David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim

[John]

Mike Tesko' is speaking the truth, and so long as I believe it to be true, there is nothing they can do about it...

Maybe it is your wish to have this tested in court?   Would that assist Jeremy Bamber?

[guest2181]

Mike Tesko must realise that there will be consequences for him as a result of his libelling police officers, family members and scientific officers.

Obviously ngb has no say in the matter.

John, it's not that long ago the relatives attempted unsuccessfully to get the red forum closed down. I think if I recall correctly that you threatened one of them with the line "If you don't want to be friends then we can be enemies".

It just doesn't sit right with me that you would now perch so high.

[mike tesko]

Maybe it is your wish to have this tested in court?   Would that assist Jeremy Bamber?

Can anyone answer, the basic question that I put, was the 'A' type blood obtained from the examination of the flake from the silencer, A+, or A- type blood?

[mike tesko]

What does John Haywards evidence say about 'antigens' or 'antibodies' of the blood obtained from the flake from the silencer?

[John]

John, it's not that long ago the relatives attempted unsuccessfully to get the red forum closed down. I think if I recall correctly that you threatened one of them with the line "If you don't want to be friends then we can be enemies".

It just doesn't sit right with me that you would now perch so high.

I'm afraid that never happened.  The one and only attempt to interefere with the red forum came from the McCanns lawyers and related merely to the copyright of Kate McCanns book Madeleine.

[mike tesko]

As I say, there simply was insufficient detail produced from the examination of the flake from the silencer, to justify John Hayward staking the claim that the basic four blood group results, were unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell. Worse yet, because of such a misleading claim the prosecution was able to rely upon the suggestion that the silencer in question must have been fitted to the barrel of the rifle that fired the fatal shot which killed her, and that she could not have removed the silencer, which contained her unique and exclusive blood, from the barrel of the gun, and transported it downstairs to hide it in the so called gun cupboard - but it was all part of a dishonest deception, based on a claim John Hayward was not entitled to make on the back of such basic blood group activity...

[guest2181]

I'm afraid that never happened.  The one and only attempt to interefere with the red forum came from the McCanns lawyers and related merely to the copyright of Kate McCanns book Madeleine.

You and I know that simply isn't true.

[John]

As I say, there simply was insufficient detail produced from the examination of the flake from the silencer, to justify John Hayward staking the claim that the basic four blood group results, were unique and exclusive to Sheila Caffell. Worse yet, because of such a misleading claim the prosecution was able to rely upon the suggestion that the silencer in question must have been fitted to the barrel of the rifle that fired the fatal shot which killed her, and that she could not have removed the silencer, which contained her unique and exclusive blood, from the barrel of the gun, and transported it downstairs to hide it in the so called gun cupboard - but it was all part of a dishonest deception, based on a claim John Hayward was not entitled to make on the back of such basic blood group activity...

You have to remember that there have been many scientific advances in blood analysis since 1985.

[John]

You and I know that simply isn't true.

I'm afraid you are mistaken Hartley, the family have never made any threats against the red forum.  In any event why would they, the forum is wholly supportive of Jeremy's conviction.

[guest2181]

I'm afraid you are mistaken Hartley, the family have never made any threats against the red forum.

I most certainly am not.

[mike tesko]

You have to remember that there have been many scientific advances in blood analysis since 1985.

Hence, why it has to be treated as 'fresh Evidence' not available at the time of the 1986 trial, or the 2002 appeal hearing...

[John]

Hence, why it has to be treated as 'fresh Evidence' not available at the time of the 1986 trial, or the 2002 appeal hearing...

As someone posted the other day, there is no blood left to sample, it has all effectively been destroyed.  Consequently there is nothing to test and no new evidence.

[guest2181]

why would they, the forum is wholly supportive of Jeremy's conviction.

As I said, it was your "if you don't want to be friends then we can be enemies" , which I'm sure you remember well.

[guest2181]

As I said, it was your "if you don't want to be friends then we can be enemies" , which I'm sure you remember well.

Perhaps you were just "joking" ?

[John]

Perhaps you were just "joking" ?

If I recall that was a comment made on a facebook account several years ago.