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

[scipio_usmc]

Would be interesting to obtain Scip's view of the alleged establishment cover-up of historic CSA allegations.  Probably best for another thread though.  But from what I can gather re Scip's approach - if the authorities reject something, whatever it is they reject is pretty much worthless  - otherwise it wouldn't have been rejected in the first place?

If CSA means the Child sex abuse scandal I don't know exactly what you mean by want my view.  It is no different than a corruption scheme where government officials are on the take and collude with one another to not get caught and to continue their illegal endeavors.  A band of pedophiles acting together to profit by being able to take advantage of children is little different than people who join together to in bribery schemes so that they can all enjoy their spoils.  The kind of actions they engage in is quite similar in order to profit from their illegal actions. 

I believe in the following but it is hard to get enough people on board to actually force these changes:

1) term limits for all public office
2) no pensions for political officials or political appointees
3) a special branch of government that has no function other than to investigate government officials for corruption. They must be their own branch so other ranches can't inhibit them.  The legislature could only inhibit them by virtue of deciding what is illegal behavior.  Their job would be to see whether such laws are being followed..

In the US the Justice Department is controlled by the president and as we see Obama refuses to investigate anyone from his administration unless they do something to buck him and then it is used to punish them.  Hillary sold favors and used her own email system to prevent oversight but Obama refuses to allow her to be investigated.  The IRS targeted political opponents and there is evidence the person who orchestrated it intentionally destroyed her computer to inhibit retrieving her emails. any back up tapes of her emails were destroyed after courts issued preservation orders. Nothing is being done though because Obama won't allow it.  There needs to be an independent body that investigates government corruption.

Being a politician should not be a career therefore I favor term limits as well as no pensions they should be like the rest of the public.  Their political appointees should likewise not get pensions that is how they buy people- with political appointments.

[Jan]

This is false. DCI Jones questioned him about how 30 bullets could remain if there 50 or less taken out by Jeremy and 25 used.  Jeremy had no satisfactory answer but DCI Jones ignored it.  Contemporaneous records prove this.  One such record you posted so you know you are lying;

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5671.msg250208.html#msg250208

You ignore those contemporaneous records in favor of a mistake DS Jones made many years later when he erroneously said yes when COLP asked if DCI Jones asked him about the moderator.

DCI Jones own records contain no record of asking anything about the moderator they are in line with other documents.

Now that's strange because I could have sworn that Anne eaton talked about hearing the silencer being discussed at goldhanger the day after the murders. I will have a check .

[scipio_usmc]

Now that's strange because I could have sworn that Anne eaton talked about hearing the silencer being discussed at goldhanger the day after the murders. I will have a check .

Jeremy told the police the gun did not have the moderator or scope attached when he removed it from the closet and he didn't have time to attach them because he was in a hurry.  He told police it did not fit in the closet with them attached and later said it didn't fit in its case with them attached. That is the extent of the discussion of the moderator.

During his interrogation the same issues were discussed of whether it was attached or not when in the closet and what usual practices were.

 

[mike tesko]

The lab established it was used to kill her subsequent to his interrogation. How could they have asked him about it during his interrogation and why would they?  If the lab told them in time then at best they would say we know you killed her because the moderator was used to kill her then put away so you might as well admit you did it.

Jeremy was in custody from 7th until 12th September 1985, and interviewed under caution. The key silencer evidence was supposedly found by David Boutflour on the 10th August 1985, handed to DS Jones by Peter Eaton on the evening of 12th August 1985, taken to the lab' on the 13th August 1985, no label attached, so Ron Cook, he attached a brown coloured CJA exhibit label to it, and marked it 'SJ/1", because he thought it was the silencer DS Jones had seized at the scene on the 7th August 1985, and Cook did not know that Jones had a middle Christian name. Now, this is important because if Cook did not know DS Jones had got the middle name of 'Brian', then could somebody please explain how it was possible for Cook to mark the aforementioned exhibit label SBJ/1 under those / these circumstances? On 13th August 1985, Cook only knew DS Jones by the Christian name of 'Stan', so prey tell how he accurately guessed on that occasion that the missing middle initial of Jones'  Christian name was 'B'?

He didn't find that out until much later, and in fact recorded in his pocketbook entry, the correct exhibit reference 'SJ/1', at least this was one version of Cooks COLP interviews. 

[scipio_usmc]

Jeremy was in custody from 7th until 12th September 1985, and interviewed under caution. The key silencer evidence was supposedly found by David Boutflour on the 10th August 1985, handed to DS Jones by Peter Eaton on the evening of 12th August 1985, taken to the lab' on the 13th August 1985, no label attached, so Ron Cook, he attached a brown coloured CJA exhibit label to it, and marked it 'SJ/1", because he thought it was the silencer DS Jones had seized at the scene on the 7th August 1985, and Cook did not know that Jones had a middle Christian name. Now, this is important because if Cook did not know DS Jones had got the middle name of 'Brian', then could somebody please explain how it was possible for Cook to mark the aforementioned exhibit label SBJ/1 under those / these circumstances? On 13th August 1985, Cook only knew DS Jones by the Christian name of 'Stan', so prey tell how he accurately guessed on that occasion that the missing middle initial of Jones'  Christian name was 'B'?

He didn't find that out until much later, and in fact recorded in his pocketbook entry, the correct exhibit reference 'SJ/1', at least this was one version of Cooks COLP interviews.

Same old lies over and over again.  Cook said Jones told him his middle initial BEFORE he wrote up the label.  He wrote SBJ/1 on the label and the documents which he filled out on the 13th at the lab.  We have those documents- they say SBJ/1.  We have the form from the lab examiner who examined it and copied the exhibit nuber from the label onto her form and it says SBJ/1.  You repeat the same disproved nonsense like a broken record are you ever getting any new material?

[mike tesko]

Same old lies over and over again.  Cook said Jones told him his middle initial BEFORE he wrote up the label.  He wrote SBJ/1 on the label and the documents which he filled out on the 13th at the lab.  We have those documents- they say SBJ/1.  We have the form from the lab examiner who examined it and copied the exhibit nuber from the label onto her form and it says SBJ/1.  You repeat the same disproved nonsense like a broken record are you ever getting any new material?

Cook spilled the beans in his COLP interview, its in black and white, he told them that the entry he wrote in his pocketbook for 'that' silencer, was / is 'SJ/1'. Now, why would Crooky record the exhibit reference of 'SJ/1' in his pocketbook, if he had already given the silencer the exhibit reference, SBJ/1? You need to get your head sorted out, if you can't work something as simple as that out...

I suppose that's why crooked, corrupt, dishonest officials resort to such, because they are not capable of working simple things out retrospectively...

Silencer at lab' with Crooky on 13th August was defo' 'SJ/1', later altered into DB/1, and then DRB/1...

[mike tesko]

Let me put the cat amongst the pigeons, and say that the silencer which originally bore the exhibit reference 'SBJ/1', was used at the time the non fatal across the neck shot was inflicted, leaving its circular mark on the surface of the skin around that particular bullet entry wound...

[mike tesko]

Let me put the cat amongst the pigeons, and say that the silencer which originally bore the exhibit reference 'SBJ/1', was used at the time the non fatal across the neck shot was inflicted, leaving its circular mark on the surface of the skin around that particular bullet entry wound...

There was no silencer fitted to the barrel of the rifle at the time she was killed..

[scipio_usmc]

Cook spilled the beans in his COLP interview, its in black and white, he told them that the entry he wrote in his pocketbook for 'that' silencer, was / is 'SJ/1'. Now, why would Crooky record the exhibit reference of 'SJ/1' in his pocketbook, if he had already given the silencer the exhibit reference, SBJ/1? You need to get your head sorted out, if you can't work something as simple as that out...

I suppose that's why crooked, corrupt, dishonest officials resort to such, because they are not capable of working simple things out retrospectively...

Silencer at lab' with Crooky on 13th August was defo' 'SJ/1', later altered into DB/1, and then DRB/1...

He said he planned to label it SJ/1 but labeled it SBJ/1 instead because he spoke with Jones and that was what Jones wanted to use.  The lab says it had SBJ/1 on the label on Aug 13 when it arrived and that is what Cook wrote on the Holab forms he filled out on Aug 13.  you are just spinning your wheels.

[mike tesko]

He said he planned to label it SJ/1 but labeled it SBJ/1 instead because he spoke with Jones and that was what Jones wanted to use.  The lab says it had SBJ/1 on the label on Aug 13 when it arrived and that is what Cook it at the time Jones handed it to him.rote on the Holab forms he filled out on Aug 13.  you are just spinning your wheels.

No, he did not - he didn't say that at all in the typed version of his COLP witness statement which I have got possession of, He states that he was not aware that DS Jones had got a middle Christian name, when Jones handed him the silencer, which Cook says did not have an exhibit label attached to it by that stage. Cook refers to making a hand written entry into his police pocketbook, 'SJ/1', but claims the exhibit reference he put on the label was 'SBJ/1'. Yet this explanation is inconsistant, since, if Cook had indeed wrote 'SBJ/1' on the label at the lab', which both he and Glenis Howard signed in positions 2 and 3 on the aforementioned exhibit label, (a) why then does Cook record the exhibit reference for that silencer, as 'SJ/1' in his pocket book entry afterwards? (b) why does the exhibit label bearing Ron Cooks, and Glynis Howards signatures refer to the silencer as exhibit reference, 'DRB/1', with no sign of there ever having been any other exhibit reference of either, 'SJ/1', or 'SBJ/1', written on the same exhibit label?

When the COLP investigators put this glaring anomaly to Ron Cook, his reply was along the following lines, "that is the very first time that anyone had pointed this out to him"...

So, what answer did he give - "bugger all", because he knew that he and the other conspirators had "dropped a clanger" in processing the false silencer evidence in the case...

[mike tesko]

The exhibit labels produced bearing all the signatures, are forgeries , because neither show signs of ever having had, either, "SJ/1", or "SBJ/1",written upon them.

[scipio_usmc]

No, he did not - he didn't say that at all in the typed version of his COLP witness statement which I have got possession of, He states that he was not aware that DS Jones had got a middle Christian name, when Jones handed him the silencer, which Cook says did not have an exhibit label attached to it by that stage. Cook refers to making a hand written entry into his police pocketbook, 'SJ/1', but claims the exhibit reference he put on the label was 'SBJ/1'. Yet this explanation is inconsistant, since, if Cook had indeed wrote 'SBJ/1' on the label at the lab', which both he and Glenis Howard signed in positions 2 and 3 on the aforementioned exhibit label, (a) why then does Cook record the exhibit reference for that silencer, as 'SJ/1' in his pocket book entry afterwards? (b) why does the exhibit label bearing Ron Cooks, and Glynis Howards signatures refer to the silencer as exhibit reference, 'DRB/1', with no sign of there ever having been any other exhibit reference of either, 'SJ/1', or 'SBJ/1', written on the same exhibit label?

When the COLP investigators put this glaring anomaly to Ron Cook, his reply was along the following lines, "that is the very first time that anyone had pointed this out to him"...

So, what answer did he give - "bugger all", because he knew that he and the other conspirators had "dropped a clanger" in processing the false silencer evidence in the case...

Countless times I have posted the relevant excerpts from the transcript of Cook's interview.

He stated he wrote the entry SJ/1 in his pocketbook BEFORE he labeled the moderator and brought it to the lab.  He said he wrote that because he intended to label it SJ/1.

Subsequent to writing this but before he labeled it and went to the lab he spoke to Jones again and Jones told him to label it SBJ using his full initials.  He thus wrote SBJ/1 on the label and Holab forms instead of SJ/1 like he originally intended.

That's it end of story he originally intended to label it SJ/1 but ended up not doing so. Since he didn't label it SJ/1 the only existing reference to SJ/1 is the entry in his pocketbook that he intended to label it SJ/1.  What is so difficult to follow?

 

 

[scipio_usmc]

The exhibit labels produced bearing all the signatures, are forgeries , because neither show signs of ever having had, either, "SJ/1", or "SBJ/1",written upon them.

There never was a label marked SJ/1.  The SBJ/1 label was replaced when they redesignated it DB/1 

[mike tesko]

The exhibit labels produced bearing all the signatures, are forgeries , because neither show signs of ever having had, either, "SJ/1", or "SBJ/1",written upon them.

Since there is no evidence, and there was no evidence that the silencer exhibited at trial, had ever had the identifying marks of either, "SJ/1", or "SBJ/1", there was no way of knowing with certainty that the silencer exhibited during the trial at court, and the silencer which produced the key blood group and paint evidence, was in fact one and the same silencer, or an identical looking one, which had come into the possession of the police by some other means not yet admitted to by them, or their mouth pieces..

[mike tesko]

There never was a label marked SJ/1.  The SBJ/1 label was replaced when they redesignated it DB/1

Glynis Howard, only ever signed one exhibit label in connection with the silencer she examined on the 13th August 1985 - she told the COLP investigators. She told them that the exhibit label she had signed, had the identifying mark of "SBJ/1", yet when COLP showed her the exhibit label bearing her signature, and the signature of Ron Cook, bearibg only the identifying mark of "DRB/1", she could not explain  how her signature appeared on that exhibit label...

More disturbingly, When the COLP investigators pointed out to her that a witness statement made in her name, identified the silencer she had examined on the 13th August 1985, as exhibit "DRB/1", she denied ever having made such a witness statement, or dealing at all with a silencer marked "DB/1", only the one bearing the reference mark of "SBJ/1"...