not at all Mike.  The court of appeal are not particularly interested in irregular goings on. they are only concerned with whether there is a real possibility that Jeremy could be innocent.

The Court of Appeal are very interested in "irregular goings on", if they undermine a key part of the prosecution case at trial and therefore render the conviction unsafe.

You apparently don't understand that any court of appeal is only interested if there is a reasonable doubt in relation to a conviction.

The court of appeal will not overturn a conviction on any technicality if they still feel that the individual is culpable.

I understand very well what the Court of Appeal is interested in, having conducted a number of cases in the Court of Appeal as counsel on behalf of appellants.  I have made no reference to JB's conviction being overturned "on any technicality".  If a key part of the prosecution's case at trial is undermined subsequently by new evidence, that in itself can be sufficient to render the original conviction unsafe.

[John]

That is true and a variation on what I have just said.

The reference to the ballistics is aimed at a technicality but this alone will make no difference.

If the court of appeal believe that a miscarriage of justice has occurred or that there is a reasonable reason to believe it has occurred, he will be released.  The panel has to believe that he may not be guilty for them to go as far as to acquit him.

If they don't believe him to be innocent they will NOT acquit.

[Kaldin]

So what effect would this have on the ballistics evidence? I don't think it's enough to say that Mr Fletcher lied about an unofficial test firing exercise.

For example, how would it alter the fact that blood which matched Sheila's blood group was found in the silencer?

[ngb1066]

Anyway, what I propose to do, is post all the general examination records for all the crime scene ammunition, that I have in my possession, so that everyone can see for themselves that there must have been and was a conspiracy between B. Taylor and Malcolm Fletcher, to produce a false report and conclusions regarding the batch of crime scene ammunition...

There are very serious consequences to these activities which cannot be underestimated or ignored...

Since, an innocent mans liberty is at stake...

The most serious aspect of an "unofficial" earlier test firing of the rifle by the police is that any blood inside the barrel of the rifle produced as a result of backspatter would almost certainly have been completely eliminated by the firing of the rifle.  Therefore the point relied upon at trial by the prosecution that the silencer must have been attached to the rifle during the shooting because of the lack of blood inside the barrel of the rifle is completely discredited.  Although this may not seem much in the overall scale of things it is nevertheless a very important piece of evidence which assists Jeremy's appeal.  I will be interested to read more about this.

We don't even know there was any blood in the barrel of the rifle to begin with.  In any event, the exhaust gas pressure resulting from a discharge would in normal circumstances prevent any blood from entering the barrel in the first place.  I don't see any of this changing just because a silencer was fitted.  Any blood on a silencer would have been there because it came into contact with a body, not from blood splatter.

You have clearly not studied the evidence at trial.  The prosecution presented expert evidence about the effect of backspatter and the likelihood of this resulting in the presence of the victim's blood inside the silencer (if fitted) or the barrel of the rifle (if the silencer was not fitted).  This was an important feature of the prosecution's case.  They alleged that blood found inside the silencer produced at trial was present as a result of backspatter arising from close or contact shots.  The evidence relating to the silencer and the blood inside it was a central part of the prosecution case.

[mike tesko]

It is quite simple Mike, if they believe him to be guilty he will not be released.  I thought you would have been told this by the CCRC by now.

----

John, I know which side of the fence you are coming from, I respect your view as much as anybodies, when I was in prison amongst convicted Murderers, and bank robbers, and terrorists, I learned from an early stage to listen to what everybody has got to say, sometimes some of the things people said appeared to me to be unacceptable, biased, and designed to mislead, but there were always those who gave a balanced opinion, I learned to respect every bodies point of view, providing that no-one was taking the piss...

Appeals are not about guilt or innocence, they are about whether or not a defendant received a fair trial...

In my opinion...

[Kaldin]

It is quite simple Mike, if they believe him to be guilty he will not be released.  I thought you would have been told this by the CCRC by now.

----

John, I know which side of the fence you are coming from, I respect your view as much as anybodies, when I was in prison amongst convicted Murderers, and bank robbers, and terrorists, I learned from an early stage to listen to what everybody has got to say, sometimes some of the things people said appeared to me to be unacceptable, biased, and designed to mislead, but there were always those who gave a balanced opinion, I learned to respect every bodies point of view, providing that no-one was taking the piss...

Appeals are not about guilt or innocence, they are about whether or not a defendant received a fair trial...

In my opinion...

In the 2002 appeal the judges said a few times that they were really looking for anything which might have made the jury reach a different conclusion had they known about certain things which weren't covered in the trial.

If there was an unofficial test firing exercise, how might that have altered the jury's opinion?

[ngb1066]

That is true and a variation on what I have just said.

The reference to the ballistics is aimed at a technicality but this alone will make no difference.

If the court of appeal believe that a miscarriage of justice has occurred or that there is a reasonable reason to believe it has occurred, he will be released.  The panel has to believe that he may not be guilty for them to go as far as to acquit him.

If they don't believe him to be innocent they will NOT acquit.

The Court of Appeal do not have to be satisfied that an appellant is innocent in order to allow the appeal.  They only have to be satisfied that the original verdict is unsafe, i.e. that there is a reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt.  That can be for a variety of reasons but in this case it would be upon the basis of new evidence, not available at trial, which undermines a key element of the prosecution's case as presented at trial.

[mike tesko]

It is quite simple Mike, if they believe him to be guilty he will not be released.  I thought you would have been told this by the CCRC by now.

----

John, I know which side of the fence you are coming from, I respect your view as much as anybodies, when I was in prison amongst convicted Murderers, and bank robbers, and terrorists, I learned from an early stage to listen to what everybody has got to say, sometimes some of the things people said appeared to me to be unacceptable, biased, and designed to mislead, but there were always those who gave a balanced opinion, I learned to respect every bodies point of view, providing that no-one was taking the piss...

Appeals are not about guilt or innocence, they are about whether or not a defendant received a fair trial...

In my opinion...

In the 2002 appeal the judges said a few times that they were really looking for anything which might have made the jury reach a different conclusion had they known about certain things which weren't covered in the trial.

If there was an unofficial test firing exercise, how might that have altered the jury's opinion?

--------------------

well, where do you want me to start?

[ngb1066]

It is quite simple Mike, if they believe him to be guilty he will not be released.  I thought you would have been told this by the CCRC by now.

----

John, I know which side of the fence you are coming from, I respect your view as much as anybodies, when I was in prison amongst convicted Murderers, and bank robbers, and terrorists, I learned from an early stage to listen to what everybody has got to say, sometimes some of the things people said appeared to me to be unacceptable, biased, and designed to mislead, but there were always those who gave a balanced opinion, I learned to respect every bodies point of view, providing that no-one was taking the piss...

Appeals are not about guilt or innocence, they are about whether or not a defendant received a fair trial...

In my opinion...

In the 2002 appeal the judges said a few times that they were really looking for anything which might have made the jury reach a different conclusion had they known about certain things which weren't covered in the trial.

If there was an unofficial test firing exercise, how might that have altered the jury's opinion?

The prosecution made an apparently powerful point that no blood was found inside the barrel of the rifle, which indicated that the silencer must have been attached during the shootings, as some of the shots were very close range or contact shots which would have caused backspatter and ingress of blood from the victim into the inside of the barrel.  If the jury had known that before the rifle was forensically examined at the lab it had been unofficially test fired by the police the impact of the evidence on this point would have been neutralised.  The test firing would almost certainly have removed all traces of blood from the inside of the barrel of the rifle.

[Kaldin]

It is quite simple Mike, if they believe him to be guilty he will not be released.  I thought you would have been told this by the CCRC by now.

----

John, I know which side of the fence you are coming from, I respect your view as much as anybodies, when I was in prison amongst convicted Murderers, and bank robbers, and terrorists, I learned from an early stage to listen to what everybody has got to say, sometimes some of the things people said appeared to me to be unacceptable, biased, and designed to mislead, but there were always those who gave a balanced opinion, I learned to respect every bodies point of view, providing that no-one was taking the piss...

Appeals are not about guilt or innocence, they are about whether or not a defendant received a fair trial...

In my opinion...

In the 2002 appeal the judges said a few times that they were really looking for anything which might have made the jury reach a different conclusion had they known about certain things which weren't covered in the trial.

If there was an unofficial test firing exercise, how might that have altered the jury's opinion?

--------------------

well, where do you want me to start?

At the beginning?