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

[scipio_usmc]

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

LMAO you claimed it was a document put out by Eley no wonder such was not in the 1984 Eley catalog.  It was an error published in a magazine!

They estimated the 37.5 grain cartridges down to 35 grain.

[Jan]

LMAO you claimed it was a document put out by Eley no wonder such was not in the 1984 Eley catalog.  It was an error published in a magazine!

They estimated the 37.5 grain cartridges down to 35 grain.

Why do you have to be so rude and insulting all the time . It is no laughing matter . For whatever reason Mike has dedicated hours of work on this case.

How do you know the magazine made a mistake and why and how should Mike know that?
 

[mike tesko]

LMAO you claimed it was a document put out by Eley You misunderstood what I said, and you are now trying to make out that the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN magazine made a mistake in reporting Eley hollow points, but the information was and is accurate. Elsewhere in other publications some subsonic hollow point .22 ammo' weighed 36 grain no wonder such was not in the 1984 Eley catalog.  It was an error published in a magazine!It was not an error, as you put it, it was accurately recorded, and you know it

They estimated the 37.5 grain cartridges down to 35 grain No, they did not, they recorded the weight of 35 grain accurately.

[scipio_usmc]

Why do you have to be so rude and insulting all the time . It is no laughing matter . For whatever reason Mike has dedicated hours of work on this case.

How do you know the magazine made a mistake and why and how should Mike know that?

His claim that the defense was unable to find any 35 grain and thus took photos of 40 grain should have put him on notice of a problem.  Furthermore the failure of the defense to raise the charges he is making in any submissions should clue him in that the defense found out they were wrong.  In any event, he now can put A) the inability of the defense to find any 35 caliber bullets and B) failure to raise these claims in court C)the inability to find any other references to 35 grain bullets including in Eley's 1984 catalog- in perspective. Eley was selling 37.5 grain subsonic hollow points and 40 grain so Nevill could have bought either. All the fragments are under 37.5 grain so it makes no difference what he bought Mike's claim that some of the fragments were bigger than the bullets Nevill purchased doesn't hold up.  So that is why the defense never ended up making this claim.

Mike and many on the campaign team keep taking arguments that didn't pan out and keep advancing them as if they are valid claims that have not been disproved. He needs to realize at this point that such is not going to work with us because we have too much information on this case and he needs to dig deeper if he wants to try to fool us.

Not only is he not going to look for arguments that are more logical and harder to disprove worse he is going to keep making this same 35 grain claim instead of just moving on and admitting it turned out to be wrong. If he chooses to keep insulting our intelligence then being overly nice when responding to them again is not in the cards.

 

[mike tesko]

His claim that the defense was unable to find any 35 grain and thus took photos of 40 grainThe tests done by us took place in 2003 / 2004, by which stage the 35 grain ammunition had been discontinued should have put him on notice of a problem.  Furthermore the failure of the defense to raise the charges he is making in any submissions should clue him in that the defense found out they were wrong We were aware of the problem, but  intended to raise the point with Jeremy at a later date, once the RENSHAW tests had been completed, but RENSHAW messed up the testing, and then before we knew it, Jeremy disposed of Ewen Smiths services and GDS then became Jeremys representative. At this stage Jeremy was being awkward saying that he only wanted three main appeal points, which he already had, and so we never brought the conflicting bullet weight evidence to his attention. There are lots of other potentially good grounds of appeal that we could have bombarded Jeremy with but he made it clear that the next appeal was only going to deal with three main grounds, not multiple ones like happened at the failed 2002 appeal.  In any event, he now can put A) the inability of the defense to find any 35 caliber bullets and B) failure to raise these claims in court C)the inability to find any other references to 35 grain bullets including in Eley's 1984 catalog- in perspective. Eley was selling 37.5 grain subsonic hollow points and 40 grain They were also selling 29 grain, and 35 grain bullets in November 1984 so Nevill could have bought either. All the fragments are under 37.5 grain But 7 of the 12 WHOLE BULLETS were too heavy to have been 29 grain, 35 grain, or 37.5 grain bullets so it makes no difference what he bought Yes it does, and did Mike's claim that some of the fragments were bigger than the bullets Nevill purchased doesn't hold up Yes, it does, because 7 of the 12 WHOLE Bullets were too heavy to be either 29 grain, 35 grain, or 37.5 grain bullets.  So that is why the defense never ended up making this claim No, you are wrong, you are making claims that because of the knowledge I have on this matter, that I represented Jeremys defence solicitors, but that was not the case in 2003 / 2004.

Mike and many on the campaign team keep taking arguments that didn't pan out and keep advancing them as if they are valid claims that have not been disproved If  a valid argument has not been considered accurately and rejected, why shouldn' those arguments be re - raised, until such times as they are properly and fully considered?. He needs to realize at this point that such is not going to work with us because we have too much information on this case and he needs to dig deeper if he wants to try to fool us I am not in the business of trying to fool anybody, thats just your opinion, it doesn't prove that what you say is true.

Not only is he not going to look for arguments that are more logical and harder to disprove worse he is going to keep making this same 35 grain claim Yes, because Eley did produce 35 grain ammunition, of the kind purchased by Ralph Bamber in November 1984 instead of just moving on and admitting it turned out to be wrong. If he chooses to keep insulting our intelligence There is no evidence to prove that the ammunition purchased by Ralph Bamber in November 1984, was 40 grainthen being overly nice when responding to them again is not in the cards.

 though given that I brought it to his attnetion that Eley reps you need to show us the correspondence you say you had with these Eley Reps, so that we can see for ourselves what you asked, and what they in fact said? knew nothing Many Reps in many companies do not know everything about products the company might have been manufacturing or producing 30 years previouslyabout any 35 grain subsonic hollow points   

[scipio_usmc]

"His claim that the defense was unable to find any 35 grain and thus took photos of 40 grain should have put him on notice of a problem." The tests done by us took place in 2003 / 2004, by which stage the 35 grain ammunition had been discontinued"

Discontinued ammo can still be found. Eley 37.5 grain hollow points were discontinued a decade ago and I still found a source to buy them from.  When you can't locate anything that is a sign you may be looking for something that doesn't exist.  Some people jack up the price and you may not want to pay that price but you can always find some.  The date code of what I found is from January 1985 so 30 years old and I could buy them if I want.  Maybe the lube on them is gone by this point so they would not fire well without first doing something to relube them.  That could be another consideration in the equation of why someone won't want to use old ammo for test use. But again you can find them if they actually were made. I can still find British surplus for various rifles and revolvers that are pre-WWII. What did they do make these 35 grain bullets for 1 year so never put it in their catalog and everyone who bought them fired them all so none exist anywhere?

"Furthermore the failure of the defense to raise the charges he is making in any submissions should clue him in that the defense found out they were wrong" We were aware of the problem, but  intended to raise the point with Jeremy at a later date, once the RENSHAW tests had been completed, but RENSHAW messed up the testing, and then before we knew it, Jeremy disposed of Ewen Smiths services and GDS then became Jeremys representative. At this stage Jeremy was being awkward saying that he only wanted three main appeal points, which he already had, and so we never brought the conflicting bullet weight evidence to his attention. There are lots of other potentially good grounds of appeal that we could have bombarded Jeremy with but he made it clear that the next appeal was only going to deal with three main grounds, not multiple ones like happened at the failed 2002 appeal.

If they were good ideas they would have been used. Someone came to the realization the rounds were not 35 grain and thus the whole thing fell apart.

"In any event, he now can put A) the inability of the defense to find any 35 caliber bullets and B) failure to raise these claims in court C)the inability to find any other references to 35 grain bullets including in Eley's 1984 catalog- in perspective. Eley was selling 37.5 grain subsonic hollow points and 40 grain"

They were also selling 29 grain, and 35 grain bullets in November 1984 so Nevill could have bought either. All the fragments are under 37.5 grain But 7 of the 12 WHOLE BULLETS were too heavy to have been 29 grain, 35 grain, or 37.5 grain bullets so it makes no difference what he bought Yes it does, and did Mike's claim that some of the fragments were bigger than the bullets Nevill purchased doesn't hold up Yes, it does, because 7 of the 12 WHOLE Bullets were too heavy to be either 29 grain, 35 grain, or 37.5 grain bullets.  So that is why the defense never ended up making this claim No, you are wrong, you are making claims that because of the knowledge I have on this matter, that I represented Jeremys defence solicitors, but that was not the case in 2003 / 2004.

1) Why do you keep bringing up 29 grain 22 short bullets?  The Anschutz fired 22LR bullets not 22 short.  Nevill didn't buy 22 short he bought 500 rounds of 22LR subsonic hollow points.  None of the bullets were 22 short no one hand loaded a 22 short bullet into the Anschutz try entering reality and focusing your claims on something REMOTELY PLAUSIBLE.

2) you are wrong that there were fragments greater than the 37.5 grain (2.44 grams)

3) you have not established that the American Rifleman chart is correct and that in 1984 they offered 35 grain subsonic hollow points.  Even if they did have 3 different weights of subsonic hollow points for sale in 1984 you need to establish Nevill bought the 35 grain variety for there to be a problem.

I am not in the business of trying to fool anybody, thats just your opinion, it doesn't prove that what you say is true.

You don't take evidence and then use it logically you ignore evidence and make up what is convenient to you.  Just above you ignore that Jeremy claimed the rifle was unloaded when he picked it up and you claim it had 5 rounds in it which means he would not have needed to get any bullets out and could have just ran outside with it.  Worse yet you suggest that the 5 rounds being loaded 2 times helps support there were bullets already in the gun when it doesn't.  They would simply have been loaded once if left in the gun.  You never follow your arguments to their logical conclusion to test them.   

To me that certainly smacks of trying to fool us and especially when you tell these tales of being shown photos that clearly the police would never have taken and tales of a cop form the case feeding you info.  You seem to want attention simply and you done need to resort to what you do in order to get it, you could could get attention in a much better way and positive attention at that.

"Not only is he not going to look for arguments that are more logical and harder to disprove worse he is going to keep making this same 35 grain claim" Yes, because Eley did produce 35 grain ammunition, of the kind purchased by Ralph Bamber in November 1984

The chart in American Rifleman doesn't prove they were making it in 1984 and certainly doesn't prove that is what Nevill purchased.  Larger grain subsonic hollow point bullets were being sold in 1984 and thus you need to prove the ones Nevill purchased were 35 grain. Just saying they were being made is not enough since other varities were available and your supposed evidence it was being produced at the time is shaky given it is the only source claiming such and no such ammo can be found.   

" instead of just moving on and admitting it turned out to be wrong. If he chooses to keep insulting our intelligence" There is no evidence to prove that the ammunition purchased by Ralph Bamber in November 1984, was 40 grain

 

It doesn't matter whether they were 40 grain or 37.5 grain none the bullet fragments are larger than 37.5 grain. You are the one insisting he bought 35 grain you bear the burden of proving that.  You hoped to prove it by saying they only sold 35 grain subsonic hollow points at the time but that is not the case. You need to prove the product he bought was 35 grain. Surely the defense was provided photos of the ammunition boxes and thus the lot numbers.  Aside for the lot number having the date code and machines made on they also have the mean velocity. If you want to play detective advocate then act like one.  Investigate for real following the evidence where it leads instead of deciding what you want to believe then trying to frame the evidence around such.

PS
I waited to see if you would say it but you didn't. The first round used in the murders should have been double loaded.  Jeremy claimed he chambered a round, then unloaded it and stuck it back in the magazine.  For this claim to be true that means that round would have been double marked. So if Jeremy's claims were true 4 of the rounds used in the murders were loaded/unloaded some day prior and then reloaded on the day of the murders.  The 5th round that was loaded previously would have been from that very day. If you want to play advocate you have to be aware of EVERYTHING your "client" claimed and look at the ramifications of such.

[Jan]

PS
I waited to see if you would say it but you didn't. The first round used in the murders should have been double loaded.  Jeremy claimed he chambered a round, then unloaded it and stuck it back in the magazine.  For this claim to be true that means that round would have been double marked. So if Jeremy's claims were true 4 of the rounds used in the murders were loaded/unloaded some day prior and then reloaded on the day of the murders.  The 5th round that was loaded previously would have been from that very day. If you want to play advocate you have to be aware of EVERYTHING your "client" claimed and look at the ramifications of such.



But the family insisted that Neville would have emptied the magazine and put the gun away as he did every night - so how do you know where those bullets were put?

[mike tesko]

The dealers entry in his dealers register simply says 500 hollows, or subsonic, I do not think the brand name Eley is recorded in the delars register, if true te subsonic ammo' sold to Ralph Bamber could have been Remington, or Winchester produced...

[scipio_usmc]

But the family insisted that Neville would have emptied the magazine and put the gun away as he did every night - so how do you know where those bullets were put?

Which means 1 round would have been unloaded and reloaded 3 times and the other 9 2 times.  But only 6 round had been reloaded 2 times- 5 of which were used in the murders and the 6th still mixed in the batch.

Those 5 rounds were not consecutive in the magazine there were 2 in the first magazine load, 1 in the second magazine load and 2 in the 3rd magazine load.   

Mike's claims are not supported at all.

[scipio_usmc]

The dealers entry in his dealers register simply says 500 hollows, or subsonic, I do not think the brand name Eley is recorded in the delars register, if true te subsonic ammo' sold to Ralph Bamber could have been Remington, or Winchester produced...

Less than 200 rounds had been used. They had the 6 totally undisturbed boxes and 2 other boxes that were opened. The boxes were Eley.  Eley cases have an E stamped on them which give away they were Eley.  The gun dealer said in his statement he sold 10 boxes of 50 rounds each box of Eley subsonic. 



The defense found an error in a magazine, looked into it, found out the bullets were actually larger than the magazine asserted and thus the angle they were looking at didn't pan out.

 

[mike tesko]

Less than 200 rounds had been used. They had the 6 totally undisturbed boxes and 2 other boxes that were opened. The boxes were Eley.  Eley cases have an E stamped on them which give away they were Eley.  The gun dealer said in his statement he sold 10 boxes of 50 rounds each box of Eley subsonic. 



The defense found an error in a magazine, looked into it, found out the bullets were actually larger than the magazine asserted and thus the angle they were looking at didn't pan out.

Let's get something straight, the entries in the dealers dealer register, dated the 24 the November 1984, do not identify the 500 rounds of hollow point, subsonic ammunition as being uniquely Eley n character. The entry simple states 500 'hollows', or 'subsonic'. Whilst in a witness statement dated, 19th September 1975, suddenly Fletcher recollects that these 500 rounds were Eley type bullets, by reference to the 'E' stamped on the base of each recovered cartridge case, Well, I have got news for everybody,the unreported test fire of the anshuzr rifle, sound moderator and Eley control ammunition, was test fired on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, just in time for the gun dealer to suddenly remember that the 500 rounds he had earlier ( almost a year later) remembered that they were all Eley types...

[scipio_usmc]

Let's get something straight, the entries in the dealers dealer register, dated the 24 the November 1984, do not identify the 500 rounds of hollow point, subsonic ammunition as being uniquely Eley n character. The entry simple states 500 'hollows', or 'subsonic'. Whilst in a witness statement dated, 19th September 1975, suddenly Fletcher recollects that these 500 rounds were Eley type bullets, by reference to the 'E' stamped on the base of each recovered cartridge case, Well, I have got news for everybody,the unreported test fire of the anshuzr rifle, sound moderator and Eley control ammunition, was test fired on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985, just in time for the gun dealer to suddenly remember that the 500 rounds he had earlier ( almost a year later) remembered that they were all Eley types...

That was from the seller not Fletcher.  The sller said the firearms certificate has such recorded on it.  Your spin crashed and burned as usual.

[mike tesko]

That was from the seller not Fletcher.  The sller said the firearms certificate has such recorded on it.  Your spin crashed and burned as usual.

In the extract you have posted up, the reference to the entry recorded in Ralph Bambers firearm certificate, not Radcliffe's dealership Register, where Radcliffe records the entry differently. How is it possible for the entry in Radcliffe's dealership register, to be recorded differently to the entry in Ralph Banners firearms certificate? Furthermore, on the receipt of purchase, the description of the ammunition does not match one or other description of the ammunition recorded elsewhere in the aforementioned Register and or Certificate. So, here we have documentary evidence that something dodgy has been going on. It is also worth pointing out the date of the witness statement which the extract you have posted up, which conveniently fell on the 19th September 1985...

The dodgy unreported test fire of the anshuzt rifle, with use of a sound moderator, and Eley control ammunition took place on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985...

Radcliffe's witness statement is not signed, so someone other than Radcliffe has produced that witness statement to claim that if called upon to do so, that Radcliffe would have said he sold that type of ammunition to Ralph Bamber, but he was never called upon to do so...

What appears to have been happening behind the scene, is that steps were being taken to carry out test firing of the anshuzt rifle using Eley  control ammunition, used in a substitution process, involving the switch of cartrige cases so that the police ended up with 25 Eley cartridge cases, which had all at one time or another been fired via the rifle, albeit some during the shootings, whilst others still fired afterwards in the unreported test fire of gun and Eley control ammunition between 12th and 19th September 1985. The police and Fletcher swapped over 14 cartridge cases so that they could rely upon Fletchers later test fire of the same rifle with control ammunition to conclude that all the 25 cartridge cases had been loaded and fired in the anshuzt rifle, and that this helps to prove that the 25 bullet wounds inflicted upon the five victims by the 25 bullets had all been fired via the same gun...

But, they kept secret the unreported test fire of the gun with 14 Eley rounds that took place between the 12th and 19th September 1985, instead choosing to introduce Fletchers official test fire of the same rifle between 20th September and 2nd October 1985, as the yardstick with which to declare that all the 25 bullets and cartridge cases bearing the brand 'E', had been the cause of the 25 bullet wounds inflicted upon the 5 victims. Yet many of the bullets contained in the crime scene batch (14 of them in total) belonged to other types of ammunition, identifiable by the 14 cartridge cases retained by Huntingdon Lab' under exhibit reference MDF/100...

[scipio_usmc]

In the extract you have posted up, the reference to the entry recorded in Ralph Bambers firearm certificate, not Radcliffe's dealership Register, where Radcliffe records the entry differently. How is it possible for the entry in Radcliffe's dealership register, to be recorded differently to the entry in Ralph Banners firearms certificate? Furthermore, on the receipt of purchase, the description of the ammunition does not match one or other description of the ammunition recorded elsewhere in the aforementioned Register and or Certificate. So, here we have documentary evidence that something dodgy has been going on. It is also worth pointing out the date of the witness statement which the extract you have posted up, which conveniently fell on the 19th September 1985...

The dodgy unreported test fire of the anshuzt rifle, with use of a sound moderator, and Eley control ammunition took place on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985...

Radcliffe's witness statement is not signed, so someone other than Radcliffe has produced that witness statement to claim that if called upon to do so, that Radcliffe would have said he sold that type of ammunition to Ralph Bamber, but he was never called upon to do so...

What appears to have been happening behind the scene, is that steps were being taken to carry out test firing of the anshuzt rifle using Eley  control ammunition, used in a substitution process, involving the switch of cartrige cases so that the police ended up with 25 Eley cartridge cases, which had all at one time or another been fired via the rifle, albeit some during the shootings, whilst others still fired afterwards in the unreported test fire of gun and Eley control ammunition between 12th and 19th September 1985. The police and Fletcher swapped over 14 cartridge cases so that they could rely upon Fletchers later test fire of the same rifle with control ammunition to conclude that all the 25 cartridge cases had been loaded and fired in the anshuzt rifle, and that this helps to prove that the 25 bullet wounds inflicted upon the five victims by the 25 bullets had all been fired via the same gun...

But, they kept secret the unreported test fire of the gun with 14 Eley rounds that took place between the 12th and 19th September 1985, instead choosing to introduce Fletchers official test fire of the same rifle between 20th September and 2nd October 1985, as the yardstick with which to declare that all the 25 bullets and cartridge cases bearing the brand 'E', had been the cause of the 25 bullet wounds inflicted upon the 5 victims. Yet many of the bullets contained in the crime scene batch (14 of them in total) belonged to other types of ammunition, identifiable by the 14 cartridge cases retained by Huntingdon Lab' under exhibit reference MDF/100...

You just post the same nonsense over and over again which has zero support.

The Firearms register is the premier document.  That is the one the dealer has to make sure is correct.  If the dealer didn't put as much detail in his books about what is sold who cares he filled out the firearm certificate at the time of the sale.

In any event we only have your word that the registry from Radcliffe is different and unless you produce a copy of it I don't even believe you have access to his sales books. You have made up far too many things to trust your claims.

None of this supports the allegations you make about different guns being used, bullets and cases being switched etc. These are just wild allegations totally lacking in support of any kind.

[mike tesko]

I don't have to post anything up, but the truth is that the details of the sale of ammunition to Ralph Bamber on the 24th November 1984, is recorded differently at three separate sources. This is no accident, somebody is responsible for making it difficult for someone to come along at a later date and be able to identify the exact type and make of the 500 rounds purchased by Ralph Bamber. Moreover, in the typed version of Jeremy Bambers named statement, he too neither refers to the manufacturer of the ammunition he supposedly loaded into an empty magazine. Add to this the examination of the batch of crime scene bullets as .22lr bullets, .22 bullets, and a bullet, without mentioning the manufacturer of of these different kinds of ammunition, now that is very very strange, do you not agree?