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

[scipio_usmc]

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?

Fletcher said the bullets used for testing were the same ones that had been purchased by Nevill and that the bullets and casings connected to the murders were the same.  He didn't claim some were different .22 short, .22 magnum etc he found them all to be 22LR.

[mike tesko]

Fletcher said the bullets used for testing were the same ones that had been purchased by Nevill and that the bullets and casings connected to the murders were the same.  He didn't claim some were different .22 short, .22 magnum etc he found them all to be 22LR.

No, he didn't at all, and that is the weakness in the ballistics evidence relied upon in this case. Stop making things up, altering the truth and changing things around to suit your arguments. Fletcher did not say what you say he did, and the contents of his hand written notes (dated and signed), his witness statement, or his hand written entries on each of the Lab' General Examination records, gain which he signed and dated, so once again you stumble towards that huge hole you have been digging for yourself...

[scipio_usmc]

No, he didn't at all, and that is the weakness in the ballistics evidence relied upon in this case. Stop making things up, altering the truth and changing things around to suit your arguments. Fletcher did not say what you say he did, and the contents of his hand written notes (dated and signed), his witness statement, or his hand written entries on each of the Lab' General Examination records, gain which he signed and dated, so once again you stumble towards that huge hole you have been digging for yourself...

You seem to think that if you just refuse to admit you are wrong that such will suffice, it doesn't.

For the 5th time 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.

[mike tesko]

You seem to think that if you just refuse to admit you are wrong that such will suffice, it doesn't.

For the 5th time 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.

You are deliberately ignoring the now known facts...

Fletcher took part in unreported test firing of the anshuzt rifle, silencer and Eley control ammunition prior to, or on the 12th September 1985. His signature is present upon several 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS' pertaining to the examination and test comparisons between specific cartridge cases (Marked with 'E') and control ammunition fired via rifle (18), on dates between the 12th and the 19th September 1985. Fletcher clearly had access to test fired rounds, fired in rifle (18), long before he came around to performing his 'OFFICIAL TEST FIRE' of the same, which he states took place between the 20th September, and the 2nd October 1985. Now, why have a separate test fire of the anshuzt rifle and Eley control ammunition (before, or on the 12th September 1985), and a separate test fire of the same rifle and Eley control ammunition, and deny ever having carried out, taken part in, or known about the earlier test fire of the rifle, with Eley control ammunition?

Lets get the facts straight, prior to Fletcher carrying out the so called 'OFFICIAL' test fire of the rifle and Eley control ammunition (between 20th September and 2nd October 1985) Fletcher makes the bold statement that prior to these 'OFFICIAL' tests being undertaken, that he did not know when the rifle had last been fired, but clearly he did. His signature appears on several lab' records which state that various cartridge cases were compared against test fired rounds in the rifle, in order for comparison tests to have been carried out on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985 - so Fletcher lied, he lied because he knows the purpose of having had two separate test fires of the rifle and Eley control ammunition. The sole purpose of the original unreported test fire of rifle and Eley control ammunition was chiefly for substitution purposes, so that other manufacturers cartridge cases could be extracted from the batch of crime scene ammunition, replaced by test fired Eley ammunition, so that by the time the 'OFFICIAL' test fire gets under way, from 20th September 1985, the substituted cartridge cases in the crime scene batch are all Eley ammunition. So, Fletcher does another test fire of the rifle between 20th September 1985 and 2nd October 1985, and uses the test fired Eley control ammunition, in comparison tests with various cartridge cases as part of the 'REVISED' batch of cartridge cases, thus allowing him to conclude that the individual cartridge cases subject of the individual Lab' reports, was loaded into the gun and fired from it...

That is all well and good...

My point is this, If the original 14 cartridge cases had not in part been swapped over with Eley ammunition after the 'UNREPORTED TEST FIRE', and there had been no earlier test fire prior to the 20th September 1985, it would not have been possible to match all 25 bullet cases to rifle (18), nor would it have been possible to declare that all 25 bullets had come from the same batch. What I am saying, is that there had to be the earlier unreported test fire of rifle and Eley control ammunition, so that the batch of crime scene ammunition, as of and from the 19th September 1985, was available to be compared against other Eley control ammunition officially test fired from the 20th September 1985, onward...

You do not have two different test fires of the same gun using Eley ammunition, for no reason at all, and then seek to hide for the fact that two such test firings had occurred, not only one...

[mike tesko]

Another thing...

My recollection regarding what Jeremy has always maintained to me, is that he did not tip out the contents of the box of ammunition onto the kitchen worktop. He told me on several different occasions that he simply removed the cellophane wrapper around the box, and picked out the individual rounds to load into the magazine...

[mike tesko]

The content of these typed extracts is wrong, based upon the information contained in the Lab' General Examination Report, regarding cartridges...

[scipio_usmc]

You are deliberately ignoring the now known facts...

Fletcher took part in unreported test firing of the anshuzt rifle, silencer and Eley control ammunition prior to, or on the 12th September 1985. His signature is present upon several 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS' pertaining to the examination and test comparisons between specific cartridge cases (Marked with 'E') and control ammunition fired via rifle (18), on dates between the 12th and the 19th September 1985. Fletcher clearly had access to test fired rounds, fired in rifle (18), long before he came around to performing his 'OFFICIAL TEST FIRE' of the same, which he states took place between the 20th September, and the 2nd October 1985. Now, why have a separate test fire of the anshuzt rifle and Eley control ammunition (before, or on the 12th September 1985), and a separate test fire of the same rifle and Eley control ammunition, and deny ever having carried out, taken part in, or known about the earlier test fire of the rifle, with Eley control ammunition?

Lets get the facts straight, prior to Fletcher carrying out the so called 'OFFICIAL' test fire of the rifle and Eley control ammunition (between 20th September and 2nd October 1985) Fletcher makes the bold statement that prior to these 'OFFICIAL' tests being undertaken, that he did not know when the rifle had last been fired, but clearly he did. His signature appears on several lab' records which state that various cartridge cases were compared against test fired rounds in the rifle, in order for comparison tests to have been carried out on 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985 - so Fletcher lied, he lied because he knows the purpose of having had two separate test fires of the rifle and Eley control ammunition. The sole purpose of the original unreported test fire of rifle and Eley control ammunition was chiefly for substitution purposes, so that other manufacturers cartridge cases could be extracted from the batch of crime scene ammunition, replaced by test fired Eley ammunition, so that by the time the 'OFFICIAL' test fire gets under way, from 20th September 1985, the substituted cartridge cases in the crime scene batch are all Eley ammunition. So, Fletcher does another test fire of the rifle between 20th September 1985 and 2nd October 1985, and uses the test fired Eley control ammunition, in comparison tests with various cartridge cases as part of the 'REVISED' batch of cartridge cases, thus allowing him to conclude that the individual cartridge cases subject of the individual Lab' reports, was loaded into the gun and fired from it...

That is all well and good...

My point is this, If the original 14 cartridge cases had not in part been swapped over with Eley ammunition after the 'UNREPORTED TEST FIRE', and there had been no earlier test fire prior to the 20th September 1985, it would not have been possible to match all 25 bullet cases to rifle (18), nor would it have been possible to declare that all 25 bullets had come from the same batch. What I am saying, is that there had to be the earlier unreported test fire of rifle and Eley control ammunition, so that the batch of crime scene ammunition, as of and from the 19th September 1985, was available to be compared against other Eley control ammunition officially test fired from the 20th September 1985, onward...

You do not have two different test fires of the same gun using Eley ammunition, for no reason at all, and then seek to hide for the fact that two such test firings had occurred, not only one...

You are ignoring that the documents were signed at different times by different people and notations were added later on various pages they were filled out at different times for different things.  You have not proven any of your allegations to be facts.  In fact, you intentionally conceal the Dickinson report paragraphs related to this probably because such paragraphs completely demolish all your lies.

You make up one conspiracy claim after the next all of which are unsupported and moreover which are contradictory.  You can't even stick with 1 conspiracy you allege a bunch of different ones which just demonstrates you are throwing a bunch of shit at the wall seeing if any will stick.

At this point your should realize they all flopped and that recycling them over and over again is not going to accomplish a thing. 9/11 conspiracy clowns and JFK conspiracy clowns and pretty much all conspiracy clowns do the same thing.  They make up a million different claims so that after one is rebutted they lodge the next and by the time they are all rebutted they start over again hoping no one remembers it or it is new people who never saw the arguments before.  It is a worthless game being run.

[scipio_usmc]

Another thing...

My recollection regarding what Jeremy has always maintained to me, is that he did not tip out the contents of the box of ammunition onto the kitchen worktop. He told me on several different occasions that he simply removed the cellophane wrapper around the box, and picked out the individual rounds to load into the magazine...

Once again either you are lying to us, you have a faulty memory or Jeremy was lying to you.

It is quite apparent he didn't get the gun out to shoot rabbits and made up the story about leaving the gun and bullets out.  He said he was in a rush so tipped the box over to make it faster for him to load and that the box was not sealed in his statement and at trial.  It is a good thing he did say it wasn't sealed because then he would have had even more problems because one of the 30 bullets had been previously loaded into the Anschutz. How could a cartridge have been loaded into the Anschutz then removed and placed back in the box prior to the box being sealed by Eley?

In fact 4 casings used in the murders would also have to have been loaded into the magazine and then placed back in the box and sealed by Eley in order for the box to have been sealed that way.  Non one would believe such nonsense so he didn't claim it was sealed. 

In order for the box to have been sealed only 1 of the casings used in the murders should have had marks indicating it was loaded twice.  But there were 5 plus there was an unfired one that had been previously loaded and unloaded.

It doesn't matter if Jeremy told you these lies or you are making them up they are clearly false either way.  Jeremy's claims in his statements and trial testimony is what matters and he said it wasn't sealed because if he claimed it was sealed he knew he would have had even more problems.  He also said the gun was empty when he found it.  Changing that claim after his conviction doesn't in any way help him because 1) he is stuck with his trial testimony.  Trying to change his claims after is not new evidence.  2) Aside from looking like he is just trying to lie his way out of things to fool people into supporting him, a changed claim that the gun had been loaded would further diminish the credibility of his story of taking bullets out.  If the gun were already loaded and he were in the rush he claims then he simply would have rushed out the door not to walk past the door into the kitchen with a box of bullets to load the gun.   

Your revisions don't do anything but further highlight how Jeremy lies and his entire tale of taking the gun out to shoot rabbits was nonsense.  The question then becomes why did he make up this tale of leaving taking the gun and bullets out and leaving it out?  Clearly he did so in order to pretend Sheila found a weapon of opportunity because she would not have gone to the closet to get it herself and if she had done so then Nevill would have been able to disarm her before she could load the gun so he made up leaving a loaded magazine next to it and even extra bullets for her to use.   

[scipio_usmc]

The content of these typed extracts is wrong, based upon the information contained in the Lab' General Examination Report, regarding cartridges...

An honest reading of them confirms what Fletcher asserted.  A dishonest reading permits one to make up anything desired such as you making up that there was a 6th spent casing that had been loaded twice.

 

[mike tesko]

You are ignoring that the documents were signed at different times by different people and notations were added later on various pages they were filled out at different times for different things the hand written notations in Fletchers own handwriting, dated, and signed by Fletcher himself, confirming that 5 of the cartridge cases had got double magazine marks, on dates before the official test fire of the rifle with Eley control ammunition, was carried out. This proves that Fletcher had prior involvement in the unreported test fire of the same rifle and other control ammunition which was subsequently used in a substitution process, removing other types and make of ammunition from the original batch of crime scene ammunition, and replacing some with pieces of the unreported test fire components. You continue to doubt whatever you like, but the truth of what took place has been spelt out by me.   You have not proven any of your allegations to be facts Yes, I have .  In fact, you intentionally conceal the Dickinson report paragraphs related to this probably You appear to know more about this, than I do because such paragraphs completely demolish all your lies That is only your opinion, you have no evidence to backvup what you are claiming .

You make up one conspiracy claim after the next all of which are unsupported and moreover which are contradictory Everything I have said was true at the time I said it, supported by documents   You can't even stick with 1 conspiracy you allege a bunch of different ones which just demonstrates you are throwing a bunch of shit at the wall seeing if any will stick Your opinion only .

At this point your should realize they all flopped and that recycling them over and over again is not going to accomplish a thing. 9/11 conspiracy clowns and JFK conspiracy clowns and pretty much all conspiracy clowns do the same thing.  They make up a million different claims so that after one is rebutted they lodge the next and by the time they are all rebutted they start over again hoping no one remembers it or it is new people who never saw the arguments before.  It is a worthless game being run.

[scipio_usmc]

the hand written notations in Fletchers own handwriting, dated, and signed by Fletcher himself, confirming that 5 of the cartridge cases had got double magazine marks, on dates before the official test fire of the rifle with Eley control ammunition

The notations in question were notations regarding the physical observations during inspection of the casings.  There was no need to wait until after the test firing to observe how many markings they had on the and where and what they were. This was done and then LATER after they test fired them they then did comparisons between the test fired casings and these to check that the firing pin impressions etc were the same.

5 of the casings had been loaded twice into the magazine, 20 were loaded once.  All this proves is that  5 of the cartridges used to kill the victims had at some time prior to the murders been loaded into the magazine and then unloaded from it and returned to the ammunition supply. Jeremy claims he loaded the top bullet in the magazine twice the evening of the murders so if we accept Jeremy's claims without question then only 4 of the cartridges used had been loaded previously on some other date and returned to the ammunition supply. But his claims are not credible so it is obvious all 5 of the twice loaded casings had been loaded prior on some day other than the murders and were loaded the second time in contemplation of the murders.  There was another cartridge that had previously been loaded but it wasn't used so that actually means 6 had been loaded and unloaded and returned to the ammunition supply on some other day but only 5 of the 6 wound up being grabbed by the killer and loaded. 

The twice loaded cartridges are not of any relevance at all to who committed the murders. The fact 5 of the rounds used had been previously unloaded and returned to the ammunition supply used by the killer is of no consequence it tells us nothing useful.

 

[mike tesko]

The notations in question were notations regarding the physical observations during inspection of the casings.  There was no need to wait until after the test firing to observe how many markings they had on the and where and what they were. This was done and then LATER after they test fired them they then did comparisons between the test fired casings and these to check that the firing pin impressions etc were the same The comparison tests were made in many instances on dates between 12th and 19th September, confirmed by the hand written notations, which are dated, and signed by Fletcher and DS 'Stan' Jones, so I think you need to go back to the drawing board, give yourself a good shake up, and retheorize.

5 of the casings had been loaded twice into the magazine, 20 were loaded once.  All this proves is that  5 of the cartridges used to kill the victims had at some time prior to the murders been loaded into the magazine and then unloaded from it and returned to the ammunition supply. Jeremy claims he loaded the top bullet in the magazine twice the evening of the murders so if we accept Jeremy's claims without question then only 4 of the cartridges used had been loaded previously on some other date and returned to the ammunition supply. But his claims are not credible so it is obvious all 5 of the twice loaded casings had been loaded prior on some day other than the murders and were loaded the second time in contemplation of the murders. He does not say that one of the rounds he loafed into the magazine, that he removed it from the chamber of the rifle, and put it back in the magazine. It is much more likely that if Jeremy later removed a round from the rifles chamber, that it had been manually loaded into the gun not forced in through the magazine mechanism, so if this very same round had in fact been fired during the shootings, then it would only have 1 set of marks, plus chamber marks unique to the manual loading process, rather have been loaded into the chamber by the magazine mechanism There was another cartridge that had previously been loaded but it wasn't used so that actually means 6 had been loaded and unloaded and returned to the ammunition supply on some other day but only 5 of the 6 wound up being grabbed by the killer and loaded Wrong, study the facts.

The twice loaded cartridges are not of any relevance at all to who committed the murders Oh, yes, they have . The fact 5 of the rounds used had been previously unloaded and returned to the ammunition supply used by the killer is of no consequence Yes, it has, it shows the frenzied approach made by the shooter, victim to victim, room to room, upstairs and downstairs. it tells us nothing useful Wrong, again, it dispels any notion that the killer had entered each room and shot each victim until the quota of shots pervictim had been exhausted, so that there were questions being raised about when the gun was reloaded with bullets, and who by. In the scenario I have raised, three of the 5 victims had already been dead by the time the shooter had emptied the first full load of the gun downstairs in the kitchen. The only two still alive being Sheila, and Ralph....

[scipio_usmc]

"The notations in question were notations regarding the physical observations during inspection of the casings.  There was no need to wait until after the test firing to observe how many markings they had on the and where and what they were. This was done and then LATER after they test fired them they then did comparisons between the test fired casings and these to check that the firing pin impressions etc were the same"
The comparison tests were made in many instances on dates between 12th and 19th September, confirmed by the hand written notations, which are dated, and signed by Fletcher and DS 'Stan' Jones,

The date of the comparison tests has nothing to do with my point about the double marks.  You always try changing the subject.  In the meantime it is obvious that the first test firing of the weapon was done before the casings were actually compared to the test fired casings. your claim that the comparisons were faked and never happened is more of your worthless babble which I suspect is refuted by the passages of the Dickinson Report that you intentionally refused to post.   

"5 of the casings had been loaded twice into the magazine, 20 were loaded once.  All this proves is that  5 of the cartridges used to kill the victims had at some time prior to the murders been loaded into the magazine and then unloaded from it and returned to the ammunition supply. Jeremy claims he loaded the top bullet in the magazine twice the evening of the murders so if we accept Jeremy's claims without question then only 4 of the cartridges used had been loaded previously on some other date and returned to the ammunition supply. But his claims are not credible so it is obvious all 5 of the twice loaded casings had been loaded prior on some day other than the murders and were loaded the second time in contemplation of the murders."
He does not say that one of the rounds he loafed into the magazine, that he removed it from the chamber of the rifle, and put it back in the magazine.

Yes he did. In both his August 7 and August 8 statements he wrote it plus said it at trial and the worst part is that I constantly use evidence you posted yourself to prove your claims false, that is a sure sign that either you don't read carefully or are distorting and it is a waste of time to distort because when it comes to evidence I read I have an amazing command of the facts:




 

It is much more likely that if Jeremy later removed a round from the rifles chamber, that it had been manually loaded into the gun not forced in through the magazine mechanism, so if this very same round had in fact been fired during the shootings, then it would only have 1 set of marks, plus chamber marks unique to the manual loading process, rather have been loaded into the chamber by the magazine mechanism

Why do you make up such stupid things?  He loaded the magazine with 9 rounds and instead of putting the tenth in the magazine he stuck it directly in the chamber?  That is absurd plus it is contrary to what he said.  He said he inserted the magazine and chambered a round.  He said he ejected it and then loaded it into the magazine a second time.

"There was another cartridge that had previously been loaded but it wasn't used so that actually means 6 had been loaded and unloaded and returned to the ammunition supply on some other day but only 5 of the 6 wound up being grabbed by the killer and loaded"
Wrong, study the facts.

I already have studied the facts and unfortunately for you I have far greater command of them than you do:

"The cartridges (part of 51) and (93) consist of a total of thirty British made Eley 'Subsonic .22" Long Rifle...one of the cartridges (part of 93) has at some time, been loaded into the magazine of the rifle."



So there were a total of 6 that had been loaded previously and then unloaded and returned to the ammunition supply and Jeremy ended up loaded 5 of these 6 a second time to use in commission of the murders. The 6th wasn't used and was still in the unused batch of 30. 

"The twice loaded cartridges are not of any relevance at all to who committed the murders. The fact 5 of the rounds used had been previously unloaded and returned to the ammunition supply used by the killer is of no consequence"
Yes, it has, it shows the frenzied approach made by the shooter, victim to victim, room to room, upstairs and downstairs.  In the scenario I have raised, three of the 5 victims had already been dead by the time the shooter had emptied the first full load of the gun downstairs in the kitchen. The only two still alive being Sheila, and Ralph...

  The scenario you raised is refuted by the evidence and totally absurd.  In any event if such were actually possible to have happened Jeremy could have done such as easily as Sheila.  It would not establish who committed the murders.  But it is not possible.  Had bullets been left in the magazine then they would have been loaded only once so would not have double markings.  Nor would the killer have shot Nevill once in the master bedroom simply grazing him then ran to kill the boys. That graze wound did nothing of significance to Nevill he would have been able to disarm the killer.  You make up a series of absurd nonsense to pretend Nevill's other 3 wounds were not suffered in the bedroom and just basically humiliate yourself with one stupid suggestions after the next.  You would garner more attention and better attention with rational claims.

[mike tesko]

My scenario is accurate...

[mike tesko]

Sheila shot dead the other four victims...