A paradox - with rifle at bedroom window, one bullet case too many linked to She

[David1819]

It's wrong. Many erroneously think that .223 Remington and 5.56mm NATO are the same and that the latter is the metric designation simply. This is wrong 5.56mm is slightly larger and not all weapons chambered for .223 can handle 5.56mm rounds. The British police used 5.56mm ammunition not .223 Remington though in theory they could have fired .223 Remington if they wanted to.  They used military ammo though and their weapons were military versions of the Mini-14, they could fire full auto.   Note that some UK units also used the Mini-30 which was the same weapon essentially but chambered in 7.62mm.  Various 5.56mm weapons replaced the Mini-14s.

The FN Browning Hi Power was indeed the initial 9mm pistol issued but they were soon replaced by Glocks and in some areas the Ruger 85. Glocks are still the primary pistol today.   

Read in full here. I doubt it will make any difference to mikes theory thou

http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/history-from-police-archives/RB1/Pt4/pt4FirearmsSupTeam.html

I doubt this organisation will get it wrong. Its part of the UK Government (in many respects)

[David1819]

Read in full here. I doubt it will make any difference to mikes theory thou

http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/history-from-police-archives/RB1/Pt4/pt4FirearmsSupTeam.html

I doubt this organisation will get it wrong. Its part of the UK Government (in many respects)

Mind you it does mention 'Dave Cook' as a firearms inspector from 1981 for surrey police which is very close to Essex. Its probable that is the David Cook involved in this case maybe?

[scipio_usmc]

Read in full here. I doubt it will make any difference to mikes theory thou

http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/history-from-police-archives/RB1/Pt4/pt4FirearmsSupTeam.html

I doubt this organisation will get it wrong. Its part of the UK Government (in many respects)

That is talking about Surrey. Essex had much of the same equipment though at some point.  It is incorrect though about the caliber. It is a common misconception that .223 and 5.56mm are names for the identical cartridge.  This is wrong though.  Even specialized weapons sites will say .223/5.56m for ammunition and this is not correct. The same issue exists with 7.62m NATO and .308 Winchester.  Though distinct rounds that are close in size they are typically referred to as .308/7.62mm.

While the 5.56mm NATO is the more powerful round of the smaller 2, the 7.62mm NATO round is the less powerful one out of the larger 2.  That being the case civilian weapons chambered in .308 have no issues with 7.62mm NATO while some weapons chambered in .223 can have problems with using 5.56mm rounds. All Mini-14s could fire .223 rounds since they are weaker than 5.56mm.  The problem is some 223 weapons can't handle the higher pressure of 5.56mm rounds.   

I mention this for accuracy not because it has any bearing on Mike's claims. 55 grain .223 rounds even if fired by the Mini-14 are jacketed and fly at a very high rate of speed. There is no way in hell either bullet removed from Sheila was .223 or 5.56mm. 

I don't understand Mike at all because his claims are not able to be used by the lawyers and seem to be just meant to fool us. I don't know what he thinks he has to gain in trying to fool us except garnering attention and he could garner attention in various other ways that don't insult our intelligence or diminish his credibility.

 






 

 

[David1819]

I don't understand Mike at all because his claims are not able to be used by the lawyers and seem to be just meant to fool us. I don't know what he thinks he has to gain in trying to fool us except garnering attention and he could garner attention in various other ways that don't insult our intelligence or diminish his credibility.
 

Yes mike is making theories against the police that are not plausible and have no motive. The armed police have a licence to kill and Shelia being mentally ill and shooting dead four people gives them every legal means to open fire on her and to protect themselves therefore the police have no motive or reason to cover anything up if they did shoot her because there would be no repercussions on them.

The police would say - this mad women who just shot four people came into close proximity to us with a firearm therefore we had to neutralise her. The idea that the police felt they accidently killed her so decided to frame her brother outside is not feasible.

If mike wants to prove a conspiracy the best way is to see how the police handled the sound moderator.

[Adam]

Jeremy spent several hours insinuating Sheila.

Neville, June and the twins were dead.

If the police did shoot an alive Sheila, she was holding the rifle. As she was found with it.

Why an earth would the police try to hide the fact they shot her. And blame Jeremy ?

[susan]

Jeremy spent several hours insinuating Sheila.

Neville, June and the twins were dead.

If the police did shoot an alive Sheila, she was holding the rifle. As she was found with it.

Why an earth would the police try to hide the fact they shot her. And blame Jeremy ?

Adam do you really believe the police shot Sheila?

[mike tesko]

With WPC Julia Jeapes covering the corner of white / red side, she would not have had a clear view of the box room window, as I have been maintaining for such a long time. Before gob almighty interupts, I would just like to say, that Jeapes could not be covering white / red side of the farmhouse if she was standing on white side...

[mike tesko]

I have repeatedly noted that DRH/5 is the bullet which grazed Nevill and was found in the master bedroom.

Nevill
1) PV/8 front of right ear/exit left ear but still in the body
2) PV/9 slightly above wound 1
3) PV/3 top of skull
4) PV/4 top of skull
5) PV/10 (lip)         
6) PV/11 (jaw)
7)PV/2  (Shoulder)
8)DRH/5 (Arm/chest Graze wound)

Wounds 1-4 were received in the kitchen, wounds 5-8 in the master bedroom. DRH/5 was recovered in the master bedroom.

Where was bullet DRH/5 recovered from in the main bedroom?

[mike tesko]

Where was bullet DRH/5 recovered from in the main bedroom?

I ask because it (DRH/5) has been reportedly recovered from two different locations inside the same main bedroom, Now - how can the loose bullet DRH/5 have been found in two different locations if the police did not tamper with the bullets at the scene?

[mike tesko]

I ask because it (DRH/5) has been reportedly recovered from two different locations inside the same main bedroom, Now - how can the loose bullet DRH/5 have been found in two different locations if the police did not tamper with the bullets at the scene?

So, now we know that police are responsible for moving the alleged find of loose bullet DRH/5 from a location near the bedroom door, onto the bed, and elsewhere they claimed it was found near to the dressing table - lets get the facts right, loose bullet DRH/5 is a dodgy piece of evidence by anyones standards, do you not agree?

[mike tesko]

So, now we know that police are responsible for moving the alleged find of loose bullet DRH/5 from a location near the bedroom door, onto the bed, and elsewhere they claimed it was found near to the dressing table - lets get the facts right, loose bullet DRH/5 is a dodgy piece of evidence by anyones standards, do you not agree?

I suppose the opposition will now be saying bullet DRH/5 fragmented, upon entering / exiting the arm, grazing the chest, one piece ending up on the bed, another piece by the bedroom door, and another piece near to the dressing table...

[mike tesko]

We now know that at least one loose bullet DRH/5 linked to the bedroom ammunition is dodgy unreliable evidence, because it cannot have been found in three different locations inside the main bedroom, with another piece of the same bullet lodged inside Ralphs body - my god, what sort of a bullet was that bullet? Then of course, how many of the cartridge cases recovered from the bedroom scene related to that same bullet, Three cartridge cases, or as many as four?

[scipio_usmc]

So, now we know that police are responsible for moving the alleged find of loose bullet DRH/5 from a location near the bedroom door, onto the bed, and elsewhere they claimed it was found near to the dressing table - lets get the facts right, loose bullet DRH/5 is a dodgy piece of evidence by anyones standards, do you not agree?

One photo has a flag that says DRH/5 the other photo says DRH/8 and DRH/9 on the flags. Your claim falls apart just looking at your own evidence.

As for Jeapes, it is clear as day that she wasn't at the red/white containment location she was at the white containment location.  You tell us to ignore the fact she said she saw the kitchen door, ignore the fact she said she saw the kitchen window, ignore she said she watched the raid team enter, ignore that the people she replaced had been stationed at the white containment location, ignore... and to pretend that she was looking at the front door all so you can pretend that one of 3 windows that have gray brick around them in the front is the window she saw something in that looked like that looked like it could have been a gun barrel leaning against the window.  It's a wasted effort. Your games have failed you for a long time why do you continue with them?

 

[mike tesko]

So, dodgy bullet DRH/5 casts a huge shadow over the position and location of not only itself, but with at least one cartridge case, or perhaps as many as four cartridge cases having been found in the bedroom at all, depending upon where the police wanted bullet DRH/5 to be officially found?

Do you not agree that this photographic evidence taken by PC Bird at the scene, casts a huge doubt over the claim that it (DRH/5) was found inside the bedroom at all...

[scipio_usmc]

So, dodgy bullet DRH/5 casts a huge shadow over the position and location of not only itself, but with at least one cartridge case, or perhaps as many as four cartridge cases having been found in the bedroom at all, depending upon where the police wanted bullet DRH/5 to be officially found?

Do you not agree that this photographic evidence taken by PC Bird at the scene, casts a huge doubt over the claim that it (DRH/5) was found inside the bedroom at all...

One photo has a flag pointing near where DRH/5 was supposedly found, I can't see it in the photo there looks to be something on the floor in the way.  The pother on the bed points to DRH/8 and DRH/9.  How is this supposed to cast doubt on DRH/5 being found in the master bedroom?  You are even less logical than usual.