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

[mike tesko]

These are just your opinions, not evidence...

I know that five double marked rounds were inserted into the guns ammunition magazine, before Jeremy loaded the magazine to full capacity with another 5 single marked cartridges...

Having now rechecked the data contained in the Lab' General Examination Records, I can report that there were 5 double magazine marked cartridge cases, DRH/ 10, 19, 38, 39, and 43 found in the main bedroom (DRH/10 and DRH/43), found in the children's bedroom (DRH/38 and DRH/39), and the kitchen (DRH/19)...

Additionally, another cartridge case found in the main bedroom (DRH/11), was found to have got 1 set of firing pin marks, extractor mechanism marks, ejection port marks, and a solitary set of magazine marks. In addition Fletcher noted that it had got an additional set of loading marks. I had not paid attention to this detail before because I was concentrating on only the double magazine marks on the 5 cartridge cases I have spoken about. This 6th additionally marked cartridge case (DRH/11) was found in the main bedroom, which means that I may have to revise my argument slightly, to put paid to the plebs own arguments...


Data relating to the 25 cartridge cases:-

[mike tesko]

Lets look at the General Examination Records for these six cartridge cases...

DRH/10

1 set of firing pin marks, extractor marks, ejection marks magazine marks + chamber marks along case...

[mike tesko]

DRH/11

1 set of firing pin marks, extractor marks, ejection marks, magazine marks, + loading marks

[mike tesko]

DRH/19

1 set of firing pin marks, extractor marks, ejector marks + 2 magazine marks

[mike tesko]

DRH/38

1 set of firing pin marks, extractor marks, ejector marks + 2 magazine marks

[mike tesko]

DRH/39

1 set of firing pin marks, extractor marks, ejector marks + 2 magazine marks
1 set of firing pin marks, extractor marks, ejector marks, and magazine marks

[mike tesko]

DRH/43

1 set of firing pin marks, extractor marks, ejector marks + 2 magazine marks

[mike tesko]

All the other 19 cartridge cases only have 1 set of firing pin marks, extractor marks, ejection marks and magazine marks...

[scipio_usmc]

Yes, I agree that your talking nonsense, good of you to admit it...

Consider the following scenario:-

The original unedited version of Jeremy Bambers witness statements were hand written, and each page signed by Jeremy Banner _ now, please stop acting dumb, show us all where Jeremy's signature appears alongside the extracts you have posted?

When you realise the truth, perhaps you might learn to keep your big gob shut...

Jeremy testified to the same thing in the statement which you posted. If Jeremy told you it had been doctored you would not have posted it using it for the support you did at the time.   you are just digging your already insurmountable hole deeper.

[scipio_usmc]

Having now rechecked the data contained in the Lab' General Examination Records, I can report that there were 5 double magazine marked cartridge cases, DRH/ 10, 19, 38, 39, and 43 found in the main bedroom (DRH/10 and DRH/43), found in the children's bedroom (DRH/38 and DRH/39), and the kitchen (DRH/19)...

Additionally, another cartridge case found in the main bedroom (DRH/11), was found to have got 1 set of firing pin marks, extractor mechanism marks, ejection port marks, and a solitary set of magazine marks. In addition Fletcher noted that it had got an additional set of loading marks. I had not paid attention to this detail before because I was concentrating on only the double magazine marks on the 5 cartridge cases I have spoken about. This 6th additionally marked cartridge case (DRH/11) was found in the main bedroom, which means that I may have to revise my argument slightly, to put paid to the plebs own arguments...

This is a perfect example of how you lie after the facts are shown to be against you.  You make up an additional case having double loading marks though the very document you provide below says no such thing.  DRH/11 had marks establishing it was loaded one time.  Then you wonder why Hartley says what he does to you....

[mike tesko]

Jeremy testified to the same thing in the statement which you posted. If Jeremy told you it had been doctored you would not have posted it using it for the support you did at the time.   you are just digging your already insurmountable hole deeper.

Yes, Jeremy did tell me that Jones and Jones spoke to him on the 9th August 1985 about those additional 5 rounds, whether you accept he did or had, or not. At the same time, Jones and Jones spoke to Jeremy about the sound moderator as well, even though the relatives didn't officially find it until the following day. I have posted much material on the site at various stages with the view of trying to promote debate, and later I have posted other material which contradicts the content of the earlier materials. This is a forum where people are encouraged to air their views, so there is nothing sinister about different versions of similar evidence being posted up from time to time. After all, all these different documents were part of the prosecutions file against Jeremy Banner. Where two or more such documents exist in that file, then there is nothing wrong with calling one version so and so's statement, if such has a persons name upon it, or certain derail contained within it, in the knowledge that the document in question is not the original hand written example. So, you bleat on as much as you like regarding this phenomena, all you are doing is reinforcing the fact that some documents from the case file have been typed out differently to the original, with the view of generating confusion. The other point is that the other double marked cartridge case, DRH/11, had an additional set of Loading marks upon it, which in point of fact, was an additional set of marks to the other 19 cartridge cases also examined by Fletcher, so the proof of the pudding is in its eating, and clearly this cartridge case was marked differently to most of the others. Also, there is nothing at all wring with anybody changing their mind about anything in this matter, particularly if some new information, or a different document suddenly is made available on the forum - it is a healthy trait to see people altering their views from time to time, because it demonstrates that when and if you withhold information from a jury, or if that information is presented one way or another, it can effect a juries verdict. So, thank you very much for continuing to remind us all of my own changing views from time to time. The problem with the gist of your criticism is that you take something out of context and try and pretend that it was said at the same time as something else that was said in the same cintext or reference point, as though what has been said or posted on separate occasions, was said or posted in the same breath. That's where you let yourself down. People say things at times which is true at the time they might have said it, based upon the evidence presented to them at a particular time, and they may say something different about the same matter on a different occasion because more information has been made available. You call it lying, but it is not lying in the sense of anyone always trying to deceive others, it is simply a case of someone holding a different view about something than they previously had because more information has come to light regarding the matter in question. When someone changes their view about something it us not dishonest but rather on many occasions a natural and honest reaction or approach...

[scipio_usmc]

Yes, Jeremy did tell me that Jones and Jones spoke to him on the 9th August 1985 about those additional 5 rounds, whether you accept he did or had, or not. At the same time, Jones and Jones spoke to Jeremy about the sound moderator as well, even though the relatives didn't officially find it until the following day. I have posted much material on the site at various stages with the view of trying to promote debate, and later I have posted other material which contradicts the content of the earlier materials. This is a forum where people are encouraged to air their views, so there is nothing sinister about different versions of similar evidence being posted up from time to time. After all, all these different documents were part of the prosecutions file against Jeremy Banner. Where two or more such documents exist in that file, then there is nothing wrong with calling one version so and so's statement, if such has a persons name upon it, or certain derail contained within it, in the knowledge that the document in question is not the original hand written example. So, you bleat on as much as you like regarding this phenomena, all you are doing is reinforcing the fact that some documents from the case file have been typed out differently to the original, with the view of generating confusion. The other point is that the other double marked cartridge case, DRH/11, had an additional set of Loading marks upon it, which in point of fact, was an additional set of marks to the other 19 cartridge cases also examined by Fletcher, so the proof of the pudding is in its eating, and clearly this cartridge case was marked differently to most of the others. Also, there is nothing at all wring with anybody changing their mind about anything in this matter, particularly if some new information, or a different document suddenly is made available on the forum - it is a healthy trait to see people altering their views from time to time, because it demonstrates that when and if you withhold information from a jury, or if that information is presented one way or another, it can effect a juries verdict. So, thank you very much for continuing to remind us all of my own changing views from time to time. The problem with the gist of your criticism is that you take something out of context and try and pretend that it was said at the same time as something else that was said in the same cintext or reference point, as though what has been said or posted on separate occasions, was said or posted in the same breath. That's where you let yourself down. People say things at times which is true at the time they might have said it, based upon the evidence presented to them at a particular time, and they may say something different about the same matter on a different occasion because more information has been made available. You call it lying, but it is not lying in the sense of anyone always trying to deceive others, it is simply a case of someone holding a different view about something than they previously had because more information has come to light regarding the matter in question. When someone changes their view about something it us not dishonest but rather on many occasions a natural and honest reaction or approach...

BY the time of Jeremy's interrogation he could not even recall when he met Jones and Jones or what they discussed, he said he remembered meeting them at some point and that it is.  So either he lied to you about recalling it suddenly many years later or you are lying to us and since you lie so often there is simply no reason to trust anything you say unless you document it.

The claim they spoke to him about the moderator is from you alone and not credible.  Nor is it credible that he told you the typed statement was doctored.  You are the one who posted it saying it was accurate.  Now that something in it refutes your claims you say it was doctored even though at trial he said the same thing.

Your claim Jeremy explained away the 5 extra rounds is a lie.  He never offered any explanation let alone one that that satisfied police. Early on they simply ignored it and all the other problems including Jeremy's various lies.

You just lied to us by claiming 6 of the fired casings had double loading marks to pretend that 5 were loaded in the gun consecutively and one was caused by Jeremy unloading it from the chamber and reloading it into the gun.  There were only 5 double marked casings so not enough for 5 to have been loaded already.  Furthermore, locations of the casings proves they were not loaded consecutively and the entire premise makes no sense because had bullets been loaded into the magazine and left there they would have marks showing they were loaded only once.

The TRUTH is that Jeremy could not come up with a lie to tell police about where the extra 5 rounds came from nor did he think up one at trial the defense effectively argued that Sheila used about 20 rounds form the supply Jeremy took out and she got at least 5 rounds from the closet for some unknown reason instead of continuing to use the kitchen supply. That's the best they could come up with.

He didn't change his claims and testify the magazine was loaded already when he found the gun. Since this was unconvincing he might now change his story and say it had 5 bullet sin it but such changed testimony after his conviction would not be credible at all it would be a naked attempt to lie because his previously proffered excuse failed.  His whole tale about taking the bullets out and going to the kitchen to load it falls apart if the gun had already been loaded when it was found so it doesn't offer much help anyway. If he had been at such a rush as he claims then upon finding it loaded he simply would have rushed outside with it.  So the bullets would not have been there at all and this would still establish they were staged.  This explains why he formally didn't change his claim at trial.  Changing a claim is never good because the other side will point it out and say were you lying then or are you lying now but are not going to suffer that for a changed claim is no better and still suggests the bullets were staged.

At best he will change it in private with people with a pre-disposition towards him who he thinks will be too biased or foolish to question why he would get out the box of ammo and load it in the kitchen if the gun already was loaded and he was in the rush he claimed.  Of course he might not have lied and assert such to anyone- you might have come up with this yourself.  Who came up with it makes no difference since it is such an obvious lie that he didn't even assert it at trial.

[mike tesko]

BY the time of Jeremy's interrogation he could not even recall when he met Jones and Jones or what they discussed, he said he remembered meeting them at some point I di not physically meet Jeremy until 1989, at HMP Full Sutton, so I can't say that he told me anything about his case until then, or afterwards. But at some point, I did get to question him about everything relating to his case. He did tell me that Jones and Jones came to see him and the reason for that was two fold. At least, that is my recollection now. One of the reasons for the visit of Jones and Jones to Jeremys cottage at Head Street on the 9th August 1985, was to speak to him about bullets which the police said did not match up with the number of bullets remaining on the kitchen worktop from a box of 50 rounds, and the police told Jeremy that only 20 bullets were missing from that box of ammunition, and that 25 shots had been fired. They asked him if he had any explanation to account for the prior whereabouts of five bullets which could not have originated from that box of 50 rounds, because there were already still 30 rounds in existence. Jeremy told me that he told Jones and Jones on that occasion, that there had been some bullets already in the magazine of the rifle at the time he filled it up, but that he had not realised or expected there to have been any rounds in the magazine of the rifle when he first collected it from the gun cupboard on the evening prior to the day of the shootings. Jones and Jones also spoke to Jeremy on that very same occasion, about the silencer to the rifle? They asked Jeremy whether or not the silencer was fitted to the barrel of the gun on the occasion he had taken possession of the rifle from inside the gun cupboard in the downstairs office? Jeremy told me that he told Jones and Jones that there had not been a silencer fitted to the barrel of the gun when he took possession of it, as per the rabbit scenario of the evening of 6th August 1985. I believe they also asked Jeremy questions about whether or not the guns telescopic site was fitted to the rifle on that occasion? These facts are also recorded in DS 'Stan' Jones COLP interview notes, which did not yet exist by the time Jeremy related this information to me. The fact of the matter is that Jones and Jones did visit Jeremy on the 9th August 1985, and upon leaving, they were satisfied with Jeremy's explanation regarding the fact that the rifles magazine must have had 5 bullets in it, before Jeremy had got the new box and loaded the magazine with fresh rounds. It was as a result of what Jeremy told me, that he had told them, that I suspected the police knew that a second rifle may have been used in the shootings, and that these five additional rounds may have in fact fired from, or be connected to that second weapon. Through further interrogation of Jeremy, I found out that there were several different types of weapon kept at the farmhouse, including shotguns, .22 rifles, and a  (BSA)air rifle. I found out that Jeremy had provided a list of the guns inside the farmhouse at the time of the seige, which Jeremy provided to the police. I became very interested in the existence of a second .22 (Bruno) bolt action rifle, that belonged to one of the relatives (Anthony Pargeter) which I was told was normally always kept in the downstairs toilet at the farmhouse, along with some shotguns and ammunition that was also owned by AP. I suspected in those early stages, that these or those 5 additional bullets which Jones and Jones spoke to Jeremy about on the 9th August, could have been fired via that particular rifle during the incident. I came to this conclusion at such an early stage of having got to know Jeremy, because he informed me that Anthony Pargeter had got two ammunition magazines for his .22 bolt action rifle, one which was 10 shot, the other a five shot. The other startling fact which struck me at the time, was that Jeremy had in his possession at that early stage a small pile of case documents which included a witness statement in the name of Anthony Pargeter, in which AP stated that he had purchased this .22 Bruno bolt action rifle back in 1980, and had always kept it in storage at whf ever since. He went on to say that although he always kept his bolt action rifle at the scene, he said that he took out the bolt from the rifle, and took that away from whf when he went home, implying that his rifle was at the scene at the time of the shootings, in keeping with the list of guns still inside the farmhouse at the time of the seige. AP's .22 bolt action rifle was listed in the note hand written by Jeremy that he gave to the police at the scene before entry into the premises was made... and that it is.  So either he lied to you Why would he lie to me?  about something like that?  about recalling it suddenly many years later or you are lying to usEvery time you use the word 'LIE' I shall interpret that to mean 'TRUTH' and since you lie so often there is simply no reason to trust anything you say Then stop asking me things then, and I won't tell you the truth anymore unless you document it.

The claim they spoke to him about the moderator is from you alone Of course it is and not credible.  Nor is it credible that he told you the typed statement was doctored Produce the full hand written version of his witness statements then, he made two statements, one dated 7th August 1985, and the other dated 8th August 1985 - where are the original hand written statements, you won't find them anywhere, because police edited things from it when the typed version were produced, and added things into it, or should I say, paraphrased its contents to cast a poor light upon Jeremys account.  You are the one who posted it saying it was accurate Yes, and it is the only available version of his witness statement (2) bearing his typed name, but not his signature, so, yes, I did say it was his statement, but I may not have added that someone else had prepared it and typed it out from original hand written notes, and paraphrased its contents. I may have said on some previous occasion that it was Jeremys statement, because in the police / prosecution file, that is the case, that is the version disclosed, so stop taking things I may have said out of context and altering what I have said, and presenting it as your proof that I am lying, of course I am not lying, the problem is that you have a very shallow approach to everything, particularly if its anything to do with showing Jeremy Bambers innocence. You don't like it when things make the police handling of this case  look bad, but hey so what...  .  Now that something in it refutes your claims you say it was doctored produce the original hand written versions of his statements and lets make a comparison of the hand written contents versus the type written contents, then tell me that these typed versions of Jeremys witness statements have not been 'doctored'?even though at trial he said the same thing At trial, Jeremy was never aske whether the typed versions of his witness statement had been 'doctored' .

Your claim Jeremy explained away the 5 extra rounds is a lie How can you possibly know that if you were not there?.  He never offered any explanation He did, and I have reported it accurately let alone one that that satisfied police That's your opinion, only . Early on they simply ignored it Get your facts right, they did not ignore it and all the other problems including Jeremy's various lies From my point of view, Jeremy did not lie at all, he has tried to tell the truth tainted only by the restraint of his legal right at that time to remain silent, or not to have to answer any questions put to him at one time or another. He has basically told the truth, when he has given replies to questions put to him .

You just lied No, I did not lie, I simply gave an explanation in the context of the issue I was being requested to explain to us by claiming 6 of the fired casings had double loading marks That is your opinion, it depends what you mean when you say I have said there were six of these double marked cartridge cases, or five? In actual fact there are 7 marked cartridge cases, not 5 or 6... to pretend that 5 were loaded in the gun consecutively Correct, that is precisely what did happen and one was caused by Jeremy unloading it from the chamber Analyse the facts recorded in the relevant 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORD' for the cartridge case in question, where it makes mention of an additional chamber mark on one of the cartridges. If Jeremy had removed a round from the breech of the rifle, you do not know whether or not that round had been manually loaded into the gun, or fed into the breech via the ammunition magazine? My gues having reviewed this matter, is that there had been one round already hand loaded into the breech of the rifle which had not been loaded into the magazine, until, as you say, Jeremy may have removed it and replaced it back into the magazine, but if he did that, there could only have been a maximum of 9 rounds in the magazine at the time Jeremy did what you say he did. Now, I wasn't there so I don't know, but what I do know is that it becomes possible to reconstruct the order with which the first full load of the rifles bullets, were discharged, and the evidence clearly points to the shooter commencing her attack in the main bedroom, then leaving there and going to the childrens room, shooting them, and then ending up downstairs in the kitchen shooting Ralph Bamber. Nothing could be any clearer, the location and the position of these 5 double marked magazine cases, recovered in strategic locations inside the farmhouse tell its own story. It shows the movement of the shooter through the farmhouse, upstairs to downstairs, supporting the case for Sheila, and not Jeremy being responsible for shooting the other four victims - (Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop) main bedroom, (pop, pop) Childrens bedroom, (pop) main bedroom, (pop) Kitchen and reloading it into the gun.  There were only 5 double marked casings No, 7 in total, DRH/8 needs to be brought into the equation so not enough for 5 to have been loaded already.  Furthermore, locations of the casings proves they were not loaded consecutively On the contrary, the location of the double marked cases supports that which I speak about, and so do the locations of the other 2 additionally marked cartridge cases and the entire premise makes no sense because had bullets been loaded into the magazine and left there they would have marks showing they were loaded only once Not if on some prior occasion, these 5 double marked rounds had been remove from the magazine by some as yet unidentified person, and reloaded back into the magazine of the same gun, before Jeremy took possession of it on the evening of the 6th August 1985. Another explanation, is that those or these 5 double marked rounds could have originally been loaded into the magazine of the .22 bolt action rifle, but transferred into the magazine of the anshuzt rifle at some time previously....

The TRUTH is that Jeremy could not come up with a lie to tell police about where the extra 5 rounds came from You are right about that, he couldn't come up with a lie, which was why he told them the truth nor did he think up one at trial He wasn't asked to think up an explanation for the existence of these 5 additional rounds, or indeed about the location of the 5 double magazine marked cartridge cases, or any significance which could be associated with or to them the defense effectively argued that Sheila used about 20 rounds form the supply Jeremy took out Everyone assumes that 20 of the 25 rounds used came from that source, it has not been scientifically proved that this is / was the case and she got at least 5 rounds from the closet for some unknown reason I am afraid you are making things up again, the defence suggested no such thing, it was never part of the prosecutions case, and would not have been because police were anxious to keep a lid on the fact that they had tampered with the batch of crime scene bullets and cartridge cases, in order to present the case as a one gun, one type of ammunition matter instead of continuing to use the kitchen supply Considering there were already 5 double magazine marked rounds already in the ammunition magazine of the anshuzt rifle, there would have been no need for the shooter to go get any more ammunition other than the obvious supply . That's the best they could come up with They never came up with any such suggestion, where's your proof?.

He didn't change his claims I beg to differ and testify the magazine was loaded already when he found the gun Correct he did not testify saying any such thing because the ammunition used was not an issue during the trial, or any subsequent appeal hearing to my knowlege . Since this was unconvincing he might now change his story He hasn't changed his story at all and say it had 5 bullet sin it but such changed testimony after his conviction would not be credible at all Since, this explanation is documented in Stan Jones COLP interviews, you can hardly say that Jeremy has changed his explanation, and Jeremy did not testify about any of this during his trial. If you disagree, post up your evidence, or stop making ridiculous comments it would be a naked attempt to lie because his previously proffered excuse failed He did not lie, and he did not tell the truth as a so called proferred excuse, as you put it. He told Jones and Jones the truth, and on the 9th August 1985, the police were satisfied with that explanation .  His whole tale about taking the bullets out and going to the kitchen to load it falls apart if the gun had already been loaded when it was found I do not necessarily agree with that, especially if the last occasion prior to the evening of 6th August 1985, when Jeremy had last handled the rifle, that he had personally emptied the ammunition magazine during a shooting competition involving AP behind the barn at whf on the penultimate week -end before the shootings. If the gun was emptied then of bullets, he may have wrongly assumed the ammunition magazine to be empty, not realising that someone else in the mean time had reloaded 5 rounds into the magazine without his knowledge so it doesn't offer much help anyway. If he had been at such a rush as he claims then upon finding it loaded he simply would have rushed outside with it He might not have realised it was already loaded until he started to put new bullets into it .  So the bullets would not have been there at all Whether the shooter was Sheila, or Jeremy, those 5 double marked rounds were already in the gun, before somebody filled the magazine of the first full load of the gun and its discharge of the same, in the main bedroom, the childrens bedroom and the kitchen - gun empty of bullets, struggle in kitchen, use of other gun to finish off Ralph in the kitchen, back upstairs shoot June between the eyes, then back into the childrens bedroom to shoot them both again and this would still establish they were staged I agree, the crime scene ammunition has been well and truly staged, in order to present the argument that this was a one gun, one type of ammunition, kind of a crime .  This explains why he formally didn't change his claim at trial.  Changing a claim is never good You have yet to prove that he changed his mind, I'm saying that he didn't because he was never asked during the trial about these matters because the other side will point it out and say were you lying then or are you lying now But that didn't happen, you are just making things up but are not going to suffer that for a changed claim is no better and still suggests the bullets were staged Yes, I agree that the bullets were staged, and so were the replacement Eley cartridge cases .

At best he will change it in private with people with a pre-disposition towards him who he thinks will be too biased or foolish to question why he would get out the box of ammo and load it in the kitchen if the gun already was loaded  He might not have known the guns ammunition magazine had bullets in it, until he started to load other bullets into it [/color][/b]and he was in the rush he claimed.  Of course he might not have lied and assert such to anyone- you might have come up with this yourself So, how would DS 'Stan' Jones know about it then, in order to tell COLP about it in 1991?.  Who came up with it makes no difference since it is such an obvious lie Its the truth, the position of these 5 double magazine marked rounds in the ammunition magazine, dictated the journer through the farmhouse, from room to room, victim to victim, upstairs to downstairs, its all there in black and white for all to see and to consider that he didn't even assert it at trial And the reason it was not asserted at or during the trial, is because no-one knew the lengths and trouble police had gone to in tampering with the crime scene ammunition in order to present the case as a one gun crime, with a view to concealing the shooting incident in the kitchen, how best the police could cover up the shooting of Sheila in the kitchen by a police issue weapon, and ammunition....

[mike tesko]

This is the way I see the first full load of the guns bullets having been discharged:-

(1) June main bedroom, pop, (2) June main bedroom,pop, (3) June main bedroom,pop, (4) June main bedroom,pop, (5) June main bedroom,pop, (6) *** Ralph main bedroom, pop...

(7) *** Daniel Twins room, pop, (8) *** Nicholas Twins room, pop

(9) *** June main bedroom, pop

(1) *** Ralph kitchen, pop...


*** - represents double magazine marked cartridge cases

[mike tesko]

This fits in snugly with Sheila being the shooter, with Ralph using the phone, and Jeremy being alerted before Ralph was shot in the mouth, jaw, etc...