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

[mike tesko]

What I would like to say, is that even in instances where official records confirm that one exhibit has been altered into another, and so on, and so forth, the person responsible for doing so, did not initial the alteration, or provide a witness statement why the exhibit reference, and in some instances the lab' item numbers were altered - leaving an impression that at the time these alterations were done, that they never expected anyone to come along at a later date, performing the sort of rigorous paper trail investigation, and stumbling upon one of the dark secrets Essex police adopted in the pursuit of a cover up in this case...

[lookout]

This is exactly why the case turned on its head,Mike,as it was originally a straightforward murder/suicide but once it became 5 murders,and because there was no proof that it had been 5 murders the police had to put their thinking caps on to devise a way of making it look like 5 murders.

[scipio_usmc]

It becomes very clear how police set about intending to deceive everyone over the silencer evidence. Not to be forgotten is that in the build up to Bambers 1986 trial, and during it, intact all the way until I became involved in the case in 1989, the silencer was only referred to by the exhibit reference of DRB/1. No information was disclosed to to indicate the volatile history associated with "IT". There was no suggestion that it had had its exhibit reference altered, from SJ/1, to SBJ/1, to DB/1, ending up as DRB/1.

What is clear is how you are trying to deceive everyone.  It was never known as SJ/1 this is one of your pathetic lies.  You keep lying about Cook's COLP statement indicating it had been known as SJ/1 initially- his statement says he PLANNED to issue it SJ/1 but learned of Jones' middle initial and thus wrote SBJ/1 on the label and on the Holab form.

There was no need to indicate at trial that it had originally been labeled SBJ/1 and was changed to DB/1 and ultimately changed to DRB/1.  It was referred to by the latest reference because that is standard procedure when a change is made you refer to it by the current reference so as to not confuse anyone by calling it the prior reference- otherwise you would not even have a reason to change it.

The explanation for the change to DB/1 and then DRB/1 and reasons for the changes are well supported and totally innocent.  Your lies are just that lies and worse make no sense. 

Far from having any evidence to support wrongdoing you just have totally unsupported allegations which are refuted by the evidence, make no sense and you even add lies like that it was originally labeled SJ/1 though the source you claim states that states no such thing. Your nonsense is just lies and wild unsupported allegations proved false in 1991 by the COLP investigation.

There was no suspicion, no acknowledgement that 'THIS' silencer (DRB/1) had at one time or another, it had been referred to by two different Lab' item numbers ( 22, 23, and back to 22).

It wasn't referred to by two different numbers.  It was always 22.  The lab only referred to it as 22.  The police had to hand write 3 copies of the Holab forms, they didn't use photo copy machines.  Cook screwed up and wrote 23 on 1 of the 3 copies by accident while the other copies correctly said 22.  The forms were identical except on one the numbers jumped from "21" to "23" while the numbers on the others read "21" and then "22".

He admitted in his COLP interview that he made a clerical error:



If 2 moderators had been handed in that day then ALL three copies would have had numbers 22 and 23 listed instead of 22 on two of them and 23 on the third which indicates a clerical error. 

There was no mention at all the a silencer had been found at the scene on 7th August 1975.

There was no mention that Ann Eaton had handed over silencer DRB/1 to police on 11th September 1975, or that her brother David Boutflour had not in fact phoned police on 10th September 1975, to report finding a gun silencer.

No mention that DS Davidson and DS Eastwood had in fact fingerprinted the silencer on 14th September 1975, (DRB/1) handed to Police by Ann Eaton previously as stated.

No mention that this very same silencer (DRB/1) had not in fact been sent along to the lab' until the 20th September 1985, and not physically examined by any expert until 25th September 1985. They kept all this key information secret so that blood and paint evidence could be wrongly linked to the Bamber family owned silencer, but they did not anticipate that years further down the line, someone like myself would come along and drag the truth about it out into the open...

There was no mention of these things because they didn't happen- these are all fictional claims you made up.  You have no evidentiary basis to assert any of these things happened. While there is evidence of the changes in the designation from SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1 and evidence of the clerical error made by Cook there is no evidence to support any of these wild allegations.  They are made up from thin air.

There is zero evidence that Jones collected any items into evidence from WHF on the day of the murders let alone collected a moderator.

There is zero evidence that there were any moderators at WHF during or after the murders to be collected into evidence by police- the evidence establishes only Nevill's moderator was present.

There is zero evidence to establish Boutflour called police on the 10th to indicate he had a moderator and that it was picked up the next day from Ann Eaton.  The evidence establishes the police were notified in August and it was picked up on August 12.

The moderator that was fingerprinted is the moderator turned in by the family on August 12 which the lab analyzed on August 13 which resulted in the the lab notifying police on Aug 14 they had found human blood on/in the moderator and paint on the knurled tip. This is what evidence proves happened.

You have ZERO evidence to support your allegations.  You take things made up, admit there is no evidence to support your allegations by admitting there is no mention anywhere of these things you made up happening then ridiculously say you proved they happened.  You reside in bozo land.   

By 20th September 1985, blood had already been found, analysed inside a silencer which had been present at Huntingdon Lab' ever since 30th August 1985; under an exhibit reference of DB/1, bearing a lav' item reference number 23. It was inside "THIS" silencer that the key blood evidence was found (DB/1 - 23), not the silencer still in the possession of relatives until 11th September, had been fingerprinted (14th September) and sent along to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibers on the 20th September at which point the silencer (DRB/1) handed to police on the 11th September 1985 by Ann Eaton, then came into play for the very first time.

DB/1 and DRB/1 are the same moderator.  There wasn't any moderator under lab item number 23.  The lab never even noticed 1 of the forms said 23 they used 22 for the moderator.  David Bird was taking photos not collecting evidence he had no ability to take any physical items into evidence.

You keep ignoring that the SOLE Holab form which called the moderator 23 was a carbon copy of the other Holab forms EXCEPT had a 23 next to the moderator instead of 22.  Other items were sent to the lab with the moderator and these "other items" were the same on all three of the Holab forms.  ALL 3 forms were dated August 13.  So if they were 2 different moderators they would have been handed in together August 13.  Further all 3 say SBJ/1 as the exhibit reference further demonstrating it was just a clerical error.

The forms doesn't permit asserting they were different but even if one ignores reality and asserts 2 were handed in that still means they had to be handed in on the 13th.   You have no Holab forms listing an item 23 handed in to the lab in September.  The only Holab form that says 23 on it is dated August 13 and is one of the 3 copies of this:




The only line different in the third copy is the one related to the moderator:

21    ND/11      "--------"           carpet in upstairs front bedroom

23    SBJ/1         Silencer           gun cupboard

The other 2 are what I posted and read:

21    ND/11      "--------"           carpet in upstairs front bedroom

22    SBJ/1         Silencer           gun cupboard

Quite clearly nothing labeled DB/1 was submitted to the lab on Aug 13 for testing.  SBJ/1 was submitted and on one form Cook screwed up and accidentally wrote 23 instead of 22 but the lab ignored the error and solely referred to it in their records as 22.

You stupidly assert that item 23 was the lab designation for the moderator handed to them on Aug 13, though they write 22 all over their records, that it was know as DB/1 at the time though all their records say SBJ/1 and that in early September a different moderator known as DRB/1 was submitted and given lab reference number 22 even though it would have to have a reference number LATER than 23 if the one received in August had been labeled 23 and even though you have zilch to establish the police or lab ever called anything DRB/1 in September.  The first references to DRB/1 on documents is on documents created in November.

Your claims are pathetic- you are taking a document dated August 13 that refers to the moderator as SBJ/1 and contains a clerical error referring to it as item 23 and suggesting this proves the previous lab number- number 22- was DB/1 handed in September 11.  This is not supportable at all it is nonsensical.

By August 30 they had already expended numbers 1-72.  DRH/36 was lab reference 72. Items taken in September would have a lab reference higher than this.  Indeed you allege DRB/1 was taken the same time they took DRB/2 and DRB/3 from Ann Eaton.  DRB/2 and 3 were items 108 and 109. 

Your babble makes no sense at all and just is made up nonsense that totally ignores the evidence.  Your claims are totally pathetic.       

You will no doubt realize that if the silencer handed to police on the 11th September 1985, that was not fingerprinted by police on 14th September, not sent along to the lab' for the very first time until after the key blood evidence had already been found inside the "OTHER" silencer (DB/1), a silencer which had been present at the lab' ever since 30th August1985. Blood from "THAT" silencer (DB/1 - 23) having already been removed and analysed on the following dates confirming blood group activity (12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1975, the net conclusion being held that this collection of blood group activity belonged exclusively to Sheila Caffell, yet the silencer handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11th September, had not by "THAT STAGE", been sent along to the lab' until after the key blood evidence had already been found in the "OTHEr" silencer (DB/1 - 23)...

What I realize is that you are lying and making up total nonsense.  I realize you have ZERO evidence of any moderator being collected from Ann Eaton on August 11, you make an unsupported claim that this happened.  You have zero testimonial evidence form anyone that this happened, zero documentary evidence that this happened- you have zero evidence period it happened you simply made it up from thin air. You take this unsupported claim and then make up more nonsense about how it had blood on it not the actual moderator turned over a month prior which is the only actual moderator.  Your babble totally unravels upon looking at how stupid your claims are and how they are totally made up and not supported by any evidence.  You seem to think a vivid imagination can substitute for logic and solid evidence- it cannot.

Sheila Caffells blood has been wrongly attributed to the silencer DRB/1 belonging to the Banner rifle, this can be proven by reference to the fact that all the key blood and paint evidence was associated to a different silencer at the lab' on dates before the Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1) came into play on 11th September 1985, for the very first time...

Only 1 moderator was at WHF and it was collected August 12 and sent to the lab on August 13.   SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 were all the same moderator.  Nevill's moderator is the only one that was inspected in 1985 by the lab and only one that had been at WHF.   You are stupidly suggesting police left Nevill's moderator but collected another moderator.  Why would they do they?  How could they do that when there was only a single moderator there?  What evidence do you have of this?  None!  The babble you make up is totally unsupported and makes no sense.

My idea of support means testimony and documents that establish the allegations you claim.  You have neither.  You just make up any crap you feel like the same way to ignored what Cook actually wrote in his COLP statement and lied saying he wrote tha the stuck a label marked SJ/1 on the moderator though he stated as plain as day he marked it SBJ/1.  You ignore reality and just pretend things say whatever you feel like.  That is quite pointless, renders you a lying joke simply. 

You do not send a silencer (DRB/1) to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, requesting that it be checked for blood and fibers, if it was already at the lab' and had been there continually since 30th August, and blood had already been found inside that silencer (DB/1 - 23), blood had already been removed, and analysed between 12th and 19th September, and try to claim that there was only one silencer, one silencer upon which key blood evidence can be associated, when the silencer (DRB/1) it is being linked to, did not come onto the scene until it was much too late to have been the silencer (DB/1 - 23) thevkey blood evidence had been found inside. Silencer DB/1 - 23, and silencer DRB/1, were bit, and could never have been one and the same silencers for the reasons given.

The moderator went back and forth between the lab it wasn't there continuously so you lie right off the bat.  You further lie by claiming there are original Holab documents from September 1985 asserting DRB/1 was conveyed to the lab.  The documents from September say SBJ/1 until the end of the month when they received notice that SBJ/1 was changed to DB/1.  None use DRB/1. Your lies are all a total waste of time.  You can't support your lies with any evidence because you made them up.  Note how I keep posting actual evidence while you don't just your barebones absurd allegations. 

The relatives know that, Essex police know that, the COS know that, I know that / this, and everyone else should by now know that. The bottom line is that key blood evidence was not found in the so called Bamber owned silencer (DRB/1), it was found inside a silencer (DB/1 - 23) belonging to one of the relatives. Sheila Caffells blood was found in a silencer (DB/1 - 23) belonging to one of the accusers, which throws a different light in the question of, " Who killed the victims?

here is no evidence to support any of this nonsense, your claims are just nonsense you made up to try to suggest the family killed the victims and framed Jeremy.  The family should sue you for libel they would win though I doubt you have much for them to collect the judgment from.

[scipio_usmc]

This is exactly why the case turned on its head,Mike,as it was originally a straightforward murder/suicide but once it became 5 murders,and because there was no proof that it had been 5 murders the police had to put their thinking caps on to devise a way of making it look like 5 murders.

In your warped mind only.  Note how not one person here is trying to bolster Mike's lies and nonsense beyond you and you only do so by cheer leading not by actually debating the evidence I raised which proves Mike to be lying and wrong.

[lookout]

 Why do you keep having to insult people ? Is it part of your obnoxious makeup,or is it because you're losing the battle ?
Whatever it is,there's no damn need for it.

[scipio_usmc]

Why do you keep having to insult people ? Is it part of your obnoxious makeup,or is it because you're losing the battle ?
Whatever it is,there's no damn need for it.

I am stating fact, you live in fantasyland and are always wrong.  It is a fact you have not entered this debate substantively.  You cheer Mike on telling him he is doing great while the reality is he has been humiliated in our debates.

How am I losing?  I am the one posting evidence proving Mike to be both wrong and lying.  Your claim I am loosing is as unsupported and much nonsense as his claim that Cook told COLP he labeled the moderator SJ/1.  Living in a fantasy world doesn't alter reality it just means you can't hack it in reality so hide from it.

I prefer to face reality rather than hide from it.

Like you, Mike is never able to actually back up his claims with evidence.  He posts evidence that police took DRB/2 and 3 from Ann Eaton on September 11 (though at the time collected they were not referred to as DRB2 and 3) then simply makes up out of thin air that the moderator was collected along with them.  What proof does he have?  None he just made it up.  He ignores that these items were subsequently changed from DB/2 and 3 to DRB/2 and 3.   

So he has no evidence that any moderator was collected on September 11 he simply made it up and worse he claims it was given the identifier DRB/1 at the time though none of the items collected that day were initially labeled DRB.  His lies make no sense and totally fall apart upon inspection.

You are the one who decided to cheer on lies and nonsense and then to assert he is winning the debate over these lies and nonsense claims.  When you get burned in the process don't blame me- you made the decision to support such tripe.

[mike tesko]

I am stating fact, you live in fantasyland and are always wrong Everyone is wrong except for you. It must be great living in your own little imaginary environment. The thing is, everything you say, every trick you pull, everything you alter and make out this person said this and that, everything you do can be reconstructed to prove who the true liar is, that liar is you....  It is a fact you have not entered this debate substantively.  You cheer Mike on telling him he is doing great while the reality is he has been humiliated the only person humiliated is you, because I don't in the least feel humiliated at all by anything anybody has said about me. Why should I or anyone else feel humiliated by anything somebody like you has said. You are a laughing stock, coming up with all your stories, keep it up because I can prove you wrong every time if I want to. I can if I want to by posting up the documents when I choose, but why should I? It's much better to give you all the rope you need to hang yourself with... in our debates. Ha, ha, ha, your so funny, were you a court jester by any chance in a Former life?

How am I losing? How are you winning?   I am the one posting evidence proving Mike to be both wrong and lying. I have not seen any such evidence...  Your claim I am loosing is as unsupported and nor disproved by your garbage much nonsense as his claim that Cook told COLP he labeled the moderator SJ/1. which is what Cook did tell the COLP investigators   Living in a fantasy world doesn't alter reality So, step out of your fantasy world and try to pull yourself together it just means you can't hack it in reality So stop doing it so hide from it.

I prefer to face reality rather Ha ha ha, your a true lunatic, god help you... than hide from it.

Like you, Mike is never able to actually back up his claims with evidence. of course I can, but I will choose the moment and time to do it, proving things to a moron like you will achieve nothing.   He posts evidence that police took DRB/2 and 3 from Ann Eaton on September 11 (though at the time collected they were not referred to as DRB2 and 3) the items eventually labelled DRB/2 and 3, were handed over to the police by Ann Eaton on the 11th September 1985, that's a fact, as is the fact you are a complete and utter nutcase then simply makes up out of thin air that the moderator was collected along with them.  What proof does he have?  None he just made it up.  He ignores that these items were subsequently changed from DB/2 and 3 to DRB/2 and 3. Listen up, pea brain, I ignore nothing, these items which were handed over to police by Annie Eaton in 11 September 1985, were originally marked AE, then altered to CAE exhibits, and subsequently altered into exhibits DRB/2 and DRB/3, so put that in your pipe full of utter garbage and smoke on it  

So he has no evidence I think everybody knows that I do have the evidence to support everything I have ever said, I have over 50, 000'case documents, compared to hardly anything you yourself has got. You can't possibly know everything recorded in each of these documents in my possession. By calling me a liar will not force my hand to post the material in my possession. The cheap tricks you are pulling are pitiful and desperate. that any moderator was collected on September 11 Yes, Annie Eaton did... he simply made it up I have not made up anything, its documented that she did and worse he claims it was given the identifier DRB/1 at the time No, the truth is, this silencer was originally designated the exhibit mark AE\1, later altered to CAE\1, and subsequently changed into DRB\1 though none of the items collected that day were initially labeled DRB. As confirmed by me His lies make no sense I would advise everyone reading anything you post, to replace your words of liar and lies, with truthteller and truth and totally fall apart upon inspection. So, says you, the biggest liar and conman of all

You are the one who decided to cheer on lies and nonsense and then to assert he is winning the debate over these lies and nonsense claims.  When you get burned in the process don't blame me- you made the decision to support such tripe. Keep digging that hole, you will soon be tumbling head first into it, you bumbling baffoon. What a truly pathetic individual you are...

[mike tesko]

In your warped mind only.  Note how not one person here is trying to bolster Mike's lies and nonsense beyond you and you only do so by cheer leading not by actually debating the evidence I raised which proves Mike to be lying and You have proved no such thing, only in your warped imagination wrong.

[scipio_usmc]

Everyone is wrong except for you. It must be great living in your own little imaginary environment. The thing is, everything you say, every trick you pull, everything you alter and make out this person said this and that, everything you do can be reconstructed to prove who the true liar is, that liar is you....

This is a perfect example of you projecting.  You are the one trying to pull tricks and they have all fallen apart upon inspection.

You are the one who:

1) lied and falsely asserted that Cook said he labeled the moderator he sent o the lab on August 13 SJ/1- I posted a snapshot of the portion of his actual COLP statement concerning such and it actually stated he labeled it SBJ/1.  I also posted the Holab form in question proving he was telling the truth in his statement.  I proved you lied about what he wrote in his statement.

2) lied and claimed there was a moderator sent to the lab under number 23 and another one sent a month later under number 22.  The lab never used number 23 for anything it examined they used 22. 
When Cook transported the moderator to the lab he filled out 3 Holab forms.  On one of them he screwed up and wrote 23 instead of 22.  I posted a snapshot of his COLP statement where he admitted he made a clerical error in writing 23 on one of the forms.  Other than this error the forms were identical.  All of them said SBJ/1 sent August 13.  The documents from the person in the lab who examined it on that date used number 22 SBJ/1 she ignored the error or failed to even notice it.  It is bad enough you are trying to use this clerical error to falsely pretend it proves a second moderator was turned in to the lab the same date but you do better and falsely assert it proves another moderator was turned in on a different date than the paper states and with a different police reference than the document states- though it states SBJ/1 on August 13 you falsely claim it says DRB/1 and is from September.

3) You keep lying about the ammunition Nevill purchased and absurdly insisting he didn't by 22LR ammunition for his 22LR gun but rather bought some other variety of ammunition that his gun would not even be able to use.     

4) You made up that Ann Eaton gave police a moderator on September 11 when she handed them the scope and bullets. You have zero evidence to support this you simply made the claim up. 

All of these lies are to pretend that either police shot Sheila or the family killed the victims and tried to frame Jeremy for it. You are the one playing games and those games will only fool people who are biased beyond all reason like lookout or totally ignorant of the facts and evidence in the case.

When I first heard all these allegations I wondered if they could be true and Jeremy was railroaded but after looking at the evidence it became clear this and all the other BS you/the campaign team spout are all based upon made up allegations without any evidence and relying on intentional distortion for support.

the only person humiliated is you, because I don't in the least feel humiliated at all by anything anybody has said about me. Why should I or anyone else feel humiliated by anything somebody like you has said. You are a laughing stock, coming up with all your stories, keep it up because I can prove you wrong every time if I want to. I can if I want to by posting up the documents when I choose, but why should I? It's much better to give you all the rope you need to hang yourself with... in our debates. Ha, ha, ha, your so funny, were you a court jester by any chance in a Former life?

More projecting from you.  The only one posting evidence and documents is me and I keep proving you to be little more than a lying clown.  You don't need to admit it in order for it to be true, the silence from the peanut gallery says volumes.  They know they can't defend your nonsense without also looking like fools but at the same time feel bad for you so don't want to come help me by piling on. 

Saying you have evidence but refuse to release it means you have not supported your claims with any evidence.  If you refuse to post evidence in support then claims are unsupported.  In one breath you say your claims have been, "fully supported" by the evidence you posted and then in the next you say you don't need to post evidence and if you choose to post it you will but have no need to do so.  You can't have it both ways either you have posted evidence or you have not.  Excuses about why you refuse to post evidence are meaningless and simply admissions you lied about fully supporting your allegations with evidence. 

You are the one engaging in deception after deception to try to fool people into believing nonsense.  I simply am posting evidence and known facts which counter such deceptions.  You can try revising history in your mind all you like but it won't revise reality and that is the problem you can't get around.

Ignoring that COLP dispatched all this nonsense and lying to pretend that different things were found during COLP is simply an effort to try to fool us.  Fooling us is quite worthless and it isn't even working.  This nonsense won't be able to fool those who handle pardons, or the CCRC/Court of Appeals has no ability to actually help Jeremy be released.  it is an effort to revise how he is looked at by the public and will be remembered by history.

 

[mike tesko]

What is clear is how you are trying to deceive everyone.  It I am not seeking to deceive anyone, on the contrary, my intention is to inform and expose instances where the evidence is called into question was never known as SJ/1 Yes, it was. The mark was also photographed by Cook on the 29th August 1985, when Cook dismantled the silencer (SJ\1), rebuilt it, and attached it to the barrel of the rifle. The photographs tell their own story, there was definitely a silencer in police possession bearing the mark SJ\1... this is one of your pathetic lies. rethink your comment, pea brain, you are a jester...  You keep lying about Cook's COLP statement indicating it had been known as SJ/1 rethink what you are trying to talk about initially- his statement says he PLANNED to issue it SJ/1 but to my knowledge he said no such thing learned of Jones' middle initial and thus wrote SBJ/1 on the label and Cook later altered the exhibit reference SJ\1 into SBJ\1, once he found out that DS Jones had a middle Christian name of 'Brian'. At the lab' on 13th August 1985, he marked the label SJ\1, and both he and Glynis Howard both signed it, at positions 2 and 3, leaving the position at 1 blank... on the Holab form.

There was no need to indicate at trial that it had originally been labeled SBJ/1 (SJ\1) and was changed to DB/1 and ultimately changed to DRB/1 I disagree. The integrity of the silencer and presence of the key blood group evidence discovered inside silencer, DB\1 (23) depended upon it being made known, since without the detail of the key blood having already been found inside a different silencer (DB\1 - 23) sent to the lab by Essex police on the 30 September 1985, there was no real prospect of the defence being able to discover that the Bamber family owned parker hale silencer (DRB\1) could not have been the crucial silencer (DB\1 - 23) inside the key blood evidence had been found, because that silencer had been sent to the lab' by Essex police on the 30 August 1985, whereas, it had not been until 20th September that the Bamber owned silencer (DRB\1) had been sent along to the lab', to be checked for blood and fibers, which beggars belief, if silencers DB\1 and DRB\1, had in fact been one and the same silencer, since how could police still be in possession of silencer DB\1 after 30th August 1985, to enable DS Eastwood and DS Davidson to fingerprint it on the 13 September 1985, and then still be in the possession of DB\1 by 20 September, to enable Essex police to resubmit that silencer (DB\1) back to the lab' on 20 September, too late to enable Fletcher and Hayward to dismantle it on 12 September 1985 and discover blood inside it, since the silencer (DRB\1) sent to the lab' on 20 September 1985, was sent there with the request for that silencer (DRB\1) to be checked for blood and fibers?  Since, by 20 September the key blood had already been found in the other silencer (DB\1 - 23)... .  It was referred to by the latest reference because that is standard procedure when a change is made no, it isn't exhibit references should never be tampered with, because it automatically lends a very strong suspicion that the integrity of the item is called into question you refer to it by the current reference so as to not confuse anyone Oh, yeah, that sounds very convincing, more like when strokes like that are pulled, if a jury heard about it they would almost certainly add little weight to its significance, if any at all by calling it the prior reference- otherwise you would not even have a reason to change it. Exactly, no reason at all can justify changing or altering an exhibit reference once, let alone twice, or three times

The explanation for the change to DB/1 and then DRB/1 and reasons for the changes are well supported and no, Suspicious, I would say, because it should never happen, its not a good enough reason, to change any exhibit reference, or lab' item number... totally innocent. Your lies are just that lies and worse make no sense.  So, says you, but there is absolutely nothing you have had to say that I can't respond to, and the reason for that is because what I am saying is the truth, as compared to what you say all the time, which is repetitive

Far from having any evidence to support wrongdoing you just have totally unsupported allegations which are refuted by the evidence, not true, everything I have spoken about is supported by the contents contained in official logs, records, statements and photographs make no sense do make sense and you even add lies like that it was originally labeled SJ/1 though every time you use the words, liar, or lies, I substitute it with truthteller, and truth the source you claim states that states no such thing. I choose to accept that it does Your nonsense is just lies truth and wild unsupported proven allegations proved facts false in 1991 by the COLP investigation confirmed by their investigation .

It wasn't referred to by two different numbers you baffoon, of course it was, lab' item 22 and then 23, renumbered 22 on 17 November 1985 .  It was always 22. Hogwash The lab only referred to it as 22 Hogwash, lab' numbered silencers 22 and 23, later altered back to 22 .  The police had to hand write 3 copies of the Holab forms, they didn't use photo copy machines.  Cook screwed up and wrote 23 on 1 of the 3 copies  Ha, ha, ha, what a complete load of bullshit, your brain dead pal, and nuts to boot by accident while some accident, how do you explain there being no blood in the silencer (SJ\1) when he dismantled it on 29 August 1985? the other copies correctly said 22 DRB\1 was neither originally, lab' item number, 22, or 23... .  The forms were identical except on one the numbers jumped from "21" (22) to "23" while the numbers on the others read "21" (23)and then "22".

He admitted in his COLP interview that he made a clerical error: Oh he made an error, alright, a blundering one. One that will eventually come back to haunt him, and the others involved in perverting the course of justice



If 2 moderators had been handed in that day then ALL three copies would have had numbers 22 and 23 listed instead of 22 on two of them and 23 on the third which indicates a clerical error.  So, says you

There was no mention of these things because they didn't happen didn't happen the way you said it would have done - these are all fictional claims

Accurate

you made up uncovered, and established .  You Do not have no evidentiary basis to assert any of these things happened I do . While there is evidence of the changes in the designation from SJ\1 to SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1 and you are deliberately altering the truth evidence of the clerical error made an immense error, that will come back to haunt him and the others by Cook there is no evidence to support any of these wild true allegations.  They are made up from thin air. just like the circumstantial evidence concocted and used to help them to prosecute and convict him as the murderer

There is zero evidence that Jones collected any items into evidence from WHF Yes, there is, Jones was a crooked copper on the day of the murders he went back to whf from Jeremy's cottage, and took possession of  four exhibits, absolutely true and accurate let alone collected a moderator. seized a silencer, not collected one

There is zero evidence that there were any moderators at WHF during or after the murders to be collected into evidence by police yes, there was - the evidence establishes only Nevill's moderator was present. not true

There is zero evidence to establish Boutflour called police on the 10th to indicate he had a moderator and that it was picked up the next day from Ann Eaton yes, there is. Phone messages were recorded regarding David Boutflour contacting Essex police on 10th September informing police that he had found the gun silencer, his sister handed exhibits over to police on the following day the 11th September 1985, as compared against the date, 12August her husband Peter handed over the other silencer to DS Jones .  The evidence establishes the police were notified in August and it was picked up on August 12. you are not reporting the circumstances accurately

The moderator that was fingerprinted is the moderator turned in by the family on August 12 which the lab analyzed on August 13 which resulted in the the lab notifying police on Aug 14 they had found human blood on/in the moderator and paint on the knurled tip. This is what evidence proves happened. no, it does not. All it proves is that this blood on that silencer (SJ\1) was not the Bamber family owned silencer, it was a different silencer belonging to one of the relatives

You have ZERO evidence to support your allegations Don't count on it .  You take things made up, admit made up by who? there is no evidence to support your allegations yes, there is by admitting there is no mention anywhere of these things you made up happening then ridiculously say you proved they happened.  You reside in bozo land. How long have you yourself lived there?   

DB/1 and DRB/1 are the same moderator. no, they are not There wasn't any moderator under lab item number 23 so says you .  The lab never even noticed 1 of the forms said 23 yes, they did they used 22 for the moderator and 23, then they reverted it back to 22 .  David Bird was taking photos not collecting evidence that was not what I ever said had been the case, it was Jeremy who once believed that the exhibit reference DB\1 referred to an exhibit found by PC Bird he had no ability to take any physical items into evidence. I never truly believed PC Bird took possession of one of the silencers

You keep ignoring that the SOLE Holab form which called the moderator 23 was a carbon copy of the other Holab forms EXCEPT no, it wasn't had a 23 next to the moderator instead of 22. no it didn't, the number 22 on the top copyholabny holab form, could not possibly manifest itself as number 23 on either the 1st copy, or the second one, what a load of hogwash you are seeking to promote... Other items were sent to the lab with the moderator and these "other items" were the same on all three of the Holab forms. it gets worse, now not only had the police altered exhibit references, and lab item numbers, but now police have also been tampering with holab forms, my god   ALL 3 forms were dated August 13. So, somebody deliberately altered one of the copies if the holab forms. You wouldn't happen to know which of the two copies were interferred with, was it the first copy or the second?  So if they were 2 different moderators they would have been handed in together August 13. but they weren't, one was handed to police on 12 August 1985, by Peter Eaton, the other handed to police by Annie Eaton on the 11th September Further all 3 say SBJ/1 as the exhibit reference further demonstrating it was just a clerical error. the exhibit reference first given to the silencer in Cooks possession was earmarked SJ\1, not SBJ\1...

The forms doesn't permit asserting they were different but even if one ignores reality and asserts 2 were handed in that still means they had to be handed in on the 13th No, it does not, two were taken from the scene by relatives on 10 August but only one of these was handed to police by Peter Eaton on 12 the August 1985, the other was handed back to Jeremy after he complained to police that his relatives were stealing possessions from whf. .   You have no Holab forms listing an item 23 handed in to the lab in September.  The only Holab form that says 23 on it is dated August 13 and is one of the 3 copies of this:




The only line different in the third copy is the one related to the moderator:

21    ND/11      "--------"           carpet in upstairs front bedroom

23    SBJ/1         Silencer           gun cupboard

The other 2 are what I posted and read:

21    ND/11      "--------"           carpet in upstairs front bedroom

22    SBJ/1         Silencer           gun cupboard

Quite clearly nothing labeled DB/1 was submitted to the lab on Aug 13 for testing.  SBJ/1 was submitted and on one form Cook screwed up and accidentally wrote 23 instead of 22 but the lab ignored the error and solely referred to it in their records as 22.

You stupidly you are the stupid one, not me assert that item 23 was the lab designation for the moderator handed to them on Aug 13, though no, pea brain, that is not what I assert, so that's something else you are wrong about. The silencer taken to the lab' by Cook on 13 August 1985, (SJ\1)  was originally lab' item no. 22 they write 22 all over their records, that it was know as DB/1 no, that is not true at the time though all their records say SBJ/1 wrong, again. They wouldn't label something wrongly, if they knew it to be something else and that in early September a different moderator known as DRB/1 was submitted and given lab reference number 22 even though it would have to have a reference number LATER than 23 if the one received in August had been labeled 23 and even though you have zilch to establish the police or lab ever called anything DRB/1 in September no, you are wrong again, it was not necessary to do that in the way you mention. What happened was that in late August another parker hale silencer belonging to one of the relatives was handed to police. This is the silencer which ended up having the exhibit reference DB\1, lab' item number 23. At this stage, late August 1985, the situation was that police still had silencer SJ\1 (22) in their possession, whilst the second silencer belonging to one of the relatives (DB\1 -23) was sent along to the lab' on 30th August 1985. This enabled Cook to dismantle silencer SJ\1 (22) on 29th August, rebuilt and screwed onto the barrel of the rifle..  The first references to DRB/1 on documents is on documents created in November. yes, the silencer which later became DRB\1 was not originally given that exhibit reference of DRB\1 on the day it was handed over to police by Ann Eaton in 11 September 1985, it was originally known as AE\1, then altered to CAE\1, until it was subsequently changed into DRB\1. It was after this that steps were taken to merge all these different silencers together as the same one. Fletcher altered all the lab controlled documents, whilst PI Miller performed the same duties involving police records and witness statements, where they got rid of all references to silencer SJ\1, thereafter proceeding on the basis that silencer SBJ\1 was the first silencer handed to police? by Peter Eaton on the 12 August 1985. They attempted to imply that the silencer (DB\1 - 23) had been the silencer handed to police by Ann Eaton on 11 September, thereby being capable if being the silencer (DB\1 - 23) inside which was the one inside which was found the key blood evidence. But, it started to become something of a ougs ear trying to match up all of these different silencers as being one and the same. It was hard enough trying to fabricate a time line in which all these different silencers had to be merged into the same silencer, but altering all the records only appeared to make matters worse. There were three different occasions when a silencer had been sent to the lab durunfg this investigation, 13 August, 30 August, and 20September - this was where those involved in the conspiracy and a basic error...

Your claims are pathetic- you are taking a document dated August 13 that refers to the moderator as SBJ/1 and contains a clerical error referring to it as item 23 and suggesting this proves the previous lab number- number 22- was DB/1 handed in September 11.  This is not supportable at all it is nonsensical.

By August 30 they had already expended numbers 1-72.  DRH/36 was lab reference 72. Items taken in September would have a lab reference higher than this.  Indeed you allege DRB/1 was taken the same time they took DRB/2 and DRB/3 from Ann Eaton.  DRB/2 and 3 were items 108 and 109. 

Your babble makes no sense at all and just is made up nonsense that totally ignores the evidence.  Your claims are totally pathetic.       


What I realize is that you are lying and making up total nonsense.  I realize you have ZERO evidence of any moderator being collected from Ann Eaton on August 11, you make an unsupported claim that this happened.  You have zero testimonial evidence form anyone that this happened, zero documentary evidence that this happened- you have zero evidence period it happened you simply made it up from thin air. You take this unsupported claim and then make up more nonsense about how it had blood on it not the actual moderator turned over a month prior which is the only actual moderator.  Your babble totally unravels upon looking at how stupid your claims are and how they are totally made up and not supported by any evidence.  You seem to think a vivid imagination can substitute for logic and solid evidence- it cannot.

Only 1 moderator was at WHF and it was collected August 12 and sent to the lab on August 13.   SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 were all the same moderator.  Nevill's moderator is the only one that was inspected in 1985 by the lab and only one that had been at WHF.   You are stupidly suggesting police left Nevill's moderator but collected another moderator.  Why would they do they?  How could they do that when there was only a single moderator there?  What evidence do you have of this?  None!  The babble you make up is totally unsupported and makes no sense.

My idea of support means testimony and documents that establish the allegations you claim.  You have neither.  You just make up any crap you feel like the same way to ignored what Cook actually wrote in his COLP statement and lied saying he wrote tha the stuck a label marked SJ/1 on the moderator though he stated as plain as day he marked it SBJ/1.  You ignore reality and just pretend things say whatever you feel like.  That is quite pointless, renders you a lying joke simply. 


The moderator went back and forth between the lab it wasn't there continuously so you lie right off the bat.  You further lie by claiming there are original Holab documents from September 1985 asserting DRB/1 was conveyed to the lab.  The documents from September say SBJ/1 until the end of the month when they received notice that SBJ/1 was changed to DB/1.  None use DRB/1. Your lies are all a total waste of time.  You can't support your lies with any evidence because you made them up.  Note how I keep posting actual evidence while you don't just your barebones absurd allegations. 

here is no evidence to support any of this nonsense, your claims are just nonsense you made up to try to suggest the family killed the victims and framed Jeremy.  The family should sue you for libel they would win though I doubt you have much for them to collect the judgment from.

[scipio_usmc]

I am not seeking to deceive anyone, on the contrary, my intention is to inform and expose instances where the evidence is called into question

You do indeed attempt to deceive.  Instead of posting the COLP report so the findings could be seen, instead of posting the portions of the Dickinson report that address these issues and instead of honestly
characterizing the evidence including document on this website you keep lying and distorting what they state be it your false claim Cook stated he labeled the SJ/1 or you false claim that the ammunition Nevill purchased to use in his 22LR chambered weapon was something other than 22LR ammunition to your false claim Ann Eaton handed over Nevill's moderator on September 11.

You don't have any valid basis to make these claims or any valid basis to call the evidence into question so you lie in order to call it into question because you have an agenda and that agenda is not to find the the truth but rather to insist Jeremy is innocent no matter what the evidence actually demonstrates.

"The moderator was never known as SJ/1 this is one of your pathetic lies."

Yes, it was. The mark was also photographed by Cook on the 29th August 1985, when Cook dismantled the silencer (SJ\1), rebuilt it, and attached it to the barrel of the rifle. The photographs tell their own story, there was definitely a silencer in police possession bearing the mark SJ\1 rethink your comment, pea brain, you are a jester...

You lied about Cook stating it was SJ/1 he said he put a label marked SBJ/1 and wrote such on the Holab forms.  You claim there is a photo showing it has a label marked SJ/1 is a lie and that is why you can't produce the photo it is as made up as the lie you saw a photo of Sheila in bed.  If you actually had such photos you would produce them.  You don't they are fictional. Nor can you produce any evidence from COLP that they found such photos.  COLP rejects the claim it was ever known as SJ/1 COLP determined a single moderator was known as SBJ/1 then changed to DB/1 and ultimately changed to DRB/1. You have zilch to contradict their findings- no documents conveyed to the lab referring to it as SJ/1, no testimony from anyone that it had been SJ/1 you simply made the claim up from thin air.  To support this made up claim you allege you have a photo showing it was marked SJ/1.  Then you tell us you are not trying to deceive and I had better rethink my position, there is nothing to rethink, you clearly are a liar.

"You keep lying about Cook's COLP statement indicating it had been known as SJ/1 initially- his statement says he PLANNED to issue it SJ/1 but learned of Jones' middle initial and thus wrote SBJ/1 on the label and and thus wrote SBJ/1 on the label on the Holab form."

rethink what you are trying to talk about to my knowledge he said no such thing Cook later altered the exhibit reference SJ\1 into SBJ\1, once he found out that DS Jones had a middle Christian name of 'Brian'. At the lab' on 13th August 1975, he marked the label SJ\1, and both he and Glynis Howard both signed it, at positions 2 and 3, leaving the position at 1 blank...

I have no reason to rethink what I wrote.  I posted the parts of Cook's statement proving he stated he he marked it SBJ/1 and the Holab form proving it was marked SBJ/1.   I proved your lies false and no matter how many time you repeat them they will still remain lies that you can't prove and that in fact have been proven lies by virtue of the evidence I posted.  I his statement he didn't say anything about changing it so SBJ/1 on some later date.  He said he wrote in his pocketbook he was planning to label it SJ/1 but learned of Jones full initials and thus wrote SBJ/1 on the label and Holab forms.




What does the above say?  It says Cook realizes he must have asked Stan Jones for his full initials because Cook labeled it SBJ/1 and wrote SBJ/1 on the Holab forms.

"There was no need to indicate at trial that it had originally been labeled SBJ/1 and was changed to DB/1 and ultimately changed to DRB/1"

I disagree. The integrity of the silencer and presence of the key blood group evidence discovered inside silencer, DB\1 (23) depended upon it being made known, since without the detail of the key blood having already been found inside a different silencer (DB\1 - 23) sent to the lab by Essex police on the 30 September 1985, there was no real prospect of the defence being able to discover that the Bamber family owned parker hale silencer (DRB\1) could not have been the crucial silencer (DB\1 - 23) inside the key blood evidence had been found, because that silencer had been sent to the lab' by Essex police on the 30 August 1985, whereas, it had not been until 20th September that the Bamber owned silencer (DRB\1) had been sent along to the lab', to be checked for blood and fibers, which beggars belief, if silencers DB\1 and DRB\1, had in fact been one and the same silencer, since how could police still be in possession of silencer DB\1 after 30th August 1985, to enable DS Eastwood and DS Davidson to fingerprint it on the 13 September 1985, and then still be in the possession of DB\1 by 20 September, to enable Essex police to resubmit that silencer (DB\1) back to the lab' on 20 September, too late to enable Fletcher and Hayward to dismantle it on 12 September 1985 and discover blood inside it, since the silencer (DRB\1) sent to the lab' on 20 September 1985, was sent there with the request for that silencer (DRB\1) to be checked for blood and fibers?  Since, by 20 September the key blood had already been found in the other silencer (DB\1 - 23)...

To bad for you that you don't like that the change wasn't discussed at trial.  You are busy lying about it originally being SJ/1 and falsely asserting it wasn't Nevill's moderator.  You have zero evidence to establish it wasn't Nevill's moderator.  You have no evidence to prove your allegations that police took Nevill's moderator on the day of the murders and that the family turned over a moderator that they owned which they doctored and lied about finding it at WHF.  Since you have zero evidence you could not argue such to the jury.  That is why there is no basis upon which to vacate the conviction and order anew trial which such allegations.  This is all crap made up simply which was thoroughly rejected by COLP after a thorough investigation that found the moderator's designation was changed from SBJ/1 to DB/1 to DRB/1 for legitimate reasons.

[mike tesko]

I am currently in Spain meeting up with former officer 'Z' and Cyclops members...

[mike tesko]

I am currently in Spain meeting up with former officer 'Z' and Cyclops members...

Latest update - 'Z' is telling us, that none of the original 25 rounds had a double set of magazine marks upon the spent cartridge cases. He is telling us that the original 25 cartridges only had a full  single set of magazine marks upon them. Until the first test fire , at which time 5 rounds were used from the batch of 350 Eley bullets, handed to police by Ann Eaton, on 11 September 1985...

[mike tesko]

Cyclops members confirming information received via database via internet link up. Confirming that relatives seized 350 rounds of Eley ammunition from gun cupboard at scene on 10 August 1985, retained by relatives kept until 11 September,  at which point they handed all 350 rounds over to police. ..

'Z' - He  is explaining at which stage, 5 rounds have been test fired via the anshuzt rifle, and why...

[mike tesko]

'Z' stating that shortly after change of direction in the investigation, only 345 eley rounds, 5 short because they were used to undermine Jeremys account about loading the gun and unloading it...