Police log contents, and position of bodies in photographs don't add up, CRIKEY.

[scipio_usmc]

Sutherst had access to hundreds of photographic negatives, and photographs. I am not even going to bother arguing this point, because everybody except you knows that what I am saying is true. He was able to establish which photographs were taken before other photographs by reference to the negative strips, in some cases even when police had cut up the original negative strips turning the negatives into single rather than multiple images on one strip. He is regarded as one of the worlds leading experts in his field, and he was able to establish that 8 negatives had been cut out and removed at the time Sheila's body was being photographed. He had no reason to make anything up. Anyway, I'm not bothered what you think about this, because at the end of the day I am telling the truth, and Mr Sutherst knows what he is talking about...

Sutherst made blow ups from photos precisely because he didn't have the negatives to use for such photos so clearly he didn't have all the negatives in the case.  As I already pointed out negatives would not indicate who took a photo or when you need to use other evidence to establish such. So the claim he could ascertain such by examining the negatives is not true.   

[scipio_usmc]

No-one has doctored anything, the truth of the matter is that Crooky dismantled the silencer, which you and others on that side of the fence, have been claiming was only ever just the one silencer, on all occasions, bearing this exhibit reference (SBJ/1), then that exhibit reference (DB/1) and then the following exhibit reference of DRB/1, with different lab' item numbers, 22 to 23, and back to 22, so you are now trapped by your own claims that there was only ever one silencer. So, the silencer Crooky dismantled on 29th August 1985, had to be the same silencer inside which all the bloodstaining and the loose flake later turned up in (after 29th August 1985). If 8 of the baffles had bloodstaining on them, and the loose flake had been in and on the baffles of the silencer when Crooky dismantled it on 29th August, he would have been the witness who found the blood evidence inside the silencer, not Fletcher and Hayward, some 13 days later...

You have no evidence he dismantled it.  You simply took a photocopy of a photo that someone in Jeremy's camp wrote on making the allegation Cook took such photo on August 29.  The police say the photo was taken at the lab after the lab took it apart.  You have no proof to counter their claims someone in the Jeremy camp writing an allegation on it simply proves someone in the Jeremy camp made such allegation it doesn't prove the allegation to be true.

Your claim that Sutherst could tell who took the photo and the date by looking at the negatives is not true and you have not even produced evidence he saw the negative anyway, he had no access to many negatives which is something that was used to negate his efforts by the CCRC. 

[mike tesko]

No-one has doctored anything, the truth of the matter is that Crooky dismantled the silencer, which you and others on that side of the fence, have been claiming was only ever just the one silencer, on all occasions, bearing this exhibit reference (SBJ/1), then that exhibit reference (DB/1) and then the following exhibit reference of DRB/1, with different lab' item numbers, 22 to 23, and back to 22, so you are now trapped by your own claims that there was only ever one silencer. So, the silencer Crooky dismantled on 29th August 1985, had to be the same silencer inside which all the bloodstaining and the loose flake later turned up in (after 29th August 1985). If 8 of the baffles had bloodstaining on them, and the loose flake had been in and on the baffles of the silencer when Crooky dismantled it on 29th August, he would have been the witness who found the blood evidence inside the silencer, not Fletcher and Hayward, some 13 days later...

Why didn't Crooky make a witness statement or a police report stating that when he had dismantled the silencer on 29th August 1985, that he discovered 8 baffle plates stained with blood, and why didn't he report finding the loose flake which some 13 days later (12th September 1985) miraculously appeared as if by magic, between baffles 1 and 2, once the silencer fell into the hands of Fletcher and Hayward at the lab?

The blood on those 8 baffles, and the flake found trapped between baffles 1 and 2, got into the silencer by other means, after 29th August 1985, and prior to the re-dismantling of the same rebuilt silencer on 12th September 1985. None of that blood could possibly have got into the silencer at the time of the shootings on 7th August 1985, otherwise surely to god almighty, Crooky would have found it when he dismantled that silencer on the 29th August 1985, would you agree?

Of course you don't agree, but your refusal to accept established FACTS like these only adds to the already diabolical state of the criminal justice in this country and elsewhere around the world in other Countries....

[mike tesko]

You have no evidence he dismantled it.  You simply took a photocopy of a photo that someone in Jeremy's camp wrote on making the allegation Cook took such photo on August 29.  The police say the photo was taken at the lab after the lab took it apart.  You have no proof to counter their claims someone in the Jeremy camp writing an allegation on it simply proves someone in the Jeremy camp made such allegation it doesn't prove the allegation to be true.

Your claim that Sutherst could tell who took the photo and the date by looking at the negatives is not true and you have not even produced evidence he saw the negative anyway, he had no access to many negatives which is something that was used to negate his efforts by the CCRC.

Stop twisting what I said, or how I meant it to be read, I have never claimed anyone can tell who took a photograph by reference to photographic negatives. You must be bonkers to believe that I said that. This is one of your major faults, you alter things by claiming so and so said this, when if the truth be known, they never said such a thing in the way you presented it. Sutherst is an Expert, he has means and ways of telling in which order a photograph was taken by reference to unique markings retained on the strips of negatives. This is helpful to someone like Mr Sutherst because when a negative strip is chopped up, like in this particular case, with the intention of withholding photographs which might have proved very damaging to the prosecutions case, Mr Sutherst can piece the cut negatives into something of a sequential order for that particular reel of photographic negatives. By use of these means, he was able to confirm that a total of 8 negatives had been removed in sequential order, at a time in sequence with the first photographs taken before Sheila was photographed on the bedroom floor. Anyway, that is the gist of what Mr Sutherst can tell us, he is the expert, and rather than trying to criticise me, direct your criticism toward him, because he knows exactly what he's talking about, I'm not the expert, he is in that particular field...

[mike tesko]

Mr Sutherst never got access to all the photographs or the negative strips, since according to Jeremy, in addition to the aforementioned 8 missing negatives and corresponding photographs, hundreds of other photographs, and photographic negatives were still yet not disclosed...

[scipio_usmc]

Why didn't Crooky make a witness statement or a police report stating that when he had dismantled the silencer on 29th August 1985, that he discovered 8 baffle plates stained with blood, and why didn't he report finding the loose flake which some 13 days later (12th September 1985) miraculously appeared as if by magic, between baffles 1 and 2, once the silencer fell into the hands of Fletcher and Hayward at the lab?

The blood on those 8 baffles, and the flake found trapped between baffles 1 and 2, got into the silencer by other means, after 29th August 1985, and prior to the re-dismantling of the same rebuilt silencer on 12th September 1985. None of that blood could possibly have got into the silencer at the time of the shootings on 7th August 1985, otherwise surely to god almighty, Crooky would have found it when he dismantled that silencer on the 29th August 1985, would you agree?

Of course you don't agree, but your refusal to accept established FACTS like these only adds to the already diabolical state of the criminal justice in this country and elsewhere around the world in other Countries....

There is no evidence that Cook took it apart on August 29.  Why would they make a statement mentioning he did so if it didn't happen?  Since you admit there are no statements or documents stating he took it apart on the 29th or that he took it apart at all you are hard pressed to produce any evidence that backs up the allegation written by Jeremy supporters on the photocopy alleging Cook took a photo of it dismantled on August 29.  The authorities say the photo was taken when it was disassembled at the lab and you have produced nothing to refute such claims.

You produced a photo that contains an unsupported allegation written by some unknown Jeremy supporter. That is not evidence of anything except that someone made an unsupported allegation.

A notebook entry by Cook, a statement by Cook, verbal testimony by Cook saying he took it apart on a certain date and photographed it or testimony/documents from some specified person who claims to have been present and seen Cook take the phone on a specific date and be able to explain where would  be evidence that Cook took the photo on a specific date.  You have none of this just an allegation made by someone who had no evidence to back up their allegation. You need to go back to the drawing board.

 

[scipio_usmc]

Mr Sutherst never got access to all the photographs or the negative strips, since according to Jeremy, in addition to the aforementioned 8 missing negatives and corresponding photographs, hundreds of other photographs, and photographic negatives were still yet not disclosed...

All you are doing is confirming what I said about him not having access to all the negatives and thus needing to prove he had access to the negative of the photo in question. After establishing he had access you would need to provide proof he determined the negatived prove Cook took it on a particular date and how they prove such.

[mike tesko]

All you are doing is confirming what I said about him not having access to all the negatives and thus needing to prove he had access to the negative of the photo in question. After establishing he had access you would need to provide proof he determined the negatived prove Cook took it on a particular date and how they prove such.

All I am doing is not confirming what you said you told me, all I am actually doing is telling the truth. It is documented somewhere in the file that Crooky did dismantle the silencer, rebuild it, and screw it to the barrel of the rifle, and that he did this before the silencer bearing the identifying mark DB/1 (23) was sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985. Accompanying this information is a hand written note in Crooky's hand writing, addressed to Malcolm (Fletcher) which says something along the lines, "Here are the photographs I took with regard to the rifle that I spoke to you about", and there is mention in Fletchers own hand written notes, dated, and signed, that he received these photographs from Crooky. Now, that is the truth, and in any event I don't have to prove anything. I can talk about anything I want to, and leave all the proving to others...

[mike tesko]

The bottom line is that if Crooky did dismantle the silencer on or about the 28th / 29th August 1985, if he did all the things I am saying he did with that silencer, and the rifle, and he did these things before he sent silencer DB/1 (23) to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and these photographs which I have posted up, show the state of play when Crooky tampered with that silencer, then why wasn't it Crooky who found the blood staining on the 8 internal baffle plates, and why wasn't it Crooky who found the loose flake of blood inside that silencer when he dismantled it 13 days before Fletcher and Hayward re-dismantled it on the 12th September 1985? What I saying is that when those representing Jeremy Bambers interests get around to obtaining the proof to establish these facts, then it will be as plain as a pike staff that the sudden materialisation of blood staining on the 8 baffles, and the loose flake trapped between baffles 1 and 2, in time for Fletcher and Hayward to discover them on 12th September 1985, could only have got there by contamination, in one form or another, nothing could be clearer...

[scipio_usmc]

All I am doing is not confirming what you said you told me, all I am actually doing is telling the truth. It is documented somewhere in the file that Crooky did dismantle the silencer, rebuild it, and screw it to the barrel of the rifle, and that he did this before the silencer bearing the identifying mark DB/1 (23) was sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985. Accompanying this information is a hand written note in Crooky's hand writing, addressed to Malcolm (Fletcher) which says something along the lines, "Here are the photographs I took with regard to the rifle that I spoke to you about", and there is mention in Fletchers own hand written notes, dated, and signed, that he received these photographs from Crooky. Now, that is the truth, and in any event I don't have to prove anything. I can talk about anything I want to, and leave all the proving to others...

You need to find where in the file it claims this was done and post it to establish there is evidence in the file establishing such.  Cook was asked nothing about this by COLP so COLP wasn't aware of such claim and no allegations were made to COLP from Jeremy concerning such.  If it actually is alleged somewhere in the file it could simply be the result of another clerical error. The nature of the evidence is key.  Most evidence requires questioning witnesses such as COLP did to figure out why Davidson wrote things he wrote that turned out to be wrong.  That is why courts have live witnesses who can be cross examined by the other side. 

[scipio_usmc]

The bottom line is that if Crooky did dismantle the silencer on or about the 28th / 29th August 1985, if he did all the things I am saying he did with that silencer, and the rifle, and he did these things before he sent silencer DB/1 (23) to the lab' on 30th August 1985, and these photographs which I have posted up, show the state of play when Crooky tampered with that silencer, then why wasn't it Crooky who found the blood staining on the 8 internal baffle plates, and why wasn't it Crooky who found the loose flake of blood inside that silencer when he dismantled it 13 days before Fletcher and Hayward re-dismantled it on the 12th September 1985? What I saying is that when those representing Jeremy Bambers interests get around to obtaining the proof to establish these facts, then it will be as plain as a pike staff that the sudden materialisation of blood staining on the 8 baffles, and the loose flake trapped between baffles 1 and 2, in time for Fletcher and Hayward to discover them on 12th September 1985, could only have got there by contamination, in one form or another, nothing could be clearer...

There wasn't a loose flake floating around. The flake of blood was attached to the metal and the blood on the upper baffles was stick to the baffles.  The blood had to be scraped off it didn't simply fall off. The blood dried to the metal and thus there were still microscopic traces for the defense expert to find in 1986. 

Just opening the moderator would not cause the blood to fall off they had to scrape it off. So even if Cook had opened it before taking it to the lab this would not mean the lab would not have been able to find the blood they say they removed.  There is no reason why Cook would take it apart though prior to taking it to the lab and having them do it his sole work was to fingerprint the outside.  If he did take i apart he could have caused some blood to be lost by accidentally scraping some off so at best the argument is maybe there was even more blood than the lab found that he caused to be lost but there is no evidence of this.

You haven't provided evidence he took it apart on his own before taking it to the lab and decided to play with it and caused some blood to be lost. Your suggestion that all the blood would have to be lost by opening it doesn't follow either.

[mike tesko]

You need to find where in the file it claims this was done and post it to establish there is evidence in the file establishing such.  Cook was asked nothing about this by COLP so COLP wasn't aware of such claim and no allegations were made to COLP from Jeremy concerning such.  If it actually is alleged somewhere in the file it could simply be the result of another clerical error. The nature of the evidence is key.  Most evidence requires questioning witnesses such as COLP did to figure out why Davidson wrote things he wrote that turned out to be wrong.  That is why courts have live witnesses who can be cross examined by the other side.

Well, as I say I don't have to prove anything, this is not a court of law, and I do not have the authority to quash any convictions, or to impose any sentences. Others will have to do the work of gathering all the evidence which proves and establishes what I am saying to be true, is in actual fact true. I am simply paving the way for others who have followed in my footsteps and who are championing Jeremys plight as we speak. Crooky did dismantle, rebuild, and screw the rebuilt silencer onto the thread of the anshuzt rifle, and he did then send silencer DB/1 (23) to the lab' to be examine by Fletcher and Hayward, which culminated in the discovery of the 8 badly bloodstained baffles, and the flake of dried blood trapped between baffles 1 and 2...

If I am right, and I am 100% certain that I am right, then it falls to be considered why Crooky did not see or find any blood in the silencer he dismantled and rebuilt on 28th / 29th August. but that 13 days later, Fletcher and Hayward did?

[mike tesko]

There wasn't a loose flake floating around. The flake of blood was attached to the metal and the blood on the upper baffles was stick to the baffles.  The blood had to be scraped off it didn't simply fall off. The blood dried to the metal and thus there were still microscopic traces for the defense expert to find in 1986. 

Just opening the moderator would not cause the blood to fall off they had to scrape it off. So even if Cook had opened it before taking it to the lab this would not mean the lab would not have been able to find the blood they say they removed.  There is no reason why Cook would take it apart though prior to taking it to the lab and having them do it his sole work was to fingerprint the outside.  If he did take i apart he could have caused some blood to be lost by accidentally scraping some off so at best the argument is maybe there was even more blood than the lab found that he caused to be lost but there is no evidence of this.

You haven't provided evidence he took it apart on his own before taking it to the lab and decided to play with it and caused some blood to be lost. Your suggestion that all the blood would have to be lost by opening it doesn't follow either.

He did take it a part, he dismantled it, he separated the baffles, he did not see any evidence of any blood staining, of any description on the baffles of that silencer. I believe the missing unaccounted for third samples of blood, taken from the victims may have been deliberately poured into the baffles of the silencer by Crooky before Fletcher and Hayward examined it on 12th September 1985...

[scipio_usmc]

He did take it a part, he dismantled it, he separated the baffles, he did not see any evidence of any blood staining, of any description on the baffles of that silencer. I believe the missing unaccounted for third samples of blood, taken from the victims may have been deliberately poured into the baffles of the silencer by Crooky before Fletcher and Hayward examined it on 12th September 1985...

You keep wavering between saying you believe he took it apart and insisting he did, insisting he saw not blood inside and that it was planted.  When you insist something is a fact you need evidence.  It doesn't matter if this is a court or not the same rules apply of needing to prove claims with evidence or they simply are unsupported allegations.  You have not produced any evidence from Cook asserting he took it apart and can confirm no blood was inside of it before he took it to the lab. 

Sheila's third blood sample was not unaccounted for it was destroyed along with June and Nevill's unused samples.  There is nothing to establish any blood from the various samples was missing and potentially planted anywhere. 

[mike tesko]

You keep wavering between saying you believe he took it apart and insisting he did, insisting he saw not blood inside and that it was planted.  When you insist something is a fact you need evidence.  It doesn't matter if this is a court or not the same rules apply of needing to prove claims with evidence or they simply are unsupported allegations.  You have not produced any evidence from Cook asserting he took it apart and can confirm no blood was inside of it before he took it to the lab. 

Sheila's third blood sample was not unaccounted for it was destroyed along with June and Nevill's unused samples.  There is nothing to establish any blood from the various samples was missing and potentially planted anywhere.

Yes, there is evidence in the file confirming that Crooky did do everything I am saying he did, before silencer DB/1 (23) was sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985. Others who are following in my footsteps will be able to gather all the necessary proof require to force the court of appeal to quash these convictions, on the grounds that the silencer, blood and paint evidence is unreliable. Another big mistake police have made, is that they have transformed all these different silencers, into one. It has been a very interesting exercise to argue that there was all these different parker hale silencers, sent to the lab' on different occasions, and you arguing that all these different silencers were one and the same. And now, your argument has come back to bite your backside, because of the silencer Crooky dismantled, rebuilt, and screwed onto the barrel of the gun, which had no blood upon it, or inside it, as of 28th / 29th August . If that is right, and as I say, I know it is right, then prey advise where all the blood then turned up upon the 8 baffle plates from, within 13 days, of none at all being present?

I don't accept that Crooky would not necessarily have ignored the presence of any blood there, if there had in fact been any blood there. This then brings me onto where the blood that was used to sanitize the 8 baffles after 28th / 29th August 1985, originated from? The most obvious solution has to be these 3rd samples of blood taken from the 5 victims during autopsy. I do not accept that these samples were simply destroyed, since the sudden materialisation of all this blood inside the silencer on the aforementioned 8 baffles requires a source from whence the blood originated...