HOLD THE FRONT PAGE HEADLINE - Bamber was definitely framed. ..

[scipio_usmc]

"This document doesn't say anything about the date any of the items were fingerprinted."

But it records the date DS Davidson put his name by way of his signature and the time and date police had possession of the silencer, and the other items (7th August 1985), all the items being grouped together under the index receipt reference of 5620

There is no place on the form to record the date Davidson signed it.  There is no date next to the signature nor is there a field anywhere on the form to record the date it was filled out.  The are 3 date fields:

1) the date of the crime
2) the date the crime scene officers first started working on the case
3) the date it was filed with HQ.

The date it was filed with HQ proves the date it was created by.  All the document indicates is it was created on or before August 16.

You have to post receipt 2620 to prove what it says.  You lied claiming this document states the moderator was fingerprinted on August 9 by Davidson though this document states no such thing. You further lied to us insisting this document says it was filled out on August 7 though it says no such thing. Your unsupported claim of what receipt 5620 says is wholly worthless.  In fact, you would not need this fingerprint result document at all if document 2620 purported that the moderator was collected on the 7th of August you would be citing it directly as evidence.  That shows to us even mroe clearly you simply made up the claim 5620 proves such.

It states nothing about when the items were fingerprinted or by whom your claims it states August 9 is a lie such is no where on the form.  The documents detailing the fingerprinting reveal they were first fingerprinted the 15th. They were subsequently fingerprinted on other occasions including subjected to supe rglue fuming."

DS Davidson was present at the scene when DS Jones returned to the farmhouse on the morning of 7th August 1985 

So what that doesn't prove any moderator was found on August 7 let alone that a moderator was fingerprinted on Aug 9 by Davidson.

[mike tesko]

The document in question doesn't state the date any of the times were found, seized by police or fingerprinted.  You always do the same thing you repeated the same disproved mantra over and over again.  You can't identify where on the document they indicate the date each specific item was found, by whom each was found, when each item was fingerprinted or who fingerprinted each item.

That is because for the purposes of this document NONE of those things matter.  Other documents were created to record such things.  This document exists solely for the lab to record whether results were obtained.  It notifies the officer who submitted it You should think very carefully when you open your gob, do you, for example even realize what you are admitting to with your explanation, since DS Davidson then still submitted the silencer at 9am, 7th August 1985, along with the other three items, under a receipt bearing a reference no. 5620...that results were obtained and the officer knows at that point to go research what the results were.

If you want to see with specificity what results then you need to look at the documents that were kept from the testing which indicate who tested the items, when, where any prints were found on such items and who the prints belonged to if they made an identification.

Your distortions simply dig your hole deeper If there is any hole being dug deeper, it is a hole you have already fallen into, with a bottomless pit. The deeper you dig yourself into it, the further you will continue to fallnothing more.

[mike tesko]

There is no place on the form to record the date Davidson signed it. Yes, there is,   There is no date next to the signature There is no requirement at the side of the name for the date to be noted, providing the date is noted somewhere on the document... nor is there a field anywhere on the form to record the date it was filled out.  The are 3 date fields:

1) the date of the crime
2) the date the crime scene officers first started working on the case
3) the date it was filed with HQ.

The date it was filed with HQ proves the date it was created by.  All the document indicates is it was created on or before August 16. I disagree, one of these fingerprint forms is not made out every time a crime is committed, there has to be items which are to be fingerprinted before anybody puts their name to something, and more importantly, in this instance, DS Davidson was the nominated Fingerprint Officer in the investigation, a duty he commenced at the scene on the 7th August 1985, beginning with the time of his arrival there at around 9am...

You have to post receipt 2620 I don't have to post anything that is demanded of me, I will decide what I need to post, and whento prove what it says.  You lied claiming this document states the moderator was fingerprinted on August 9 I did not lie, because it does by Davidson though this document states no such thing. Yes, it does, in order for Davidson to know about the silencer in keeping with the contents of the fingerprint form, on the 9th August 1985, when Davidson was nominated as the fingerprint officer in the case, in so far as these 4 items were concerned, he was the fingerprint officer, not Ron Cook (who fingerprinted the other silencer)You further lied to us I did not lie, I don't lie, there is no reason to lie, the facts are all there, for everybody to see, if they want to see...insisting this document says it was filled out on August 7 though it says no such thing. The contents in section 1 of this form, which nominates DS Davidson as the fingerprint officer in the case, were seized from 7th August 1985 Your unsupported claim of what receipt 5620 says is wholly worthless. That's your opinion, but until you know the relevance of other items submitted for fingerprinting under the receipt references of 5619, and 5621, you will never know the truth. I say that you do not have a clue what these other items submitted for fingerprinting under the receipt references of 5619 and 5621 were, or are, therefore you are just making things up for the sake of making things up...  In fact, you would not need this fingerprint result document at all if document 2620 purported that the moderator was collected on the 7th of August you would be citing it directly as evidence.  That shows to us even mroe clearly you simply made up the claim 5620 proves such.

So what that doesn't prove any moderator was found on August 7 let alone that a moderator was fingerprinted on Aug 9 by Davidson.

[scipio_usmc]

"That is because for the purposes of this document NONE of those things matter.  Other documents were created to record such things.  This document exists solely for the lab to record whether results were obtained.  It notifies the officer who submitted it that results were obtained and the officer knows at that point to go research what the results were."

You should think very carefully when you open your gob, do you, for example even realize what you are admitting to with your explanation, since DS Davidson then still submitted the silencer at 9am, 7th August 1985, along with the other three items, under a receipt bearing a reference no. 5620...

I admitted that because Davidson signed the paperwork when the lab eventually was done fingerprinting the items and making the comparisons that Davidson is the one who would receive this form when they finished filling it out.

I admitted that 9am of August 7 is when the crime scene officers arrived at the scene.  Arriving at that time doesn't in any way suggest that is the date any of these items were found and/or fingerprinted.

You play all sorts of games to try to pretend this document records the date the items were taken into custody, date they were fingerprinted and who fingerprinted the but it doesn't.

[Jan]

I admitted that because Davidson signed the paperwork when the lab eventually was done fingerprinting the items and making the comparisons that Davidson is the one who would receive this form when they finished filling it out.

I admitted that 9am of August 7 is when the crime scene officers arrived at the scene.  Arriving at that time doesn't in any way suggest that is the date any of these items were found and/or fingerprinted.

You play all sorts of games to try to pretend this document records the date the items were taken into custody, date they were fingerprinted and who fingerprinted the but it doesn't.

if you stopped calling people liars and admit the documents are ambiguous posters may have more respect for you .

the fact is it says all three items were received from Davidson but he says he did not see the silencer at that stage - so of course people are questioning the document. If EP can sign thing properly what hope is there.

[scipio_usmc]

"There is no place on the form to record the date Davidson signed it.   There is no date next to the signature nor is there a field anywhere on the form to record the date it was filled out.  The are 3 date fields:

1) the date of the crime
2) the date the crime scene officers first started working on the case
3) the date it was filed with HQ."

Yes, there is, There is no requirement at the side of the name for the date to be noted, providing the date is noted somewhere on the document...

It is not noted anywhere else on the document.  I enumerated the only date fields on the document. NONE of them are to record the date the document filled out and signed by the person who first created it.  The CLOSEST field to such is the date it was received by HQ which in this case is Aug 16.

"The date it was filed with HQ proves the date it was created by.  All the document indicates is it was created on or before August 16."
I disagree, one of these fingerprint forms is not made out every time a crime is committed, there has to be items which are to be fingerprinted before anybody puts their name to something, and more importantly, in this instance, DS Davidson was the nominated Fingerprint Officer in the investigation, a duty he commenced at the scene on the 7th August 1985, beginning with the time of his arrival there at around 9am...

That you disagree means nothing you are just being a biased clown.  This form can be filled out anytime during an investigation and are routinely filled out throughout an investigation.  This form doesn't list all the items fingerprinted others were fingerprinted and this same for was filled out for those items on different dates than this one was filled out.  You have no idea whether Davidson filled those out or someone else did because you haven't even looked.  You just make up whatever you feel like.

The date of the crime is the same for every one of these forms regardless of who fills them out and the date filled out.  If there were 10 fingerprint result forms filled out in this case all of them record the date of the crime as August 7.

The date crime scene officers arrived is the same no matter who fills it out or when. If there were 10 fingerprint result forms filled out in this case all of them record the date crime scene officers arrived at the scene as August 7 at 9am.

The only date that will vary among the various fingerprint result forms will be the date each was received by HQ.  That date is either the date it was created on or 1-2 days after it was created. It can be 1-2 days after because it is possible for it to take up to 2 days for the lab to convey the HQ copy to HQ and thus be stamped as received by HQ.

   
"You lied claiming this document states the moderator was fingerprinted on August 9 by Davidson though this document states no such thing."

I did not lie, because it does. Yes, it does, in order for Davidson to know about the silencer in keeping with the contents of the fingerprint form, on the 9th August 1985, when Davidson was nominated as the fingerprint officer in the case, in so far as these 4 items were concerned, he was the fingerprint officer, not Ron Cook (who fingerprinted the other silencer)

All you are doing is repeating the same lies over and over again.  The only thing that happened on Aug 9 according to this form is fingerprints cards were taken from the 3 adult victims.  That is the only reference to Aug 9.  Nothing about any items being fingerprinted on Aug 9.  Nor does this document claim Davidson would be nominated to do the fingerprinting of items in connection with this case. It says he filled out the form nothing more.   

"You further lied to us insisting this document says it was filled out on August 7 though it says no such thing."

I did not lie, I don't lie, there is no reason to lie, the facts are all there, for everybody to see, if they want to see...The contents in section 1 of this form, which nominates DS Davidson as the fingerprint officer in the case, were seized from 7th August 1985

Once again you repeat the same disproves lies over and over.  The facts are easy to see which is why your lies are worthless and only undermine your own credibility.  Looking at it one sees that it indicates the time crime scene officers arrived at the crime scene.  It doesn't indicate the time and date any items were collected into evidence.

"You have to post receipt 2620.  Your unsupported claim of what receipt 5620 says is wholly worthless.
In fact, you would not need this fingerprint result document at all if document 2620 purported that the moderator was collected on the 7th of August you would be citing it directly as evidence.  That shows to us even mroe clearly you simply made up the claim 5620 proves such."

I don't have to post anything that is demanded of me, I will decide what I need to post, and whento prove what it says.

Given all your lies, distortions and errors there is no reason to give you any credence at all in your claims about receipt 2620.  No doubt you either are reading it totally wrong or never even saw it. The impression I get is you have not seen it and just made the whole thing up without even knowing if there is any way to try to twist it.  Since it is not posted you can just make up anything you feel like.

If you don't post it there is no reason to believe you it is that simple.  You bear the burden of proof not me and the only way to meet that burden is to post it.  Your word is worth nothing- that is what results when one distorts all the time- so unless you post it this is just one of your endless unsupported allegations. 

That's your opinion, but until you know the relevance of other items submitted for fingerprinting under the receipt references of 5619, and 5621, you will never know the truth. I say that you do not have a clue what these other items submitted for fingerprinting under the receipt references of 5619 and 5621 were, or are, therefore you are just making things up for the sake of making things up..."

Receipts 5619 and 21 are not relevant to the discussion.  The issue is your claim that Receipt 5620 is dated August 7 and proves all items on it were received August 7.

Davidson committed numerous errors including writing on a Holab form that the paint samples taken on Aug 14 were taken on the 8th.  It is possible Receipt 2620 suffers form the same kind of error but first one has to see what it says period to try to decipher it.

You always ignore the findings of COLP and repeat disproved allegations so I would not be surprised if this is one of those examples where COLP developed information disproving the very claims you are raising but you are ignoring the truth and posting it anyway.

You refuse to post the COLP findings and several sections of the Dickinson report precisely because they challenge your babble.

 

[scipio_usmc]

if you stopped calling people liars and admit the documents are ambiguous posters may have more respect for you .

the fact is it says all three items were received from Davidson but he says he did not see the silencer at that stage - so of course people are questioning the document. If EP can sign thing properly what hope is there.

Mike is a liar that is why I am calling him one.  No where does the document indicate that the 4 items listed were fingerprinted on Aug 9. 

The document is not ambiguous.  No where does it suggest the date any of the items were found. The only field at all that even remotely addressed the date it was filled out the date it was received by HQ which is Aug 16. 

It doesn't say that any of these items were physically received by Davidson let alone fingerprinted by him.  You just are making assumptions based on your own biases not based on reality.

They didn't use all the fields on these forms because they used these forms for their own purposes.  Someone else designed them and they simply adapted them for their own purposes.

The purpose of this form was so that the lab could notify police that results were obtained and then police can do an in depth research of what results- this form would not record such in any great detail.
All you can tell by reading this form is that 5 prints were found on the rifle and they got results for 2 of them the other 3 could not be matched to anyone.


This form doesn't say Davidson did anything beyond fill the form out.  Testimony and records reveal that Cook took these items to Sandridge on Aug 15 and fingerprinted them.  He left 3 copies of this form that Davidson filled out with the lab and they returned HQ's copy so it was received on Aug 16.

If people want to misrepresent what documents assert and demonstrate then they are going to be called liars because that is what they are.   


 

[mike tesko]

Mike is a liar that is why I am calling him one. I am not a liar, but you are...  No where does the document indicate that the 4 items listed were fingerprinted on Aug 9. 

The document is not ambiguous.  No where does it suggest the date any of the items were found. The only field at all that even remotely addressed the date it was filled out the date it was received by HQ which is Aug 16. 

It doesn't say that any of these items were physically received by Davidson let alone fingerprinted by him.  You just are making assumptions based on your own biases not based on reality.

They didn't use all the fields on these forms because they used these forms for their own purposes.  Someone else designed them and they simply adapted them for their own purposes.

The purpose of this form was so that the lab could notify police that results were obtained and then police can do an in depth research of what results- this form would not record such in any great detail.
All you can tell by reading this form is that 5 prints were found on the rifle and they got results for 2 of them the other 3 could not be matched to anyone.


This form doesn't say Davidson did anything beyond fill the form out.  Testimony and records reveal that Cook took these items to Sandridge on Aug 15 and fingerprinted them.  He left 3 copies of this form that Davidson filled out with the lab and they returned HQ's copy so it was received on Aug 16.

If people want to misrepresent what documents assert and demonstrate then they are going to be called liars because that is what they are.   

[mike tesko]

DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood, also fingerprinted the "other silencer", on the 14th September 1985...

[scipio_usmc]

DS Davidson, and DS Eastwood, also fingerprinted the "other silencer", on the 14th September 1985...

Making claims means nothing at all. You need to post evidence to establish your claims are true if you want anyone to believe them.

[mike tesko]

Fingerprint submission forms are only made out once items have been seized or handed in. The fingerprint officer, who is dealing with the listed items, is responsible for fingerprinting the said items, and for lifting them and preserving them. This person may not  be the same person, who takes other types of blood samples, or who compares fingerprints found on an item, against those taken from a victim or a suspect, but nevertheless, whichever fingerprint officer undertakes any of these duties, they are a person, or persons, who took fingerprints in relation to an item, or as the case

[scipio_usmc]

Fingerprint submission forms are only made out once items have been seized or handed in. The fingerprint officer, who is dealing with the listed items, is responsible for fingerprinting the said items, and for lifting them and preserving them. This person may not  be the same person, who takes other types of blood samples, or who compares fingerprints found on an item, against those taken from a victim or a suspect, but nevertheless, whichever fingerprint officer undertakes any of these duties, they are a person, or persons, who took fingerprints in relation to an item, or as the case

Fingerprint result forms were filled out when the items were going to be sent away for fingerprinting.  The person filling out the form doesn't have to be the person taking them to be fingerprinted or the person doing the fingerprinting anymore than the person filling out Holab forms to convey items to the lab has to be the person who conveys them.  You just are making things up as you go along. 

The form in question was received by HQ on Aug 14 which means the form was transmitted to the fingerprint section by Aug 16.  It doesn't detail the exact day.  Other documents do so- they were taken to Sandridge on August 15 by Cook and he fingerprinted them.  He took the triplicate forms Davidson filled out with him and the HQ's copy was returned by Sandridge the following day.

[mike tesko]

I admitted that because Davidson signed the paperwork when the lab eventually was done fingerprinting the items and making the comparisons that Davidson is the one who would receive this form when they finished filling it out.

I admitted that 9am of August 7 is when the crime scene officers arrived at the scene.  Arriving at that time doesn't in any way suggest that is the date any of these items were found and/or fingerprinted.

You play all sorts of games to try to pretend this document records the date the items were taken into custody, date they were fingerprinted and who fingerprinted the but it doesn't.

Including what you said, as though I said it, is a despicable deception...

You must stop attributing what you have said, to me - your tricks and deceptions don't fool me for a minute. You support corruption and dishonesty because you act corruptly and you are dishonest...

[scipio_usmc]

Including what you said, as though I said it, is a despicable deception...

You must stop attributing what you have said, to me - your tricks and deceptions don't fool me for a minute. You support corruption and dishonesty because you act corruptly and you are dishonest...

You are just projecting.

Fact: No matter when the form is filled out the dat eof the crime will always be August 7 and the arrival at the crime scene will always be 9am of August 7.  Such doesn't provide any information on when the form was filled out or when they were fingerprinted.

The time filed at HQ will be either the day they were first fingerprinted or 1-2 days after depending on how long it takes for the HQ copy to be sent to HQ.  It cna arrive the same day the fingerprinting was done or 1-2 days after.

So this document not only doesn't assert anything was fingerprinted on August 9 it suggests the items were fingerprinted on August 14-16. Because of other evidence we know it was in fact August 15 and Cook did the fingerprinting.

[mike tesko]

You are just projecting.

Fact: No matter when the form is filled out the dat eof the crime will always be August 7 and the arrival at the crime scene will always be 9am of August 7.  Such doesn't provide any information on when the form was filled out or when they were fingerprinted.

The time filed at HQ will be either the day they were first fingerprinted or 1-2 days after depending on how long it takes for the HQ copy to be sent to HQ.  It cna arrive the same day the fingerprinting was done or 1-2 days after.

So this document not only doesn't assert anything was fingerprinted on August 9 it suggests the items were fingerprinted on August 14-16. Because of other evidence we know it was in fact August 15 and Cook did the fingerprinting.

You cannot be trusted, not when you attribute what you said as though I said it, and worse still you then set o only out to try abd onlyut to reply to yourself in the pretence you are replying to me. That really is a despicable deception which paints a clear picture of what you are about. You are unreliable and only out to disrupt the forum...