Questions for Mike Tesko

[vidvic]

I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that?

[chochokeira]

I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that?

That he's ignoring you. He does that to all of us much of the time. If Mike answered every question he was asked:

1. He'd never get to bed

2. He'd be doing the defence's work for them - and they should work for their fat fees.

Woops, I meant to say that he'd be doing the prosecution's work for them

[chochokeira]

I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that?

Also, if I were Mike, I'd be thinking: why the heck should I write Vic's documentary for him? 

[vidvic]

I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that?

Also, if I were Mike, I'd be thinking: why the heck should I write Vic's documentary for him? 

I'm not writing a doco

[chochokeira]

I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that?

Also, if I were Mike, I'd be thinking: why the heck should I write Vic's documentary for him? 

I'm not writing a doco

So you're filming and producing it then...?

[Tyler]

I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that?

Maybe he didnt feel that he needed to,as you seem to know all the answers already?

[grahameb]

I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that?

I think that we must realise that you and I are not the only people on this forum and that although we may think that our questions are the be all and end all of everything, Mike may not think the same?

[Tyler]

+1 Grahame   

[vidvic]

I note that Mike never did answer any of my original questions at the start of this thread despite coming and going on here the last 2 days?? Wonder what we can guess from that?

Also, if I were Mike, I'd be thinking: why the heck should I write Vic's documentary for him? 

I'm not writing a doco

So you're filming and producing it then...?

Just to be clear. I am not writing, producing, filming or making any kind of video or audio material, TV programme or webcast on anything to do with this case.

[Roch]

Yes it is very dangerous when you get this kind of person with claims of special powers involved and this proves so called interpretation proves it. vidvic you ask whether this makes Julie Mugford's testimony "completely" believable? Well remember she said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man. Now you either believe her, or this dreamer?

The fact that JM said that JB told her a hitman did it has always made her testimony MORE believable in my eyes, rather than her just simply blaming JB.

Would you not agree that my questions to Mike are fair?

But you didn't answer my question vidvic. This man said Jeremy put the murder into Sheila's mind. If he did that then Julie mugford was incorrect. So what do you believe? since it was you who are basing your questions on the words of a "psychic". As for your questions to Mike, well he's got to make up his mind whether to believe this man, or believe what he stated yesterday that he believes Jeremy to be completely innocent from any blame? In that context, yes your questions are fair.

Dear Grahame,

What mike actually said is.....

Please do not worry over me, I will be here until as long as I can be, forever supporting Jeremy because I know whole heartedly that he did not and could not have been responsible for killing any m,embers of his family inside whf, including for the fact that he did not kill his sister, nor did he stage manage her body to make it appear as though, or look like she had taken her own life...

This is a clever play on words. He's just saying that Jeremy wasn't there at the farm, did not kill his sister, etc etc. He is not saying that he didn't prime her to do it for him.....

Vic... no offence meant... I'm interested in your approach to the case and welcome your slant on it. But the thing is, how would Jeremy or for that matter anyone else, 'prime' Sheila?  It's all getting a bit 'Manchurian Candidate' or '39 Steps' isn't it?  Do you think that Jeremy, upon scrapping his idea of drugging the family and setting fire to the farmhouse, decided that it would be far easier to use some kind of ju ju mental projection?  Perhaps he saw a window of opportunity, when he realised Sheila's Haloperidol dose had been reduced?

You deserve +10 for this, Rocky

Thanks,     Some good to n fro on here at the moment. both sides being represented.

[Jackiepreece]

Rochy I think you are right it is much better with the to and fro but I have asked the same question of Vidvic numerous times and he will not answer me.

The question is (and I am hope I get an answer as he keeps saying he knows the family) why would the relatives take the silencer home.  I think it is such an important question in the case maybe the most important thing none of us understand it  and I dont think there is one person on this forum who does not want an answer on this subject.

I think when you add to this Ann Eaton taking a bucket of bloody clothes home to the same place  the question seems even more important as there are numerous questions over the blood silencer evidence

That is two pieces of evidence tampered with by relatives

I might start a petition to get a straight answer from Vicvid about the above

I would like to know any forum members who are not interested why the silencer was taken home

[grahameb]

Rochy I think you are right it is much better with the to and fro but I have asked the same question of Vidvic numerous times and he will not answer me.

The question is (and I am hope I get an answer as he keeps saying he knows the family) why would the relatives take the silencer home.  I think it is such an important question in the case maybe the most important thing none of us understand it  and I dont think there is one person on this forum who does not want an answer on this subject.

I think when you add to this Ann Eaton taking a bucket of bloody clothes home to the same place  the question seems even more important as there are numerous questions over the blood silencer evidence

That is two pieces of evidence tampered with by relatives

I might start a petition to get a straight answer from Vicvid about the above

I would like to know any forum members who are not interested why the silencer was taken home

They are all relevant questions to my mind Jackie. I can see know problems as to why they can't be answered by someone who is so close to the family? Also they are all unusual actions. I'm sure if I found a bucket full of bloody clothes after a murder or suicide I would rather the police deal with it. Jeremy's actions are rather more normal. His reaction was not to be eager to get into the house but rather allowed Ann Eaton to have them. He wanted everything to be disposed of by the police. He wanted to get away from it all by going abroad for a time. Exactly the things I would have done. The relatives did some very weird and macabre things after those tragic events to be sure?

[Jackiepreece]

Excellent points Grahame maybe I am going to have chase Vic around the forum all day to get the answer to that vital question
vic

Why did the relatives take the silencer home

[grahameb]

Excellent points Grahame maybe I am going to have chase Vic around the forum all day to get the answer to that vital question
vic

Why did the relatives take the silencer home

WHOOOAH. I should've gone to Specsavers.

[Hartley]

Jackie you know why they said they took it home. They said they found it at the weekend when a certain officer wasn't on duty, so they took it home to hand to the police on the Monday.

I'm not sure I'd do the same, well I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, although I don't think I'd want to leave it where it was either, not without it being guarded to stop it being removed by somebody else, but that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it.