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

[mike tesko]

 A new technique which surfaced in 2003, was capable of establishing whether or not, any of the 25 cartridges had been fired via the anshuzt rifle, with as opposed to without a sound moderator fitted to the guns barrel. Gun enthusiast Keith Mallinson, with over 30 years experience in the use of a large variety of differently calibrated weapons, presented his theory to Renshaw at Junction 36, Birdwell armoury, otherwise also known as Shooting sports club. Tests using a variety of different types of .22 semi automatic rifles, and Eley type ammunition. Control rounds were test fired using various weapons both without and with a sound moderator fitted, and measurements around the base of spent cartridge cases taken with a view to establishing increased bulging as a result of additional back pressure generated by the use of a sound moderator - .22 semiautomatic weapons being the only weapons this additional back pressure applies...

[mike tesko]

A new technique which surfaced in 2003, was capable of establishing whether or not, any of the 25 cartridges had been fired via the anshuzt rifle, with as opposed to without a sound moderator fitted to the guns barrel. Gun enthusiast Keith Mallinson, with over 30 years experience in the use of a large variety of differently calibrated weapons, presented his theory to Renshaw at Junction 36, Birdwell armoury, otherwise also known as Shooting sports club. Tests using a variety of different types of .22 semi automatic rifles, and Eley type ammunition. Control rounds were test fired using various weapons both without and with a sound moderator fitted, and measurements around the base of spent cartridge cases taken with a view to establishing increased bulging as a result of additional back pressure generated by the use of a sound moderator - .22 semiautomatic weapons being the only weapons this additional back pressure applies...

Now, bear in mind, that Fletcher has gone on record as having stated that he had not been able to tell whether any of the 25 rounds, or cartridge cases had been fired via a sound moderator fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle. Mallinsons theory was capable of significantly undermining that point, supported by the expert theory of Renshaw, who agreed in principle with what Mallinson came up with in 2003...

[mike tesko]

THE MALLINSON TEST (2003) involves a technique not available at the time of Bambers trial in October 1986. Neither was it a recognised technique by the time of the failed appeal of 2002. This technique was developed in 2003, and but for the destruction of the crime scene ammunition by Essex police in 1996, it would have been possible to establish whether or not any of the 25 rounds had been fired through a sound moderator, or not. At the 2002 appeal the judges indicated that they would look favourably upon any argument relating to ballistics, if the defence chose to advance such an argument. Mallinsons technique was capable of leading to a situation whereby the prosecutions own ballistic expert was significantly undermined regarding his claim on the one hand that the sound moderator was used, but on the other hand, that it was not possible to tell if any of the 25 rounds had been fired through a sound moderator. Mallinsons technique is capable of establishing that it is possible to differentiate between bullets fired via use of a sound moderator, or not. On that basis there would be grounds for referring the case back to the court of appeal, since if as Mallinson contends that it is possible to tell if a round had been fired through a sound moderator, as opposed to not, then Fletchers findings in 1985 / 86 that not any of the key 25 rounds had been fired through a sound moderator, serves to negate the use of the sound moderator in the shooting of the victims, in partiular the shooting of Sheila Caffell. It would also have bearing upon the reliability of paint found ingrained into parts of the silencer, since if it was possible using the Mallinson technique to establish when a round is fired through a sound moderator, and by virtue of Fletcher saying it was not possible to tell, then obviously the scratches to the aga surround and the paint on the silencer must have occurred on some unrelated occasion...

[Steve_uk]

THE MALLINSON TEST (2003) involves a technique not available at the time of Bambers trial in October 1986. Neither was it a recognised technique by the time of the failed appeal of 2002. This technique was developed in 2003, and but for the destruction of the crime scene ammunition by Essex police in 1996, it would have been possible to establish whether or not any of the 25 rounds had been fired through a sound moderator, or not. At the 2002 appeal the judges indicated that they would look favourably upon any argument relating to ballistics, if the defence chose to advance such an argument. Mallinsons technique was capable of leading to a situation whereby the prosecutions own ballistic expert was significantly undermined regarding his claim on the one hand that the sound moderator was used, but on the other hand, that it was not possible to tell if any of the 25 rounds had been fired through a sound moderator. Mallinsons technique is capable of establishing that it is possible to differentiate between bullets fired via use of a sound moderator, or not. On that basis there would be grounds for referring the case back to the court of appeal, since if as Mallinson contends that it is possible to tell if a round had been fired through a sound moderator, as opposed to not, then Fletchers findings in 1985 / 86 that not any of the key 25 rounds had been fired through a sound moderator, serves to negate the use of the sound moderator in the shooting of the victims, in partiular the shooting of Sheila Caffell. It would also have bearing upon the reliability of paint found ingrained into parts of the silencer, since if it was possible using the Mallinson technique to establish when a round is fired through a sound moderator, and by virtue of Fletcher saying it was not possible to tell, then obviously the scratches to the aga surround and the paint on the silencer must have occurred on some unrelated occasion...

How shocking they destroyed the bullets. I'm assuming it was the same time they destroyed Sheila's nightie as well.

[scipio_usmc]

A new technique which surfaced in 2003, was capable of establishing whether or not, any of the 25 cartridges had been fired via the anshuzt rifle, with as opposed to without a sound moderator fitted to the guns barrel. Gun enthusiast Keith Mallinson, with over 30 years experience in the use of a large variety of differently calibrated weapons, presented his theory to Renshaw at Junction 36, Birdwell armoury, otherwise also known as Shooting sports club. Tests using a variety of different types of .22 semi automatic rifles, and Eley type ammunition. Control rounds were test fired using various weapons both without and with a sound moderator fitted, and measurements around the base of spent cartridge cases taken with a view to establishing increased bulging as a result of additional back pressure generated by the use of a sound moderator - .22 semiautomatic weapons being the only weapons this additional back pressure applies...

More lies from you. There is no such thing as a test that tells whether a moderator was attached when bullets were fired.  I don't understand why you make things like this up.

[scipio_usmc]

How shocking they destroyed the bullets. I'm assuming it was the same time they destroyed Sheila's nightie as well.

The bullets were used as exhibits at trial. There has not been any claim by the defense to date that they were destroyed.  Whether they were or not is of no consequence because he made up the claim there are new tests to determine whether a moderator was used to fire a bullet.  He is sitting behind his keyboard laughing at how many people believe the constant barrage of nonsense he makes up.

[Patti]

The bullets were used as exhibits at trial. There has not been any claim by the defense to date that they were destroyed.  Whether they were or not is of no consequence because he made up the claim there are new tests to determine whether a moderator was used to fire a bullet.  He is sitting behind his keyboard laughing at how many people believe the constant barrage of nonsense he makes up.

I don't think the case shells or the bullets have been destroyed.  I think this is the key to resolving the fact that the sound moderator was used or not.  Ballistics is the key IMO...

[mike tesko]

More lies from you. There is no such thing as a test that tells whether a moderator was attached when bullets were fired Not until 2003, when Smith and Mallinson (Barnsley) postulated the theory that it may be possible to tell scientifically whether any bullets had been fired through a sound moderator whilst it was fitted to the barrel of the semi - automatic anshuzt rifle. Use of a sound moderator on this type of weapon produces back pressure all the way back along the barrel of the rifle, right into the breech, imposing itself microscopically upon and around the base of the cartridge, flattening the lip of the cartridge, and causing a slightly exaggerated bulge near the bottom end of the spent cartridge - this phenomena, according to Mallinson (2003 / 2004) only occurs when a sound moderator is attached to the barrel of semi -automatic rifles. Moreover, Mallinson and Smith sought to demonstrate in tests carried out at the gun club they both ran, that different rates of distortion cast upon the cartridges when fired in different models of semi - automatic rifles, and or different types of .22 ammunition, this was because some Semi -automatic rifles generate slightly less or slightly more back pressure than other models / ammunition. This was why on the occasion when ballistic expert Renshaw attended the shooting range at the club, several different types of .22 semi automatic rifles were used in tests conducted in the presence of all, with 25 rounds of Eley .22lr subsonic hollow point rounds were fired via each rifle without a 17 baffled parker hale silencer attached, and another 25 with the silencer fitted. Present during these strictly controlled tests, were the ballistic expert, Renshaw, Mr Rivlin, QC, Ewen Smith (Jeremys solicitor), Keith Mallinson, Glen Smith and myself... .  I don't understand why you make things like this up.

[mike tesko]

I don't make things up, that's just it - that's why you can't understand why I would do such a thing...

[scipio_usmc]

I don't think the case shells or the bullets have been destroyed.  I think this is the key to resolving the fact that the sound moderator was used or not.  Ballistics is the key IMO...

Bullets do not touch the inside of a sound moderator composed of baffles and thus no marks are left on the bullets. In contrast moderators made of wipes can cause marks but there is no way to tie such to a particular moderator, the marks can end up screwing up matching of rifling marks though which is why it is important to be aware of the possibility.  Moderators made of wipes are quite rare though.

There is no new science with regard to marks made by baffled moderators they don't leave marks.  Mike is just pulling people's legs. I don't believe he is making things up just to try to trick people into supporting Jeremy I think he does it for attention and also he gets a kick from fooling people.     

[scipio_usmc]

More lies from you. There is no such thing as a test that tells whether a moderator was attached when bullets were fired Not until 2003, when Smith and Mallinson (Barnsley) postulated the theory that it may be possible to tell scientifically whether any bullets had been fired through a sound moderator whilst it was fitted to the barrel of the semi - automatic anshuzt rifle. Use of a sound moderator on this type of weapon produces back pressure all the way back along the barrel of the rifle, right into the breech, imposing itself microscopically upon and around the base of the cartridge, flattening the lip of the cartridge, and causing a slightly exaggerated bulge near the bottom end of the spent cartridge - this phenomena, according to Mallinson (2003 / 2004) only occurs when a sound moderator is attached to the barrel of semi -automatic rifles. Moreover, Mallinson and Smith sought to demonstrate in tests carried out at the gun club they both ran, that different rates of distortion cast upon the cartridges when fired in different models of semi - automatic rifles, and or different types of .22 ammunition, this was because some Semi -automatic rifles generate slightly less or slightly more back pressure than other models / ammunition. This was why on the occasion when ballistic expert Renshaw attended the shooting range at the club, several different types of .22 semi automatic rifles were used in tests conducted in the presence of all, with 25 rounds of Eley .22lr subsonic hollow point rounds were fired via each rifle without a 17 baffled parker hale silencer attached, and another 25 with the silencer fitted. Present during these strictly controlled tests, were the ballistic expert, Renshaw, Mr Rivlin, QC, Ewen Smith (Jeremys solicitor), Keith Mallinson, Glen Smith and myself... .  I don't understand why you make things like this up.

Far from there being an impact on the casings the impact is on the action of the rifle. Back pressure shoots unburned powder back into the firing mechanism and out of the ejection port/vents onto the shooter. This can require the weapon to need cleaning after fewer firings than ordinarily.

There are no scientific journal articles or books discussing any impact to casings because  there is no consistent impact on casings caused by moderators.

[mike tesko]

Bullets do not touch the inside of a sound moderator composed of baffles and your point is? and thus no marks are left on the bullets. In contrast moderators made of wipes can cause marks but there is no way to tie such to a particular moderator, the marks can end up screwing up matching of rifling marks though which is why it is important to be aware of the possibility.  Moderators made of wipes are quite rare though.

There is no new science with regard to marks made by baffled moderators they don't leave marks who is saying they did? .  Mike is just pulling people's legs. I don't believe he is making things up, so that puts paid to your nonsense..  I don't make things up, so that puts paid to all your nonsense just to try to trick people into supporting Jeremy I think he does it for attention and also he gets a kick from fooling people No, the only person making things up is you in this instant, and Essex police from September 1985, onward .   

[mike tesko]

Here's something I have been accused of making up, for kicks, or so that I can trick people into supporting Jeremy - now according to Fletcher as per his witness statement dated 13th November 1985, he only test fired 23 control bullets, but in hand written  notes which were recorded contemporaneously, he declares to have test fired 27 control bullets. ..

Which version is true?

Have made all of this up - or am I recording the now known facts?

[scipio_usmc]

Bullets do not touch the inside of a sound moderator composed of baffles and your point is? and thus no marks are left on the bullets. In contrast moderators made of wipes can cause marks but there is no way to tie such to a particular moderator, the marks can end up screwing up matching of rifling marks though which is why it is important to be aware of the possibility.  Moderators made of wipes are quite rare though.

There is no new science with regard to marks made by baffled moderators they don't leave marks who is saying they did? .  Mike is just pulling people's legs. I don't believe he is making things up, so that puts paid to your nonsense..  I don't make things up, so that puts paid to all your nonsense just to try to trick people into supporting Jeremy I think he does it for attention and also he gets a kick from fooling people No, the only person making things up is you in this instant, and Essex police from September 1985, onward .

The one making up stories is you not me.  You made up so many bogus claims including but not limited to- there were too few casings in the master bedroom, the bullet in the master bedroom was found elsewhere, items collected in September from Julie's place were collected the day of the murders as exhibits DRH/1-4 but were later moved to 51-54 so other cases could be added- seeing photos of Sheila in the kitchen and bed, informants in the woods...

When all your bull crap is stripped aside you have exactly zilch to establish Jeremy's innocence and zilch to attack the evidence that proves his guilt. Because you have nothing legitimate you raise complete nonsense but much of your nonsense includes claims of how intimately involved you were as if that makes you a celebrity- you want the attention.  I don't care if you were intimately involved or not with any of the people you claim such doesn't impress me at all. All I care about is the substance of the claims you make and it is clear there is no substance.  You distort anything and everything but it is only fooling people who are so biased in favor of Jeremy that they choose to believe irrational things rather than face the truth.

Any actual evidence of a phone call from Nevill to police?  No

Any actual evidence that Sheila was shot by police as you claim- no the bullets that killed her clearly was 22LR

Any actual evidence of any evidence being doctored?  No

You have to play games to pretend evidence was doctored to pretend that Jeremy was framed when the truth is Sheila was framed.

[scipio_usmc]

Here's something I have been accused of making up, for kicks, or so that I can trick people into supporting Jeremy - now according to Fletcher as per his witness statement dated 13th November 1985, he only test fired 23 control bullets, but in hand written  notes which were recorded contemporaneously, he declares to have test fired 27 control bullets. ..

Which version is true?

Have made all of this up - or am I recording the now known facts?

Obviously the number of cartridges that remained unfired would reveal which is correct.  The spent and unspent cartridges were a trial exhibit along with the other evidence so the defense had every opportunity to figure out how many were test fired and how many remained. If he did make a typo in either his notes or his statement it is of little consequence.  This is a perfect example of how you just throw crap out to try to imply something sinister must have happened though you have no proof anything happened.  Proof is required, non-specific unsupported allegations don't accomplish a thing.

Anytime you do come up with specific claims thought ye are made up like your fairytale of Stan Jones going to WHF late at night on August 7, collecting a moderator and asking Jeremy about this moderator with Taff Jones on August 9.  These are just fairytales you invented. Most of the time you just want to try creating suspicion of police with claims like you just posted, some of which you make up but some of which is true but just amounts to innocent errors or even can be explained rationally in some other manner, which don't establish anything illicit happened you just use it to impugn the reputation of people and then say they must have been doing something crooked and you make up crooked things you claim they did.

You don't even make up anything rational in the meantime. You make up off the wall things that are obviously bull and that many people can't even follow. Most of the claims I take the time to rebut a lot of people can't even understand what you are alleging. They don't realize where you are trying to go with your claims because they ultimately make no sense.

If makes no difference how many cartridges Fletcher used for the testing- the number used and unused add up to 29 which is the grand total of unfired cartridges that made up the exhibit. It doesn't matter whether the exhibit displayed in court consisted of 23 spent cartridges and 6 unfired cartridges or 27 spent cartridges and 2 unfired cartridges.  Either way there is no way he would have extra cases he could pretend had been found by police elsewhere and police records reveal what they found and where so if he did try to make such up it would be easy to disprove.

So even if true that there is a discrepancy between one note and his statement it doesn't mean squat- just like changing the prefix for the moderator doesn't mean squat- but given your past dishonestly we don't even know if you made the whole thing up.