13 bullet cases in m/bedroom, yet no follower plate mark found on them...

[scipio_usmc]

Surely each piece of someone's statement is to give as much detail as possible about where they were, what they saw ect. Surely every sentence of such a statement becomes relevant. To ignore what was in the statements and fail to ask the relevant questions the moment has been lost I grant you that, but I cannot see that lights on and off are not considered relevant at all.

The kitchen floor was quite relevant was it not which is situated on the same floor as the front door. 

No a statement is not to provide every detail imaginable.  A statement is supposed to contain relevant information.

[mike tesko]

No a statement is not to provide every detail imaginable.  A statement is supposed to contain relevant information.

" I MAKE THIS STATEMENT OF MY OWN FREE WILL, KNOWING THAT IF IT TENDED INTO EVIDENCE, I SHALL BE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION IF I HAVE WILFULLY STATED IN IT ANYTHING I KNOW TO BE FALSE, OR DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE"...

So, why wasn't Fletcher, prosecuted?

[scipio_usmc]

Fletcher, describes both bullets subject of Sheila Caffells injuries, as being 'WHOLE BULLETS', despite that both, or one another, was clearly not...

He didn't mean whole in the sense of very little of the bullet breaking off like would be the case from test firing a bullet in a trap.  He made clear by the weights that they were ALL just fragments.

[mike tesko]

He didn't mean whole in the sense of very little of the bullet breaking off like would be the case from test firing a bullet in a trap.  He made clear by the weights that they were ALL just fragments.

You can't possibly know what he meant - his words, his witness statement, he being at peril of being prosecuted if he included details which he knew not to be true, or to be false...

Now, choose carefully what you say next, because if it be your case that Fletcher did not mean that both bullets were 'WHOLE', then he has clearly made a false witness statement, a fact he knew not to be true, so what's your explanation...

[mike tesko]

Was bullet, PV/20, 'WHOLE', or not?

[mike tesko]

Was bullet, PV/20, 'WHOLE', or not?

If not, then Fletcher was guilty of making a false witness statement, in favour of him being prosecuted, do you not agree?

[mike tesko]

If not, then Fletcher was guilty of making a false witness statement, in favour of him being prosecuted, do you not agree?

If he made a false witness statement, please enlighten me as to the date of his prosecution, the date of his trial, and the prison sentence imposed upon him?

[mike tesko]

Fletcher made a false witness statement, and his credibility is surely forever undermined, you can't believe anything he says on the case...

[scipio_usmc]

You can't possibly know what he meant - his words, his witness statement, he being at peril of being prosecuted if he included details which he knew not to be true, or to be false...

Now, choose carefully what you say next, because if it be your case that Fletcher did not mean that both bullets were 'WHOLE', then he has clearly made a false witness statement, a fact he knew not to be true, so what's your explanation...

I can indeed know that he didn't mean whole in the sense of the same weight as a complete bullet because the weights he listed for them proves he didn't mean that.  You are just trying to set up a strawman argument and it is a wasted effort.

[mike tesko]

I can indeed know that he didn't mean whole in the sense of the same weight as a complete bullet because the weights he listed for them proves he didn't mean that.  You are just trying to set up a strawman argument and it is a wasted effort.

" I MAKE THIS STATEMENT OF MY OWN FREE WILL, KNOWING THAT IF IT TENDED INTO EVIDENCE, I SHALL BE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION IF I HAVE WILFULLY STATED IN IT ANYTHING I KNOW TO BE FALSE, OR DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE"...

What you are suggesting is a deception, and such a deception warrants a prosecution, do you not agree...

[mike tesko]

Bullet, PV/20, was not a 'WHOLE BULLET' at all, was it...

[scipio_usmc]

" I MAKE THIS STATEMENT OF MY OWN FREE WILL, KNOWING THAT IF IT TENDED INTO EVIDENCE, I SHALL BE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION IF I HAVE WILFULLY STATED IN IT ANYTHING I KNOW TO BE FALSE, OR DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE"...

What you are suggesting is a deception, and such a deception warrants a prosecution, do you not agree...

There is no deception, his statement doesn't mean what you claim. Only dishonest people have tried pretending he literally meant the bullets were actually whole and such dishonesty was used to try to pretend bullets were switched from whole bullets to the fragments that were used at trial.   It is an absurd argument because if whole test bullets had been swapped in place of fragments then the bullets used in court would have been whole bullets instead of the fragments removed by Vanezis from the victims or the fragments that exited/grazed the victims that were recovered by police.

 

[mike tesko]

There is no deception, his statement doesn't mean what you claim. Only dishonest people have tried pretending he literally meant the bullets were actually whole and such dishonesty was used to try to pretend bullets were switched from whole bullets to the fragments that were used at trial.   It is an absurd argument because if whole test bullets had been swapped in place of fragments then the bullets used in court would have been whole bullets instead of the fragments removed by Vanezis from the victims or the fragments that exited/grazed the victims that were recovered by police.

He states that bullets PV/19 and PV/20, were WHOLE BULLETS, but clearly they cannot have been - this amounts to a deliberate deception, intended to persuade anyone who reads its contents, that both were 'strongly suggestive' of having been fired in rifle 18 - nothing could be any clearer, Fletcher was responsible for including in his witness statement, facts that he must have known were not true, and as such he should have been prosecuted for making a false witness statement...

[mike tesko]

Essex police destroyed the batch of crime scene ammunition, despite an order being in force for them not to be in 1996...

[mike tesko]

Essex police destroyed the batch of crime scene ammunition, despite an order being in force for them not to be in 1996...

Bullets, PV/19 and PV/20 being amongst the destroyed ammunition - how very convenient, do you not agree?