What makes Bamber innocent?

[mike tesko]

My Papa was brilliant at taking the headline and first paragraph of a newspaper and rearranging to to mean something entirely other than what was intended. It amused him to do it. You appear to have something of his talent but you can't blame ANYONE for not taking you seriously given the number of LUDICROUS and conflicting "facts" -TRUTHS!!!!!!!!!- that you've presented us with. A PERFECT example being the picture of "Sheila on the bed with one wound". You had it in your possession. I believe you said you nicked it from Jeremy's solicitor? -I recall, naive and trusting idiot that I was, begging you to pass it to Jeremy's team/the media. You said the time wasn't right!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then there was something about you being burgled? or was it to do with Special Branch or the KGB or Gremlins warning you off? Remind me please, exactly what WAS the outcome? Oh yes. Out of the blue came the information that Jeremy no longer needed said picture...................WHAT??? A pic of his dead -ALIVE, as you'd have us believe!!!!!!!- sister laying on a bed, genitals exposed, with only ONE bullet wound, and Jeremy no longer needs it? Strange that all those agencies should have put themselves about for something so worthless don't you think?  Nonetheless, you can spin a good story and I frequently find, what you say, both amusing and entertaining.............however I reserve the right to refuse to allow my intelligence to be insulted.

Good, you believe what you want to believe, and see in the facts what you either want to see, or for that matter, don't want to see. Have you ever stopped and thought just for a moment why J is declaring that he no longer needs one of the three photographs in existence, any further?  How do you know he hasn't now got access to at least one of those three images that I have seen, and one which I did remove from the file in Ewen Smiths possession and sent to J but it got intercepted and confiscated. I don't have to prove that this took place, it certainly did take place, and when J found out about the existence of 'that' photograph having been in Ewen Smiths possession along with other photographs which J had obviously not seen before, he was 'hopping mad' that I should have sent it in to him in the guise of a 'privileged letter', (Rule 37A). He was not only angry with me for sending 'that' photograph into him, but he was mad at the time because the prison stopped his entitlement to post and receive privileged letters between himself and GDS. He was angry at Ewen because Ewen had not even told J that he had got access to all the previously 'unseen' photographs, including 'that' photograph of Sister on the bed. That photograph was confiscated along with my accompanying letter by prison security / discipline and placed into J's prison file. I ended up writing a letter to the governor at HMP Full Sutton, asking him not to hold J responsible for me sending in the photograph of Sheila on the bed, and its accompanying letter. I told him that I was still under the impression that I had 'rights' to use the privileged letter system from when I operated as J's McKenzie man back in 1990/ 1991, stating that the Home Office had not informed me that this privilege had been revoked. I found out that at the time I sent the sisters photograph of her on the bed in, that J had unbeknown to me, already been using that privilege to communicate with GDS, and because of that, for example, GDS being J's legal representative now, and not me, that J could only exercise that privilege with his appointed legal advisor at the time. To cut to the chase, my letter that accompanied the photograph of the sister on the bed, were placed on J's prison file. I do know that J himself made an application to the governor for him to be able to see the contents of the letter from me that was confiscated and placed on his prison file, and that the governor allowed him to read its contents but he was told that he could not see the photograph itself because it was too sensitive, and belonged to Essex police. Now, I'm not bothered what you choose to believe, but the sister 'was' photographed on the bed, and if what the pathologist stated that it was the second shot that killed her, I can tell you now that at the time she was photographed laying on the bed, she can't have been dead, yet. This is not me twisting words, this is me stating facts. For all you or anybody else knows, the cops have twisted the words of the facts. I certainly have not...

[mike tesko]

Good, you believe what you want to believe, and see in the facts what you either want to see, or for that matter, don't want to see. Have you ever stopped and thought just for a moment why J is declaring that he no longer needs one of the three photographs in existence, any further?  How do you know he hasn't now got access to at least one of those three images that I have seen, and one which I did remove from the file in Ewen Smiths possession and sent to J but it got intercepted and confiscated. I don't have to prove that this took place, it certainly did take place, and when J found out about the existence of 'that' photograph having been in Ewen Smiths possession along with other photographs which J had obviously not seen before, he was 'hopping mad' that I should have sent it in to him in the guise of a 'privileged letter', (Rule 37A). He was not only angry with me for sending 'that' photograph into him, but he was mad at the time because the prison stopped his entitlement to post and receive privileged letters between himself and GDS. He was angry at Ewen because Ewen had not even told J that he had got access to all the previously 'unseen' photographs, including 'that' photograph of Sister on the bed. That photograph was confiscated along with my accompanying letter by prison security / discipline and placed into J's prison file. I ended up writing a letter to the governor at HMP Full Sutton, asking him not to hold J responsible for me sending in the photograph of Sheila on the bed, and its accompanying letter. I told him that I was still under the impression that I had 'rights' to use the privileged letter system from when I operated as J's McKenzie man back in 1990/ 1991, stating that the Home Office had not informed me that this privilege had been revoked. I found out that at the time I sent the sisters photograph of her on the bed in, that J had unbeknown to me, already been using that privilege to communicate with GDS, and because of that, for example, GDS being J's legal representative now, and not me, that J could only exercise that privilege with his appointed legal advisor at the time. To cut to the chase, my letter that accompanied the photograph of the sister on the bed, were placed on J's prison file. I do know that J himself made an application to the governor for him to be able to see the contents of the letter from me that was confiscated and placed on his prison file, and that the governor allowed him to read its contents but he was told that he could not see the photograph itself because it was too sensitive, and belonged to Essex police. Now, I'm not bothered what you choose to believe, but the sister 'was' photographed on the bed, and if what the pathologist stated that it was the second shot that killed her, I can tell you now that at the time she was photographed laying on the bed, she can't have been dead, yet. This is not me twisting words, this is me stating facts. For all you or anybody else knows, the cops have twisted the words of the facts. I certainly have not...

Which part of the cop radio message do you accuse me of twisting? That's an awful accusation to make, considering that cops passed the messages I seek to rely upon. The finding of two bodies in the kitchen upon entry, cannot in any way, shape or form, be an error. Such a suggestion is total bollocks. How can any sane person declare that (7.37am) 'the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found in kitchen upon entry'? Worse still, (7.38am), ' the body of one dead male, one dead female'...

You need to quickly educate me and tell me how in the world did you arrive at the ludicrous situation that these references related to only one body being in the kitchen. Forgive me for stopping you in your tracks, but who said so? Not any cop inside the farmhouse at 7.38am, so where do you and the Looney from red forum get your delusional thoughts from? How utterly amazing that none of the cops who were inside the farmhouse at that stage, offer the same explanation as you and that clown from the red forum. I just want to get it out in the open that between you, the pair of you are just guilty of making things up, just for the sake of doing so. Nobody from the scene mentions the thing you seek to rely upon, so out of the blue you make something up, and expect everybody else to believe it...

Do you know what ' a fact', is?

Do you know, what constitutes ' evidence?

I suggest you gather your thoughts, take a deep breath, and get back to the drawing board...

[Jane]

Which part of the cop radio message do you accuse me of twisting? That's an awful accusation to make, considering that cops passed the messages I seek to rely upon. The finding of two bodies in the kitchen upon entry, cannot in any way, shape or form, be an error. Such a suggestion is total bollocks. How can any sane person declare that (7.37am) 'the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found in kitchen upon entry'? Worse still, (7.38am), ' the body of one dead male, one dead female'...

You need to quickly educate me and tell me how in the world did you arrive at the ludicrous situation that these references related to only one body being in the kitchen. Forgive me for stopping you in your tracks, but who said so? Not any cop inside the farmhouse at 7.38am, so where do you and the Looney from red forum get your delusional thoughts from? How utterly amazing that none of the cops who were inside the farmhouse at that stage, offer the same explanation as you and that clown from the red forum. I just want to get it out in the open that between you, the pair of you are just guilty of making things up, just for the sake of doing so. Nobody from the scene mentions the thing you seek to rely upon, so out of the blue you make something up, and expect everybody else to believe it...

Do you know what ' a fact', is?

Do you know, what constitutes ' evidence?

I suggest you gather your thoughts, take a deep breath, and get back to the drawing board...

Nothing to forgive, Mike. You'll only stop me in my tracks if I allow you to.

Could you perhaps point me to the place at which I allegedly accused you of twisting any cop message. I feel it necessary to wonder why, if ALL those "cops" allegedly thought they saw two bodies in the kitchen, they didn't stick to the story. It also bothers me that IF there had been a female body when they first entered, it stands to reason that someone other than police were responsible. It also appears that the only proof you have is what has been told you by your alleged informants, ALL members/ex members of the police force you so despise and yet you appear to trust every word they've allegedly told you as being gospel truth whilst saying that all cops are liars, and yet you sent an allegedly HIGHLY confidential letter/evidence which could have cleared Jeremy's name through the police/prison system that you SO mistrust.

I really do feel that you need to decide on a story and stick to it without embellishment. For my own part, I've made up nothing. No stories/suggestions of incestuous relationships. No stories/suggestions of a late night foray to WHF by biological mother/grandmother. No stories/suggestions of an unnamed man hanging around to have illicit sex with Sheila.  No stories/suggestions about illicit activities being carried out by the Brothers of a benign religious order causing a terrified Sheila to flee its vicinity. However, please feel free to provide proof of the afore mentioned and I will offer my profuse and sincere apologies. From where I'm sitting, John is doing no more than sticking to facts without any add-ons.

[mike tesko]

I can't believe that there are people who will 'not accept the facts', according to what cops themselves spoke about, passed messages about, yet who have failed to explain why such contradictions, inconsistences, and ambiguities exist, not only regarding what they said, but what they meant when they said what they said. It's no good cops saying that two bodies were found in the kitchen upon entry, if there was only one body, not two. The fact that cops have not sought to rectify that significant detail, cannot be overlooked easily. Its alright those supporters claiming there was only dads body downstairs in the kitchen, but that's not 'what it says in the police logs, now is it? These supporters of Bambers  guilt, are just 'guessing', but when a mans liberty hangs in the balance over such fine detail, how dare they falsely claim there was only one body found upon entry to the kitchen, because by reference to the logs, two bodies were found. ' The body of one dead male (dad), 'and' (I think inclusion of this word here means the second body which was reported as being female, was 'in addition' to dads body, not in place of it...

[Jane]

I can't believe that there are people who will 'not accept the facts', according to what cops themselves spoke about, passed messages about, yet who have failed to explain why such contradictions, inconsistences, and ambiguities exist, not only regarding what they said, but what they meant when they said what they said. It's no good cops saying that two bodies were found in the kitchen upon entry, if there was only one body, not two. The fact that cops have not sought to rectify that significant detail, cannot be overlooked easily. Its alright those supporters claiming there was only dads body downstairs in the kitchen, but that's not 'what it says in the police logs, now is it? These supporters of Bambers  guilt, are just 'guessing', but when a mans liberty hangs in the balance over such fine detail, how dare they falsely claim there was only one body found upon entry to the kitchen, because by reference to the logs, two bodies were found. ' The body of one dead male (dad), 'and' (I think inclusion of this word here means the second body which was reported as being female, was 'in addition' to dads body, not in place of it...

Well Mike, instead of trying to deposit a guilt trip on those of us who believe Jeremy is guilty, perhaps you could ponder on the fact, that had you done as I suggested in the first instance, ie sent the alleged picture -or copies of such- to the media, Jeremy, by now, COULD have enjoyed several years of freedom.

[mike tesko]

Nothing to forgive, Mike. You'll only stop me in my tracks if I allow you to.

Could you perhaps point me to the place at which I allegedly accused you of twisting any cop message. I feel it necessary to wonder why, if ALL those "cops" allegedly thought they saw two bodies in the kitchen, they didn't stick to the story. It also bothers me that IF there had been a female body when they first entered, it stands to reason that someone other than police were responsible. It also appears that the only proof you have is what has been told you by your alleged informants, ALL members/ex members of the police force you so despise and yet you appear to trust every word they've allegedly told you as being gospel truth whilst saying that all cops are liars, and yet you sent an allegedly HIGHLY confidential letter/evidence which could have cleared Jeremy's name through the police/prison system that you SO mistrust.

I really do feel that you need to decide on a story and stick to it without embellishment. For my own part, I've made up nothing. No stories/suggestions of incestuous relationships. No stories/suggestions of a late night foray to WHF by biological mother/grandmother. No stories/suggestions of an unnamed man hanging around to have illicit sex with Sheila.  No stories/suggestions about illicit activities being carried out by the Brothers of a benign religious order causing a terrified Sheila to flee its vicinity. However, please feel free to provide proof of the afore mentioned and I will offer my profuse and sincere apologies. From where I'm sitting, John is doing no more than sticking to facts without any add-ons.

No, he is not sticking to 'the facts' and neither are you. The facts are that in accordance with these contemporaneously recorded police radio messages, that 'two bodies (not one) were 'found' upon entry to the kitchen. That's what it says, and those are the 'facts'. It seems to me that whenever its convenient to do so, those on your side of the fence, simply 'ignore the recorded facts, as though they never existed. And in place of the actual facts that are there for all to see, you people introduce a make believe story of which there isn't any truth contained anywhere in these police radio message logs to support what you allege and make up in your minds as you go along. Run that by me again, how do you make out a case for there only being one body downstairs by reference to anything that is said, in the police radio message logs?

You won't be able to find any reference there, to support your argument, basically because nowhere in the entire radio message logs does it refer to there only ever being one body downstairs in the kitchen, and four bodies upstairs in the bedrooms. The contents of these police radio logs is 'evidence', and none of the cops involved in this not being reported have come forward at any stage to say, the contents of these logs is wrong, there was an error, etc...

Despite what you think, you and the rest of your crew, are trying to turn this into, the body count downstairs and upstairs being as it is stated in cop witness statements, which outline the case, for only one body downstairs, the other four bodies were upstairs. As I say I can see what your game is, and I can see that you are reluctant to have to concede that according to the contents of these police radio message logs, that 'two bodies' were downstairs, 'three other bodies' upstairs, by 8.10am. You cannot see any further than the end of your own nose. The truth in this matter, is that raid officers have deliberately lied about the 'whereabouts' of Sheila's body when cops entered the kitchen. The message logs clearly place Sheila downstairs in the kitchen, as opposed to the witness statement contents which place Sheila on the bedroom floor with the anshuzt rifle from the same bedroom window, on top of her body. Let me assure you, that cops could 'not' have come across Sheila's body on the bedroom floor with the anshuzt rifle in her possession because lo and behold that rifle was resting close to the bedroom window and had been there ever since around 7.15am. The truth of the matter, is that stated in the police radio message logs, by 8.10am. The witness statement evidence is ' fraudulent', since cops did not find Sheila's body on the bedroom floor. The fact is, that that was where her body ended up after ' familiars' had been carried out by cops conducting a training exercise. What cops have done is unforgivable, they have substituted the knowledge regarding where Sheila's body 'ended up' at the end of 'that' training exercise, and made that location and position, as the same place they had first laid eyes on it...

This is the 'absolute truth'...

[lookout]

What an unholy mess the paperwork for this case is,with edits and lines through statements. That alone should have been questioned then put in some semblance of order. All this altering and editing of various statements tells me that all everyone was concerned about was assassinating Jeremy's character as thoughts about him being " master of all he surveyed " caused sporadic thoughts which were randomly written because there was bugger-all else to convict him with. Sheer bitterness and jealousy caused an innocent man to be incarcerated for something he DIDN'T do and he certainly wasn't aware of the outcome of such outpourings of greed and hatred.

[Jane]

No, he is not sticking to 'the facts' and neither are you. The facts are that in accordance with these contemporaneously recorded police radio messages, that 'two bodies (not one) were 'found' upon entry to the kitchen. That's what it says, and those are the 'facts'. It seems to me that whenever its convenient to do so, those on your side of the fence, simply 'ignore the recorded facts, as though they never existed. And in place of the actual facts that are there for all to see, you people introduce a make believe story of which there isn't any truth contained anywhere in these police radio message logs to support what you allege and make up in your minds as you go along. Run that by me again, how do you make out a case for there only being one body downstairs by reference to anything that is said, in the police radio message logs?

You won't be able to find any reference there, to support your argument, basically because nowhere in the entire radio message logs does it refer to there only ever being one body downstairs in the kitchen, and four bodies upstairs in the bedrooms. The contents of these police radio logs is 'evidence', and none of the cops involved in this not being reported have come forward at any stage to say, the contents of these logs is wrong, there was an error, etc...

Despite what you think, you and the rest of your crew, are trying to turn this into, the body count downstairs and upstairs being as it is stated in cop witness statements, which outline the case, for only one body downstairs, the other four bodies were upstairs. As I say I can see what your game is, and I can see that you are reluctant to have to concede that according to the contents of these police radio message logs, that 'two bodies' were downstairs, 'three other bodies' upstairs, by 8.10am. You cannot see any further than the end of your own nose. The truth in this matter, is that raid officers have deliberately lied about the 'whereabouts' of Sheila's body when cops entered the kitchen. The message logs clearly place Sheila downstairs in the kitchen, as opposed to the witness statement contents which place Sheila on the bedroom floor with the anshuzt rifle from the same bedroom window, on top of her body. Let me assure you, that cops could 'not' have come across Sheila's body on the bedroom floor with the anshuzt rifle in her possession because lo and behold that rifle was resting close to the bedroom window and had been there ever since around 7.15am. The truth of the matter, is that stated in the police radio message logs, by 8.10am. The witness statement evidence is ' fraudulent', since cops did not find Sheila's body on the bedroom floor. The fact is, that that was where her body ended up after ' familiars' had been carried out by cops conducting a training exercise. What cops have done is unforgivable, they have substituted the knowledge regarding where Sheila's body 'ended up' at the end of 'that' training exercise, and made that location and position, as the same place they had first laid eyes on it...

This is the 'absolute truth'...

It appears that you're avoiding the arguments I've raised, Mike. I WILL concede that it MAY be "fact" that whilst certain statements, erroneously say certain things, however, it far from makes those contents established facts. It is you who has raised this issue, NOT I, so who of the two of us is playing games? I notice you haven't yet addressed the point I made regarding the alleged finding of Sheila's BODY downstairs. "Body" suggesting DEAD, who do you believe shot her before the police arrived and shot her twice?

[mike tesko]

Well Mike, instead of trying to deposit a guilt trip on those of us who believe Jeremy is guilty, perhaps you could ponder on the fact, that had you done as I suggested in the first instance, ie sent the alleged picture -or copies of such- to the media, Jeremy, by now, COULD have enjoyed several years of freedom.

No, I did what I thought was for the best. I had previously had communication with, to and from J using the privileged letter writing system (Rule 37A) when I was his McKenzie man. So I honestly thought he would get my letter and the photograph of Sheila on the bed. I think things took a turn for the worst because on the evening I took the photograph of Sheila on the bed from 'The Senior Investigating officers album', in Ewens care which he was given access to because Ewen had applied to become a CCRC Commissioner, and the CCRC arranged it so that Ewen got to see all the previously unseen photographs. That evening J had booked a phone slot to call me, and when we spoke over the phone that evening, I told J what I had done and he asked me to post it into him. He said he was annoyed that Ewen had got access to these photographs without informing him. And J was not too happy about me seeing the photo's before he had. With J being a triple Category A prisoner, he was on the book, and all his calls were automatically monitored...

[mike tesko]

No, I did what I thought was for the best. I had previously had communication with, to and from J using the privileged letter writing system (Rule 37A) when I was his McKenzie man. So I honestly thought he would get my letter and the photograph of Sheila on the bed. I think things took a turn for the worst because on the evening I took the photograph of Sheila on the bed from 'The Senior Investigating officers album', in Ewens care which he was given access to because Ewen had applied to become a CCRC Commissioner, and the CCRC arranged it so that Ewen got to see all the previously unseen photographs. That evening J had booked a phone slot to call me, and when we spoke over the phone that evening, I told J what I had done and he asked me to post it into him. He said he was annoyed that Ewen had got access to these photographs without informing him. And J was not too happy about me seeing the photo's before he had. With J being a triple Category A prisoner, he was on the book, and all his calls were automatically monitored...

It didn't help matters, that on the phone 'that' particular evening that J said he was going to make an application in the morning to be able to telephone Ewen Smith up and talk to him about these photographs in his possession, and that he should not be showing 'me' any photographs without himself seeing them. I guess whilst our phone call was being monitored that the censor picked up on the fact that I had got one of the photographs, and that I was sending it in to J by post. In addition, J himself on the following morning made an application to make the aforementioned telephone call to Ewen. I don't know what J said to Ewen, or what Ewen said to J during that call, but the gist is that it must have included details of the unseen photographs in Ewens possession and the fact that I had viewed them, and J hadn't. Rest assured that his call to Ewen would have been monitored. In view of this it was hardly surprising that the censor intercepted my letter with the photograph inside on the following days post. Everything I have said about how I came into possession of the photograph of Sheila on the bed is true. I took that photograph from ' the senior investigating officers album' that was in Ewens possession with the intention of providing it to J as 'conclusive proof' that he could not have shot the bullet which killed her under the chin (the second shot) because in the photograph of Sheila on the bed, she only had what appeared to be a single bullet hole in her throat, with a very feint vertical blood flow that had dried running down that part of her neck that was visible. There was no additional wound present on her throat at that stage, so I know with 100% certainty, that J did 'not' kill his sister, because he could not possibly have fired the fatal bullet from that anshuzt rifle, because cops had control of the body from 8.30am, that morning inside the bedroom. Prior to this cops did not have control of Sheila's body upstairs at any stage. J could not have had anything at all to do with his sisters body at any time after it arrived upstairs around 8.30am. This being true, how did he shoot her on the second occasion? How could he have 'staged her body on the bedroom floor, and moved her body from atop the bed onto the bedroom floor after 9.10am? Impossible, he couldn't have, and he hadn't, nor did he do so...

Don't let it be overlooked, that the CCRC will have a record of the fact that prior to me obtaining the photograph of S on the bed, that 'the senior investigating officers album' had been loaned to Ewen Smith under 'privileged' circumstances. Secondly, that the prison authorities are obliged to keep an accurate record of all communications made by and from a prisoner of triple A category, and thirdly, that the prison confiscated my letter and the photograph of S on the bed. Her body was on the bed, and you can believe what you like. There isn't only me that saw her body laying there on the bed, Dr Craig, DI Miller, PS Adams, DS 'Stan' Jones, DC 'Mick' Clarke, and 'Annie' Eaton (who was told this by 'Stan" Jones, and, or, 'Mick' Clark, within minutes of them both having seen S's body there on the bed) as well as there being mention of S's body having been found on the bed defo' prior to 9.13am, that morning. Somebody moved the body from the bed after around 9.10am, and put it on the bedroom floor. I believe it was moved from bed to floor chiefly so that the bed could be searched for spent ammunition, and secondly because those responsible for hithching up the hem of her nightdress didn't want senior officers to see the 'prank' they had been responsible for carrying out, and photographing. J is defo' 100% innocent of killing sister anywhere at all inside that farmhouse, because S hadn't even been shot at all when cops entered the farmhouse, let alone the kitchen. Rest assured that what I have told you is 100% accurate, with no margin for error...

[mike tesko]

Nothing to forgive, Mike. You'll only stop me in my tracks if I allow you to.

Could you perhaps point me to the place at which I allegedly accused you of twisting any cop message. when you refer to there only having been one body downstairs not two, you deliberate 'ignore' the contents of the police radio message log contents which state that 'two bodies' were present there...I feel it necessary to wonder why, if ALL those "cops" allegedly thought Did)...they saw see...two bodies in the kitchen, they didn't stick to the story. Because at the debriefing held at Witham police station, later that same evening, cops were all told by senior officers to make sure that they all made their notes out with the bodies as shown in the video of the crime scene and in particular that the investigation that was going to be carried out was with it being a murder suicide scenario. So, cops changed the account of where Sheila's body was first come upon which was 'downstairs' in the kitchen, and adopted the scenario of her body having been found where PC Bird had photographed it on the bedroom floor alongside the edge of the bed...It also bothers me that IF there had been a female body when they first entered, it stands to reason that someone other than police were responsible.No, it doesn't necessarily mean that she was pretending to be dead, or that she had been shot at all by that stage. I think that in the context of the truth, the use of the word 'found' is ambiguous. What I mean is, it doesn't have to mean that they 'found her dead', but that they believed she was dead after she got shot during entry into the kitchen... It also appears that the only proof you have is what has been told you by your alleged informants, nonsense, there is clear definitive proof that S was downstairs in the kitchen at 7.37 and 7.38am, recorded in the police message log contents, and definitive proof that by 8.10am, her body was 'not' one of the 'other' three bodies found upstairs...ALL members/ex members of the police force you so despise be careful what you say about all the cops I despise, you can't possibly name all of them personally, whereas I can...and yet you appear to trust every word they've With the exception of DS 'Stan Jones, DI 'Ron' Cook, and members of the raid team that 'found' S's body in the kitchen when they entered, as far as I am aware no individual cops I truly despise were not involved in any way shape or form, unless you know otherwise...allegedly told you as being gospel truth whilst saying that all cops are liars these are 'your words', not mine. The simple truth of the matter is that I despise all cops who can be shown or known to have become engaged in corrupt practices. Not all cops are like that, and if the truth be known the cops that do lend a corrupt hand during an investigation, are not 'always' corrupt, they choose their moments and do it when they feel it necessary to do it, to benefit the prospects of getting a 'result', so to speak. Some people call this, ' feathering the goose, that laid the golden egg', others refer to it as ' noble cause corruption', but in truth it is an act, or a series of acts involving, ' Malfeance in public office', its dishonest, its an abuse of authority, and the cops that do these things have no lawful authority to do what they do... , and yet you sent an allegedly not allegedly, definitely... HIGHLY confidential letter/evidence which could have cleared Jeremy's name through the police/prison system that you SO mistrust. Something which I had done on many previous occasions without any bother, or fuss. J himself accepts that I sent that letter with the photograph inside with it. He got his privilege of using 'that' system of communicating with a legal advisor suspended because of me sending that 'explicit' image of S through the post along with my accompanying letter'. He made a governors request to have both, but the governor (I think it was Mr Staples) only allowed him to read my letter, he was 'not shown' the photograph that accompanied it. The contents of my letter clearly describe how I came into possession of the enclosed photograph of S on the bed, why I had taken it, and proof that I had taken it, and sent it to J under guise of the 'privileged' letter writing system that inmates and legal advisors may use. The truth is all documented in the CCRC, Ewen Smith, Jeremy and prison records, that I had the photograph of S on the bed, shot once, in keeping with the evidence of Dr Craig, DI Miller, DS 'Stan' Jones, DC Clark, and 'Annie' Eaton. You can choose to believe what you want. I would be willing to take a lie detector test to confirm what I have done, what I have seen, and what I am saying with regards to this matter, providing you pay for it because I'm skint...

I really do feel that you need to decide on a story I don't do stories, I'll leave that to all the people who don't know the truth. The thing is, I am a part of the truth in this case, because I have played a pivotal role in its investigation, seen the evidence for myself, got some of the evidence from the investigation in my possession, met and discussed in fine detail the various other key characters who have also been involved in these investigations, and inquiries, including J, himself, Rivlin, QC, Ewen Smith, Andrew Hunter, Roger Wilkes, the Relatives, and three ex cops who were their at the scene on the morning of the siege. I may not be directly involved with J now, but I am still part of the general movement aimed at ensuring that J gets his day of justice. You can believe what you want to. Mine is not a story, its a recitation of true events, involving real people, and items of evidential value. I feel overwhelmed at the number of web sites that have sprung up since those early days back at HMP Full Sutton, when J only had me to talk too, and to confide in. Now, there's loads and loads of people taking an interest in his plight, and I am so glad...and stick to it without embellishment. what do you mean, by embellishment? For my own part, I've made up nothing. neither have I...No stories/suggestions of incestuous relationships now, there's a funny thing, 'cos neither have I. If you are insinuating that I made it up, your wrong, because I had discussions with J himself about this... No stories/suggestions of a late night foray to WHF by biological mother/ggrandmotherSome evidence does exist in the police file of such a possibility having occurred, but its a matter of personal choice whether anybody wants to read into that further... No stories/suggestions of an unnamed man hanging around Let's get something straight. It is recorded that an 'unidentified male' was seen by PC Myall at the scene at 3.45am. According to an article published in the Daily Express by Kim Sengupta, this unidentified male had been hanging around outside the farmhouse for about an hour after cops arrived at the scene, before this man, who was described as scruffy looking and having hunched shoulders, walked away from the farmhouse in the general direct of Prentice farm. Now, that is what the records show, so don't be accusing me of making up anything to do with this. Concentrate on why the cops covered up the true circumstances of S's death upstairs in the bedroom, not downstairs in the kitchen... to have illicit sex with Sheila.  No stories/suggestions about illicit activities being carried out by the Brothers of a benign religious order causing a terrified Sheila to flee its vvicinity. not stories, as you choose to put it. There is evidence in the police file, that S had a link to the monastery in question, two witnesses, one a delivery driver who regularly delivered goods to the monastery in question, the other witness a member of the public who had to hide behind a tree on a footpath when he heard and then saw an hysterical S running along the trail screaming obscenities as she ran along the footpath beyond him, and out of sight. The witness described this experience of 'putting the fear of god in him'... However, please feel free to provide proof of the afore mentioned and I will offer my profuse and sincere apologies. From where I'm sitting, John is doing no more than sticking to facts no, he is not. He completely ignores the 'evidence' of two bodies being present downstairs, and only three bodies being upstairs by 8.10, as confirmed, and documented in the form of the police radio message log contents. He chooses to rely upon what cops wrote in their witness statements which 'do not state' of whereabouts the officers themselves were inside the farmhouse at key times, such as 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.41am, 7.42am, 7.45am, and 8.10am. The 'evidence' contained in the radio logs do... without any add-ons. The facts are the facts, and I shall reiterate once more, what the basic facts are, without add on's, for your sake. In a nutshell, it comes down to this...

There are two different versions relating to where bodies 'were' when police entered the farmhouse, (1) - contents of police radio message log, and (2) - witness statement accounts. In the former, it only deal with where the body count was distributed inside the house at first contact with the bodies of the victims until and up to 8.10am. It is stated categorically that by 8.10am two bodies were present in the kitchen, and that a further three bodies were found upstairs, making five dead in total. From timed information contained in other message logs, it also states that at 7.42am, that morning a request was passed for the police surgeon, and the coroners officer, and the Divisional chief Superintendent to be notified that 'two Bodies' had been already found at the scene ( no mention of any of the other three bodies by this time). It states that one of the two bodies which were present in the kitchen at 7.37am and 7.38am, was a male body, and 'that' the second body in the kitchen was that of a 'female'. So it is a 'big' clue, that the reference 'in these timed messages' to two bodies is accurate, because these bodies are confirmed by the evidence in these contemporaneously recorded logs, that one of these two bodies was a male body, whilst the other body, the second one, was a female. That's not all because just prior to the control room contacting DS Davidson at home at 7.45am, the control room receives information from the scene, that relating to the two bodies already reported, that one of these deaths is reported to be a murder, whilst the other death being described as a suicide. Now, we know because it is documented with timed events, that when cops entered the kitchen there 'were' two bodies, one of these bodies was a male, the other body was a female. One of these two bodies was being described as a murder, the second body being referred to by 7.45am as a suicide. In a nutshell, the male body, was clearly a reference to dad, who had been murdered, and the reference to a female, was clearly a reference to S, who was thought to have committed suicide...

The second version of events, contained in the form of witness statements made by cops, describes only finding the body of dad downstairs in the kitchen, with June, S, and the children all upstairs. But the truly odd thing about each and all if these witness statements, is that the finding of dads body downstairs in the kitchen is not timed, nor are the find of the other four bodies upstairs in the bedrooms...

There's an old saying, ' if you want to know the time ask a policeman'...

Well, not in this case. You see cops in the witness statements do not mention specific timed events (for a reason). That reason is because Sheila's body was originally present downstairs in the kitchen from 7.37am until 8.10am. It was not relocated upstairs on the bed in the same bedroom where mums body had originally been found at 8.10am, until 8.30am. There was a period of about 15 minutes, between 8.15am and 8.30am, when cops did not 'have a clue' of the whereabouts inside the entire farmhouse S might be, other than she was not in the kitchen where she had originally been suspected of having committed suicide. Now, it seems to me that getting at the real truth may involve finding out what DCI 'George' Harris was talking to ACC 'Peter Simpson about using the kitchen phone for a duration of 15 minutes, between 8.15am, and 8.39am. To me obtaining the notes which deal with the topic of conversation which occurred at such a pivotal stage of the police operation ongoing inside the farmhouse at that stage, which if the truth be known as accepted as the real truth, involved how the circumstances explaining why the body count between the police radio message log account, up to and by 8.10am 'had been two bodies downstairs in kitchen, three bodies upstairs in bedroom', had become dramatically changed and became a scenario akin to that described in the witness statement accounts which describe only one body downstairs in the kitchen, and now four bodies upstairs in the bedrooms. Those crucial key moments between 8.10am, and 8.44am when Miller and Dr Craig saw S's body on the far side of the bed, with a single bullet wound to the throat, is J's 'Alibi', there waiting to be explored, and discovered. Everything that matters occurred at the scene, inside that farmhouse between 8.10am and 8.44am, that morning...

[Reader]

. . . what was being argued about during the trial, involving testimony from Malcolm Bonnet who told the court that at 3.26am he was contacted by PC West.

I don't recall that you've mentioned that before. What proof do you have that Mr Bonnett testified in person at Jeremy's trial?

Pc West consulted his log of Jeremy's call at trial, but what makes you think the jury were given a copy of that log?

[Reader]

Well actually you're wrong because Jerry phoned Julie just after 3am.

That's an opinion, not an established fact. Julie estimated at the time that the call occurred later, and her flatmates never agreed about the time of the call.

[Reader]

Facts dear boy...FACTS!!   It was Jeremy who first informed police at Chelmsford HQ of a possible domestic shooting.

That's not a fact. Jeremy called Chelmsford police station, not Chelmsford police HQ, and he didn't report a possible domestic shooting.

[Reader]

Mike has Jeremy spoken to you about his 3am phone call to Julie ? He just said 'no comment' to the police.

That's untrue. Jeremy told the police that he telephoned Julie from his house at about 3.25a.m.