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

[mike tesko]

Produced by Mike or the Campaign team I'm afraid Patti. It's not an official document.

The bullet descriptions given as being high velocity solid rounds is clearly untrue.

Based on the bullet weight specifications and Fletchers description of each bullet he examined, it is factually true...

[Jane]

Produced by Mike or the Campaign team I'm afraid Patti. It's not an official document.

The bullet descriptions given as being high velocity solid rounds is clearly untrue.

Haaaaaaaaaa!! (that was a deep, exasperated sigh) WHEN will posters learn that bending the truth/re-interpreting written words to suit their own agenda/posting titbits from scurrilous publications/quoting accurately or misinterpreting words said by a third party who may, or not, have their own agenda/telling  US unintentional/deliberate untruths/blinding others with convoluted facts and figures being passed off a scientific facts is not, I repeat NOT, for those of the innocent party, going to suddenly and miraculously render Jeremy innocent, and for those of the guilty party is not, NOT going to render him MORE guilty.

[Patti]

To be fair to Patti, she had questioned the authenticity of the document and the information it contained. In fact she appears to question everything, which seems fair enough to me.

Cheers Hartley 

[Jane]

To be fair to Patti, she had questioned the authenticity of the document and the information it contained. In fact she appears to question everything, which seems fair enough to me.

Nothing wrong with questioning, Hartley. How else will truth -of anything- be arrived at.

[Jane]

That's simple, we merely need to ask Adam for it. 

 

[mike tesko]

As I said, it is not an official document.

The descriptions are your interpretation only.

And, you forgot to mention that the prosecution ballistics expert forgot to mention the particular type of Eley .22 ammunition in question, despite allegedly having the 25 bullets, and the corresponding 25 cartridge cases from the shootings. Now, why would he not be able to provide this information considering he had access to it?

Don't blame me, blame him...

[scipio_usmc]

And, you forgot to mention that the prosecution ballistics expert forgot to mention the particular type of Eley .22 ammunition in question, despite allegedly having the 25 bullets, and the corresponding 25 cartridge cases from the shootings. Now, why would he not be able to provide this information considering he had access to it?

Don't blame me, blame him...

He called the test bullets (which he got from WHF) subsonic hollow points in his statement then said the casings and bullets used to kill the victims were the same type.  I already pointed this out to you the other day. Saying "same type" means he determined they were Eley subsonic hollow points.

[scipio_usmc]

The same dispelling of myths which have happened again and again on this forum.

It's become a case of: Whatever Mike says, it would be safe to believe the opposite.

The worst part is I often can't tell whether Mike is honestly confused or just distorting.   Sometimes it is patently obvious but other times he is almost believable as simply being confused.

[Steve_uk]

This has taken over his life.

Giving him the credit he deserves, the reason why we are able to delve into the details, research the case and debate the sticky points, is because he has made the various documents available to the public.

In the early days, it was a few cherry picked statements here and there to further his campaign. Eventually people are seeing through the manipulation and in an attempt to maintain interest and maintain his own self importance, he has started posting other statements and documents. Unfortunately they simply fill in a few blanks and contradict his wild claims.

It used to be a bit cat and mouse with people keeping their cards close to their chests, not really knowing what others knew, sometimes making out that they had a privileged insight to one thing or another.

Now, Mike has run out of documents to post and he's lost his usefulness. Every single argument you are having with him now, myself or others have had before. It's all very circular.

It really is the case that if Mike tells a person it's going to be sunny tomorrow,  then I would advise them to take a brolly.

He's not confused, he's just a sycophantic liar.

I don't see Mike as this person you depict at all. Everyone has an agenda to some extent and will try to spin things to fit their own point of view,but I don't think he feels himself as self-important and from what I have read he has many more documents available in his possession for public scrutiny,unlike the Establishment who are holding back what they choose to.

[scipio_usmc]

Based on the bullet weight specifications and Fletchers description of each bullet he examined, it is factually true...

weights of fragments are useless in trying to assess whether a round is high velocity or not or whether it is solid.

The examination needs to concern the physical looks of the bullet to figure out if it is a hollow point or solid and unless the nose is intact you can't really tell the difference because other than the nose they are identical. You get the velocity by identifying the cartridge in question.  If one wants to try making assessments as to these issues then they need to have access to the bullets or adequate photos or descriptions from someone who examined them and then point out what specific things establish what.  Just making a chart up without explaining in detail the evidence being relied upon to reach conclusions accomplishes nothing.

[mike tesko]

weights of fragments are useless in trying to assess whether a round is high velocity or not or whether it is solid.

The examination needs to concern the physical looks of the bullet to figure out if it is a hollow point or solid and unless the nose is intact you can't really tell the difference because other than the nose they are identical. You get the velocity by identifying the cartridge in question.  If one wants to try making assessments as to these issues then they need to have access to the bullets or adequate photos or descriptions from someone who examined them and then point out what specific things establish what.  Just making a chart up without explaining in detail the evidence being relied upon to reach conclusions accomplishes nothing.

Fletcher had the bullets, he physically examined each one, he described them for what each bullet was, the police accepted his descriptions, the CPS accepted his descriptions, the defence ballistic expert Major Mead accepted his descriptions, theses 25 bullets were what they were, and nothing you or I or anybody for that matter can change the reality of the situation - these were bullets from different batches or types of .22 ammunition, some .22LR bullets, some .22 bullets, and one just recorded as a bullet. FACTUS, CAPPUT, END OF, there is no other explanation for it, no other interpretation that any body can come up with, ZILCH. But if you want to add or alter what Fletcher has said then you go a head, but it still won't alter the fact that in that collection of bullets, there never was just one type of .22 ammunition, or bullet...

[scipio_usmc]

Fletcher had the bullets, he physically examined each one, he described them for what each bullet was, the police accepted his descriptions, the CPS accepted his descriptions, the defence ballistic expert Major Mead accepted his descriptions, theses 25 bullets were what they were, and nothing you or I or anybody for that matter can change the reality of the situation - these were bullets from different batches or types of .22 ammunition, some .22LR bullets, some .22 bullets, and one just recorded as a bullet. FACTUS, CAPPUT, END OF, there is no other explanation for it, no other interpretation that any body can come up with, ZILCH. But if you want to add or alter what Fletcher has said then you go a head, but it still won't alter the fact that in that collection of bullets, there never was just one type of .22 ammunition, or bullet...

You seem to not understand how evidence works.

Saying Fletcher was wrong and that they were actually different kinds of bullets requires evidence.  Someone has to examine them and then explain why they disagree with Fletcher or has to analyze raw data provided from someone who examined them and explain why such data proves the opposite of what Fletcher claimed. 

If you do neither than you have no rational basis to challenge Fletcher.

The Hollow point bullets Nevill purchased were either 40 grain or 37.5 grain not 35 grain.  All the fragments are under 37.5 grain so your whole assertion they had to be a different bullet by the basis of weight doesn't hold up. If that is all you had then your claims fall apart. 

you keep saying you don't need to produce you evidence but if you don't explain the basis of your claims and provide evidence then you are just making unsupported claims.

[mike tesko]

You seem to not understand how evidence works I know exactly how evidence works, for example if it supports the prosecutions case it is usually allowed in, whereas if it tends to expose the prosecutions case as a fit up, it tends to get excluded, or completely ignored.

Saying Fletcher was wrong Wrong about what?and that they were actually different kinds of bullets Which is what they wererequires evidence And Fletchers hand written schedule dated 10th October 1985, and signed by fletcher, along with his typed witness statement in which he describes the 25 bullets differently, is in fact, evidence.  Someone has to examine them and then explain why they disagree with Fletcher or has to analyze raw data provided from someone that has been done who examined them Already doneand explain why such data proves the opposite Yes, this has already been done, its in the bagof what Fletcher claimed. 

If you do neither than you have no rational basis Its already been done, and is already in the bag to challenge Fletcher.

The Hollow point bullets Nevill purchased were either 40 grain or 37.5 grain not 35 grain No, they weren't matey, the 500 rounds were 35 grain hollow points.  All the fragments are under 37.5 grain so your whole assertion they had to be a different bullet by the basis of weight doesn't hold up You believe what you want, or better still keep changing and altering what people have said or say to try and get your point across. Ralph Bamber purchased 35 grain Eley .22 hollow points. If that is all you had Watch this spacethen your claims fall apart. 

you keep saying you don't need to produce you evidence but if you don't explain the basis of your claims and provide evidence then you are just making unsupported claims That's just your opinion.

[mike tesko]

I believe that I have identified the source from where the bullet weight data posted below was published:-

[mike tesko]

This data was published in the June 1985 version of AMERICAN RIFLEMAN...