Questions for Mike Tesko

[ngb1066]

I am trying to get to the bottom of three things at the moment

1   Stan Jones and when he recorded in his notebook he was suspicious

2   What possible reasons did the relatives have to take the silencer home than hand it to the police

3    It was recently posted on here details of an article Mugford did as to why she sold her
      newspaper story.  It seems she was being hassled by the press everywhere she went so her
       solicitor told her to sell the story.  Nobody can find that story which is strange but if jb had
       been found guilty could she legally have had that same story printed or legally would it have
       not been allowed.  I dont know if Ngb could help with that

Jackie - I take your question to be if Jeremy Bamber had been found not guilty could Julie Mugford's story still have been printed in the News of the World.  The answer to that is that I doubt very much if the story would have been published because it would leave both JM and the NOW to a libel action by Jeremy Bamber.  Because JB was found guilty there is no legal bar to anyone saying he is guilty, but obviously the position is very different in the event of an acquittal.

[Roch]

Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.

No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.

I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.

Try it yourself.

Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what you're are stating, if I don't quite understand it.  Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing.  Can you re-phrase what you mean about this, but in thick-person's terms? 

[Roch]

It has already been accepted how bad the police investigation was and it has been established that
these most senior officers in charge accepted very quickly that this was a definate suicide.
These police officers were so sure they were quite happy for people family members to start
removing items from the farmhouse.  If any police officer at this time was suspicious it would be
in their notebook that day of the murders.  Any one single police officer could have stopped a bucket
full of bloody clothes being removed from the scene of the crime.   Which one of the police
officers were suspicious?  Why wasnt Ann Eaton stopped from taking evidence away.  In my
opinion Sheila was found with the gun on her and the bible and it was quickly decided by these
wonderful experienced policeman.

The 1991 COLP Investigation acknowledged and addressed the failings of the Essex Police investigation. They still came to the same conclusion that the original conviction was sound.

I do not beleive for one minute sheila was spotlessly clean at all because everything we have discussed on this forum you would have quickly come to the conclusion it was not a suicide.  Her feet could have been clean and she could have been wearing socks but Miller and co couldnt we bothered to look farther than the end of their noses.  If those policeman had done their job properly all the pieces of the jigsaw would have fallen into place.

Yes the police investigation was a bit rubbish, but with regards to Sheila's cleanliness, then at this stage all we have to go on is a few poor quality copies of crime scene photographs, pathologists reports, witness statements and forensic swabs. All of which appear to indicate that her hands were clean apart from blood staining and that her feet were clean.

In fact there is nothing to suggest otherwise, which is probably why the defence spent so much time at the original trial in '86 suggesting that 'Ritualistic washing' occurred.
There was some mileage in arguing that her hands and feet were not clean following the discovery that forensic swabs were refused by the lab and then resubmitted, but that was dealt with during the 2002 Appeal and disregarded (see Ground 1a and Ground 1b of the 2002 Appeal Judgement), In fact the defence lawyer Mr Turner didn't even challenge the explanation of the resubmissions.

For my part if more evidence comes forward that there were cover ups to favour the relatives I hope those people are treated very harshly by our legal system to make an example.  You cannot backtrack and cover up evidence with the help of the ccrc to cover up mistakes made by the police and in doing so keep an innocent man in prison

More evidence? There hasn't been any evidence of any cover ups at all. But I'd agree that if such evidence materialised, then yes any culprits involved should be dealt with accordingly.

... Police sergeant Woodcocks, witness statement has been doctored and falsified, its original pages have been removed, not disclosed, at the very point in the proceedings, when according to the contents of several different police message logs, the body of a dead female was found in the kitchen, along with the body of RB - in addition to pages which have gone missing from Woodcocks statement, others have been retyped by use of a different typewriter and inserted at the very point in the statement, when the police entered the kitchen. Now, that can't just be a coincidence - the police have covered something signficant up, something which was so serious, (1) they could not disclose the original page contents, because to do so, would prove SC was still alive when the police got into the kitchen. And (2) it would prove that the police knew all along exactly when and how SC died in the bedroom, and that Jeremy Bamber, is not only innocent, but it also must mean that the police framed him.,

I'd be interested to see hartley and vic's view of this     I too feel that the the term 'coincidence' flags up so many times when dissecting the official version, that it becomes fantastical. 

[Hartley]

Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.

No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.

I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.

Try it yourself.

Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what your are stating, if I don't quite understand it.  Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing.  Can you re-phrase what you mean, about this, but in thick-person's terms? 

Okay, if you take any digital image, it's made up of lots of little squares of colour (like a chess board for example) if you zoom into the full size image all the little pixels are similar colour tones. If the image resolution is increased then the number of pixels are increased, in order to do this the computer programme needs to split the pixels and scale them, in order to keep the sharpness of the image it runs a routine to best guess what colour the newly created pixels should be, there is always a certain amount of distortion. In addition, if routines are run to lighten, darken, sharpen or soften an image (or one stop photo fix for example) then some details are lost and distortion is added. An enlarged digital image will never be as accurate as it's original.

In the original the grey/brown smudges are not present.

[Jackiepreece]

Ngb1066

So that really had to be an oscar winning performance to get that £25,000 in 1986

Thank you I think I am 105% Jeremy is innocent now

Not guilty no payout probably

The girl that had carried out cheque fraud with her friend just months before to the tune of £700 really upped her game didnt she with the newspaper deal

[Roch]

Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.

No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.

I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.

Try it yourself.

Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what your are stating, if I don't quite understand it.  Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing.  Can you re-phrase what you mean, about this, but in thick-person's terms? 

Okay, if you take any digital image, it's made up of lots of little squares of colour (like a chess board for example) if you zoom into the full size image all the little pixels are similar colour tones. If the image resolution is increased then the number of pixels are increased, in order to do this the computer programme needs to split the pixels and scale them, in order to keep the sharpness of the image it tuns a routine to best guess what colour the newly created pixels should be, there is always a certain amount of distortion. In addition, if routines are run to lighten, darken, sharpen or soften an image (or one stop photo fix for example) then some details are lost and distortion is added. An enlarged digital image will never be as accurate as it's original.

In the original the grey/brown smudges are not present.

Thanks hartley.  I think you are saying that if the full sized pic of sheila is zoomed in to, there's no marks on her right hand. 

[Hartley]

It has already been accepted how bad the police investigation was and it has been established that
these most senior officers in charge accepted very quickly that this was a definate suicide.
These police officers were so sure they were quite happy for people family members to start
removing items from the farmhouse.  If any police officer at this time was suspicious it would be
in their notebook that day of the murders.  Any one single police officer could have stopped a bucket
full of bloody clothes being removed from the scene of the crime.   Which one of the police
officers were suspicious?  Why wasnt Ann Eaton stopped from taking evidence away.  In my
opinion Sheila was found with the gun on her and the bible and it was quickly decided by these
wonderful experienced policeman.

The 1991 COLP Investigation acknowledged and addressed the failings of the Essex Police investigation. They still came to the same conclusion that the original conviction was sound.

I do not beleive for one minute sheila was spotlessly clean at all because everything we have discussed on this forum you would have quickly come to the conclusion it was not a suicide.  Her feet could have been clean and she could have been wearing socks but Miller and co couldnt we bothered to look farther than the end of their noses.  If those policeman had done their job properly all the pieces of the jigsaw would have fallen into place.

Yes the police investigation was a bit rubbish, but with regards to Sheila's cleanliness, then at this stage all we have to go on is a few poor quality copies of crime scene photographs, pathologists reports, witness statements and forensic swabs. All of which appear to indicate that her hands were clean apart from blood staining and that her feet were clean.

In fact there is nothing to suggest otherwise, which is probably why the defence spent so much time at the original trial in '86 suggesting that 'Ritualistic washing' occurred.
There was some mileage in arguing that her hands and feet were not clean following the discovery that forensic swabs were refused by the lab and then resubmitted, but that was dealt with during the 2002 Appeal and disregarded (see Ground 1a and Ground 1b of the 2002 Appeal Judgement), In fact the defence lawyer Mr Turner didn't even challenge the explanation of the resubmissions.

For my part if more evidence comes forward that there were cover ups to favour the relatives I hope those people are treated very harshly by our legal system to make an example.  You cannot backtrack and cover up evidence with the help of the ccrc to cover up mistakes made by the police and in doing so keep an innocent man in prison

More evidence? There hasn't been any evidence of any cover ups at all. But I'd agree that if such evidence materialised, then yes any culprits involved should be dealt with accordingly.

... Police sergeant Woodcocks, witness statement has been doctored and falsified, its original pages have been removed, not disclosed, at the very point in the proceedings, when according to the contents of several different police message logs, the body of a dead female was found in the kitchen, along with the body of RB - in addition to pages which have gone missing from Woodcocks statement, others have been retyped by use of a different typewriter and inserted at the very point in the statement, when the police entered the kitchen. Now, that can't just be a coincidence - the police have covered something signficant up, something which was so serious, (1) they could not disclose the original page contents, because to do so, would prove SC was still alive when the police got into the kitchen. And (2) it would prove that the police knew all along exactly when and how SC died in the bedroom, and that Jeremy Bamber, is not only innocent, but it also must mean that the police framed him.,

I'd be interested to see hartley and vic's view of this     I too feel that the the term 'coincidence' flags up so many times when dissecting the official version, that it becomes fantastical.

I don't really have a view which I haven't already shared before, it's old ground. With regards to coincidences though we could apply that to anything, for example it's a coincidence that JB loaded the gun, or that JB broke into whf, or that the Ann found the silencer and not someone else, or that the chordless phone was in for repair.

The coincidences and oddities in this case are remarkable and endless, but not necessarily in unanimous support of one view or another concerning JB's guilt or innocence.

[Hartley]

Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.

No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.

I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.

Try it yourself.

Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what your are stating, if I don't quite understand it.  Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing.  Can you re-phrase what you mean, about this, but in thick-person's terms? 

Okay, if you take any digital image, it's made up of lots of little squares of colour (like a chess board for example) if you zoom into the full size image all the little pixels are similar colour tones. If the image resolution is increased then the number of pixels are increased, in order to do this the computer programme needs to split the pixels and scale them, in order to keep the sharpness of the image it tuns a routine to best guess what colour the newly created pixels should be, there is always a certain amount of distortion. In addition, if routines are run to lighten, darken, sharpen or soften an image (or one stop photo fix for example) then some details are lost and distortion is added. An enlarged digital image will never be as accurate as it's original.

In the original the grey/brown smudges are not present.

Thanks hartley.  I think you are saying that if the full sized pic of sheila is zoomed in to, there's no marks on her right hand.

Yes that's correct. They have only appeared after the image was manipulated/resized.

[Roch]

Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.

No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.

I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.

Try it yourself.

Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what your are stating, if I don't quite understand it.  Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing.  Can you re-phrase what you mean, about this, but in thick-person's terms? 

Okay, if you take any digital image, it's made up of lots of little squares of colour (like a chess board for example) if you zoom into the full size image all the little pixels are similar colour tones. If the image resolution is increased then the number of pixels are increased, in order to do this the computer programme needs to split the pixels and scale them, in order to keep the sharpness of the image it tuns a routine to best guess what colour the newly created pixels should be, there is always a certain amount of distortion. In addition, if routines are run to lighten, darken, sharpen or soften an image (or one stop photo fix for example) then some details are lost and distortion is added. An enlarged digital image will never be as accurate as it's original.

In the original the grey/brown smudges are not present.

Thanks hartley.  I think you are saying that if the full sized pic of sheila is zoomed in to, there's no marks on her right hand.

Yes that's correct. They have only appeared after the image was manipulated/resized.

Right, but i cant see that full sized pic on abs' pic thread. So i cant check.  I think you could be clutching at straws here. The computer program just happens to discolour Sheila's hand in the way that it has?

[ngb1066]

Ngb1066

So that really had to be an oscar winning performance to get that £25,000 in 1986

Thank you I think I am 105% Jeremy is innocent now

Not guilty no payout probably
The girl that had carried out cheque fraud with her friend just months before to the tune of £700 really upped her game didnt she with the newspaper deal

It is almost certainly the case that the contract signed with the News of the World will have provided for the fee to be paid only in the event of a conviction.  Nowadays newspapers are not supposed to enter into such agreements but as I recall there was no specific prohibition on those agreements at the time of the trial (I am not 100% sure on this and will try to look it up).  However, the jury were not told about the News of the World contract and that is something which they should have known about as it could have affected their view of whether or not JM was telling the truth. 

[Alias]

Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.

No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.

I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.

Try it yourself.

Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what your are stating, if I don't quite understand it.  Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing.  Can you re-phrase what you mean, about this, but in thick-person's terms? 

Okay, if you take any digital image, it's made up of lots of little squares of colour (like a chess board for example) if you zoom into the full size image all the little pixels are similar colour tones. If the image resolution is increased then the number of pixels are increased, in order to do this the computer programme needs to split the pixels and scale them, in order to keep the sharpness of the image it tuns a routine to best guess what colour the newly created pixels should be, there is always a certain amount of distortion. In addition, if routines are run to lighten, darken, sharpen or soften an image (or one stop photo fix for example) then some details are lost and distortion is added. An enlarged digital image will never be as accurate as it's original.

In the original the grey/brown smudges are not present.

Thanks hartley.  I think you are saying that if the full sized pic of sheila is zoomed in to, there's no marks on her right hand.

Yes that's correct. They have only appeared after the image was manipulated/resized.

Right, but i cant see that full sized pic on abs' pic thread. So i cant check.  I think you could be clutching at straws here. The computer program just happens to discolour Sheila's hand in the way that it has?

Oh God, you are right. I have been trying to find it after I saw Hartley´s post. There is another version of the same photo in my thread, but it is not as clear as the one I enlarged from. On the clear one (pre-enlargement), the greyish spot on her fingers is clear - that is why I noticed it and enlarged in the first place. I have to FIND it.
I know that clearer picture is somewhere in a thread (sigh!) - I THINK I have it in my waste basket on my comp.

[Roch]

Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.

No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.

I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.

Try it yourself.

Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what your are stating, if I don't quite understand it.  Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing.  Can you re-phrase what you mean, about this, but in thick-person's terms? 

Okay, if you take any digital image, it's made up of lots of little squares of colour (like a chess board for example) if you zoom into the full size image all the little pixels are similar colour tones. If the image resolution is increased then the number of pixels are increased, in order to do this the computer programme needs to split the pixels and scale them, in order to keep the sharpness of the image it tuns a routine to best guess what colour the newly created pixels should be, there is always a certain amount of distortion. In addition, if routines are run to lighten, darken, sharpen or soften an image (or one stop photo fix for example) then some details are lost and distortion is added. An enlarged digital image will never be as accurate as it's original.

In the original the grey/brown smudges are not present.

Thanks hartley.  I think you are saying that if the full sized pic of sheila is zoomed in to, there's no marks on her right hand.

Yes that's correct. They have only appeared after the image was manipulated/resized.

Right, but i cant see that full sized pic on abs' pic thread. So i cant check.  I think you could be clutching at straws here. The computer program just happens to discolour Sheila's hand in the way that it has?

Oh God, you are right. I have been trying to find it after I saw Hartley´s post. There is another version of the same photo in my thread, but it is not as clear as the one I enlarged from. On the clear one (pre-enlargement), the greyish spot on her fingers is clear - that is why I noticed it and enlarged in the first place. I have to FIND it.
I know that clearer picture is somewhere in a thread (sigh!) - I THINK I have it in my waste basket on my comp.

Well at least me and hartley have served a purpose abs 

[Alias]

Hartley, in other words, because it doesn't fit in with the prosecution case about clean hands, it therefore must be a photographic anomally.

No not at all. As I said it's certainly interesting, if the marks were seen on the original or after scientific examination of the negatives then that would be worth something, but the low quality image blown up by Abs isn't basically due to it's origins.

I didn't suggest it's a photographic anomaly, it's simply a fact that in order to resize a digital image by changing the resolution, then a computer programme such as Photoshop or Paintshop-Pro uses a computer algorithm to split the pixels and fill in the blanks, on the full size image when viewed in Photoshop and zoomed in to see the individual pixels, there is no change in colour tone, the greyish brown marks are not there.

Try it yourself.

Hartley. I don't have photoshop or paintshop pro but I am interested in what your are stating, if I don't quite understand it.  Sorry I'm not the sharpest tool in the box on this kind of thing.  Can you re-phrase what you mean, about this, but in thick-person's terms? 

Okay, if you take any digital image, it's made up of lots of little squares of colour (like a chess board for example) if you zoom into the full size image all the little pixels are similar colour tones. If the image resolution is increased then the number of pixels are increased, in order to do this the computer programme needs to split the pixels and scale them, in order to keep the sharpness of the image it tuns a routine to best guess what colour the newly created pixels should be, there is always a certain amount of distortion. In addition, if routines are run to lighten, darken, sharpen or soften an image (or one stop photo fix for example) then some details are lost and distortion is added. An enlarged digital image will never be as accurate as it's original.

In the original the grey/brown smudges are not present.

Thanks hartley.  I think you are saying that if the full sized pic of sheila is zoomed in to, there's no marks on her right hand.

Yes that's correct. They have only appeared after the image was manipulated/resized.

Right, but i cant see that full sized pic on abs' pic thread. So i cant check.  I think you could be clutching at straws here. The computer program just happens to discolour Sheila's hand in the way that it has?

Oh God, you are right. I have been trying to find it after I saw Hartley´s post. There is another version of the same photo in my thread, but it is not as clear as the one I enlarged from. On the clear one (pre-enlargement), the greyish spot on her fingers is clear - that is why I noticed it and enlarged in the first place. I have to FIND it.
I know that clearer picture is somewhere in a thread (sigh!) - I THINK I have it in my waste basket on my comp.

Well at least me and hartley have served a purpose abs 

I won´t find it today - and not in my recycle bin! Too many pictures there (I have to restore them to see them - and I call the pics all kids of very unsystematic things!)!!! It will be easier to find it here in the thread where I saw it. Jeezaz, why didn´t I just keep that pic. Hartley won´t believe me! 

[Hartley]

This thread?
 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,697.0.html

Yes I can see the two grey marks between thumb and forefinger on those. 

It's worth noting that those images have already been scientifically examined by the defence when they super imposed the images.

[Alias]

This thread?
 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,697.0.html

Yes I can see the two grey marks between thumb and forefinger on those. 

It's worth noting that those images have already been scientifically examined by the defence when they super imposed the images.

Yes, thanks a lot!

OK, the defence has looked at this (of course).