It was so blatantly easy to falsify documentary evidence back in the 1980's...

[mike tesko]

Lets examine what I am talking about, by reference to the contents of the following witness statement:-

[mike tesko]

The contents of this witness statement have been fabricated, are not true, and is evidence that Ron Cook was involved in perverting the course of justice, in so far as the identity of the gun silencer handed to him by DS Jones on the 13th August 1985, was concerned, since has confirmed elsewhere that there was no exhibit label at all attached to the gun silencer handed to him by DS Jones, and that he (Cook) himself had to attach a brown coloured CJA exhibit label to the gun silencer in question, marking it SJ/1, and getting Glynis Howard to sign it at the Lab'. Cook knows full well that the gun silencer on that occasion referred to in the above witness statement did not have any exhibit label attached to it when he received it from DS Jones on the above occasion, the truth of the matter is that when Cook received the gun silencer from Jones, it did not have any exhibit label upon it, or attached to it...

Cook is responsible on this occasion of making a false witness statement, and should have been prosecuted...

[mike tesko]

Ron Cook was in charge of the SOC examination at the scene, so how can anybody trust what he did at the scene, or what he said he did with the key sound moderator containing blood originating exclusively from Sheila, and red paint from the kitchen aga surround, of Cook lies about the exhibit reference details, of the gun silencer handed to him by Stan Jones (DRB/1), when he knew full well, that to suggest such a thing in witness statement format was a deliberately dishonest answer...

[mike tesko]

You want proof that Ron Cook is dishonest, well I can very easily show that by the following example:-

Ron sent Malcolm a handwritten note, dated, 17th October 1985, asking Malcolm to alter the exhibit of the silencer to DB/1...

[mike tesko]

If Ron Cook received the gun silencer (DRB/1) from DS Jones at 9.15am, on the 13th August 1985, then which gun silencer bearing the identifying mark of DB/1 was submitted by Ron Cook to the lab' on the 3th August 1985?

Now, in those circumstances, either gun silencer DRB/1 was sent to the lab' on the 30th August, 1985, or gun silencer DB/1 was, but not both...

[Jane]

You want proof that Ron Cook is dishonest, well I can very easily show that by the following example:-

Ron sent Malcolm a handwritten note, dated, 17th October 1985, asking Malcolm to alter the exhibit of the silencer to DB/1...

Did Malcolm not think to ask WHY?

[mike tesko]

Did Malcolm not think to ask WHY?

Not that we know of, no he did not - but we have been led to believe that the sequence with which the exhibit references were altered were in line with the following sequential changes, SJ/1 to SBJ/1, SBJ/1 to DB/1, DB/1 to DRB/1, but if that be the case something has gone wrong by reference to the contents of Ron Cooks hand written note that he sent to Malcolm Fletcher the ballistics expert, dated, 17th October 1985...

So, what went wrong there, then?

We have Cook saying one thing to Fletcher in that hand written note, yet saying something completely contradictory in a witness statement, dated, the 23rd September 1985...

[mike tesko]

Not that we know of, no he did not - but we have been led to believe that the sequence with which the exhibit references were altered were in line with the following sequential changes, SJ/1 to SBJ/1, SBJ/1 to DB/1, DB/1 to DRB/1, but if that be the case something has gone wrong by reference to the contents of Ron Cooks hand written note that he sent to Malcolm Fletcher the ballistics expert, dated, 17th October 1985...

So, what went wrong there, then?

We have Cook saying one thing to Fletcher in that hand written note, yet saying something completely contradictory in a witness statement, dated, the 23rd September 1985...

How can the very same sound moderator / silencer be exhibit DB/1 altered to DRB/1, in one version of the events, or be DRB/1 altered to DB/1, between 23rd September 1985, and the 17th October 1985? ...

Surely, this adds weight to the fact there police had at least two different sound moderators in their possession, or under their control from an earlier stage...

[mike tesko]

The way I see how things unfolded is as follows, police already had a sound moderator in their possession prior to the 30th August 1985, and on THAT date, police submitted THAT sound moderator to the Lab' under the exhibit reference of DB/1, lab' item number 23...

Inside THAT sound moderator is found the all important, all encompassing flake of blood group activity, A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1 (exclusive and unique to Sheila Caffell, or so at least we have had that drummed into us). So, why does Ron Cook make a witness statement, dated the 23rd September, stating that a gun silencer handed to him at 9.15am by DS Stan Jones had the exhibit reference of DRB/1, if he is trying to infer that there was in fact just the one sound moderator?

My take on the matter is that because by 30th August 1985, one sound moderator was already out of the possession and the control of police, because it had already been sent to the lab' by the 30th August 1985, and Ann Eaton had later handed in the other sound moderator on the 11th September 1985, which in turn had been fingerprinted by DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood, on the 14th September 1985, and subsequently submitted to the same lab; where the other sound moderator had already and previously been submitted, and by the 20th September 1985 with a note from the police to check the sound moderator in question, for blood, and fibres, it appears that the purpose of Ron Cooks note to Malcolm, was intended by that stage to alter the exhibit reference given to the latest moderator, into DB/1, because police did not want anyone to find out that police had got at least two sound moderators by middle to late September 1985, for obvious reasons...

[Jan]

I have often said it would be useful for all the documents in respect of the silencer to be in the archives under one thread. Including the call on 10th September.Because  everytime I try and post it - it fails.

also I think the finding and handing over of the silencer varies between statements and testimony - but unless you see them side by side its difficult to gather the info together.

[Jane]

I have often said it would be useful for all the documents in respect of the silencer to be in the archives under one thread. Including the call on 10th September.Because  everytime I try and post it - it fails.

also I think the finding and handing over of the silencer varies between statements and testimony - but unless you see them side by side its difficult to gather the info together.

And unless I can see them in front of me I am VERY confused by numbers so it would be easy for me to lose track of what happened when and what is supposed to be where. I'm probably not alone so there might me quite a lot of us who could feel hoodwinked by techy speak.

[Jan]

And unless I can see them in front of me I am VERY confused by numbers so it would be easy for me to lose track of what happened when and what is supposed to be where. I'm probably not alone so there might me quite a lot of us who could feel hoodwinked by techy speak.

I said the same about the blood in the moderator evidence as well - it would be useful in the archives to have all the "experts " documents in one place .

I am sure over time it could be built up and separated  from "opinion" and assumption. It would be useful I think

[scipio_usmc]

The contents of this witness statement have been fabricated, are not true, and is evidence that Ron Cook was involved in perverting the course of justice, in so far as the identity of the gun silencer handed to him by DS Jones on the 13th August 1985, was concerned, since has confirmed elsewhere that there was no exhibit label at all attached to the gun silencer handed to him by DS Jones, and that he (Cook) himself had to attach a brown coloured CJA exhibit label to the gun silencer in question, marking it SJ/1, and getting Glynis Howard to sign it at the Lab'. Cook knows full well that the gun silencer on that occasion referred to in the above witness statement did not have any exhibit label attached to it when he received it from DS Jones on the above occasion, the truth of the matter is that when Cook received the gun silencer from Jones, it did not have any exhibit label upon it, or attached to it...

Cook is responsible on this occasion of making a false witness statement, and should have been prosecuted...

This is a classic straw man argument.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

It doesn't say anything in this statement about the moderator having a label attached to it when Jones handed it to him.  You made up the claim the statement says such so are attacking it on a false basis.

Moreover you made up the claim that SJ/1 was used for it.  In Cook's COLP statement he indicated that at first he was going to assign SJ/1 as the exhibit number but learned Jone's middle initial and thus used SBJ/1 as the exhibit number when he wrote up the Holab forms and attached the sticker. The sticker and Holab forms were marked SBJ/1 and he noted he is the one who filled them out:





Why do you keep persisting in such nonsense?  You don't end up fooling anyone so merely end up demonstrating a lack of candor and that doesn't help you it hurts.  Didn't you ever hear about the boy who cried wolf or Felix from the Odd couple when he became a civilian neighborhood watch officer and he kept testing everyone by blowing his whistle so that at first they came out running to his aid but after all his false alarms they got sick of him and when there was really a burglar no one came out to help so the crook tied him up? When they found him tied up they clapped even. 

http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi4263423257/

   

[Jan]

Mike - can I ask you  a question - considering how you have  given examples / reasons why you feel you have been treated badly and betrayed by Jeremy - how can you still put in so much time and effort to try and show his innocence ?

[mike tesko]

Only a fool like you would say what you said regarding the labelling of the gun silencer received from DS Jones at 9.15am, on the 13th August 1985, did not have a label at all attached to it, considering that in the statement in question Cook refers to it having been exhibit DRB/1, on that occasion. Ok then, prey tell what exhibit reference it did have attached to it on that occasion, where in Cooks signed witness statement dated the 23rd September 1985, does it give any other exhibit reference? Where in the statement does it say that it did not have a label attached to it at that time? Where does it explain how the gun silencer in question ended up bearing the exhibit label DRB/1 on the 13th August 1985, considering that the only other references contained in official police and lab' documents, state that silencers in police and then subsequently in lab' possession were labelled, SBJ/1 (13th August 1985), DB/1 (30th August 1985, and DRB/1 (11th September 1985)? How can Cook justify naming the gun silencer given to him by DS Jones at 9.15am, on the 13th August 1985, was exhibit DRB/1, when according to other evidence elsewhere, Cook only had a silencer marked SBJ/1, and DB/1 up until the 30th August 1985. How can Cook or anybody else justify allowing Cook to think he can get away with deliberately manipulating the exhibit reference procedure where ever and whenever it suits him...