Questions for Mike Tesko

[Alias]

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?

Isn't there this saying (at least there is in my country): A criminal always returns to the scene of the crime.
I think they want to see if there is something they overlooked, to have some illusion of control over the situation, anxious about being caught. It is a well known fact that very often criminals do this.
The fact that Jeremy did not want a key to WHF does suggest innocence in my opinion.
I know that he entered the farm through a window (which is slightly odd), but his explanation makes some sense. How long after the tragedy was this?
But bottom line is that it speaks in his favour that he did not want the key.

[Alias]

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.

It is still strange. And she did not hand any of the clothing over, did she?

[Jackiepreece]

Hartley
You have stated recently that we we all wrong and you dont personally know the family but vicvid has says he does that is why I am asking him

Surely they must have been worried the silencer might have become contaminated with the blood from the bucket

That must have been a worry

[Hartley]

Hartley
You have stated recently that we we all wrong and you dont personally know the family but vicvid has says he does that is why I am asking him

Please can you stop posting rubbish and if you are going to quote me then quote me, don't make stuff up.

I have said no such thing.

[bob]

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

I'm not sure the 36pt maroon is going to get you some magic answer Jackie but it's certainly given me a headache.

[bob]

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.

Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.

[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.

Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.

That's a good point Bob, the house had been handed over and clean up was in progress, if the police wanted to make anything of the clothes soaking in a bucket then they had ample opportunity. The relatives were responsible for tidying up, I don't think it's odd at all they they dealt with the clothes in soak, what else were they supposed to do with them?

[chochokeira]

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.

AE's claims regarding removing the blood stained clothing makes no sense at all, Harters.

A police officer was present with AE when she found Sheila's blood stained clothing, correct?

Yet in her own admission, AE persuaded him to allow her to take this blood stained scene of crime evidence home, correct?

If this was all about maintaining the security of this evidence as you suggest the family claim it was, why did AE not give the evidence to that officer?

If AE washed and destroyed this evidence as has been claimed, that makes a mockery of any suggestion that she took this scene of crime evidence home in order to make it secure and to protect it, doesn't it?

AE taking this evidence home had nothing to do with keeping this evidence secure, had it - or she'd have made it secure by handing it to the officer who was with her at WHF?

What possible reason could AE have had for wishing to hand - what she herself suggested was - clothing stained with mere mentrual blood to a specific officer - and which officer?

Even you don't accept this claim, do you, Harters, hence your statement: "that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it"?

[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.

AE's claims regarding removing the blood stained clothing makes no sense at all, Harters.

A police officer was present with AE when she found Sheila's blood stained clothing, correct?

Yet in her own admission, AE persuaded him to allow her to take this blood stained scene of crime evidence home, correct?

If this was all about maintaining the security of this evidence as you suggest the family claim it was, why did AE not give the evidence to that officer?

If AE washed and destroyed this evidence as has been claimed, that makes a mockery of any suggestion that she took this scene of crime evidence home in order to make it secure and to protect it, doesn't it?

AE taking this evidence home had nothing to do with keeping this evidence secure, had it - or she'd have made it secure by handing it to the officer who was with her at WHF?

What possible reason could AE have had for wishing to hand - what she herself suggested was - clothing stained with mere mentrual blood to a specific officer - and which officer?

Even you don't accept this claim, do you, Harters, hence your statement: "that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it"?

Choch, I think you may have misinterpreted the post which you quoted. I am referring to the silencer in that instance and not the clothes in soak.

[bob]

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.

AE's claims regarding removing the blood stained clothing makes no sense at all, Harters.

A police officer was present with AE when she found Sheila's blood stained clothing, correct?

Yet in her own admission, AE persuaded him to allow her to take this blood stained scene of crime evidence home, correct?

If this was all about maintaining the security of this evidence as you suggest the family claim it was, why did AE not give the evidence to that officer?

If AE washed and destroyed this evidence as has been claimed, that makes a mockery of any suggestion that she took this scene of crime evidence home in order to make it secure and to protect it, doesn't it?

AE taking this evidence home had nothing to do with keeping this evidence secure, had it - or she'd have made it secure by handing it to the officer who was with her at WHF?

What possible reason could AE have had for wishing to hand - what she herself suggested was - clothing stained with mere mentrual blood to a specific officer - and which officer?

Even you don't accept this claim, do you, Harters, hence your statement: "that's their version of events, it's up to you what you want to make of it"?

She was cleaining up the house after an apparent murder-suicide. In her mind that was a positive thing to do. As has been said before on here, people cope with shock and grief in different ways - keeping busy by cleaning things is quite a common reaction in fact.

I don't think anyone has said that the removal of dirty washing was done to "protect the evidence" have they? (sorry if I'm wrong)

Are you suggesting that by the time she came to remove the dirty washing the plan to frame Jeremy was already in full swing and this was part of it?

[chochokeira]

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.

Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.

So, you find buckets of blood stained clothing Which the police have missed at the site of a masacre.

The clothing belongs to the person believed to have been the killer.

You recognise that this may be significant evidence, sufficiently significant for you to be worried that someone else may remove and destroy it (Hartley).

So you keep this important evidence secure by taking it home, washing and disposing of it...

Is that what you're saying?

[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.

Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.

So, you find buckets of blood stained clothing Which the police have missed at the site of a masacre.

The clothing belongs to the person believed to have been the killer.

You recognise that this may be significant evidence, sufficiently significant for you to be worried that someone else may remove and destroy it (Hartley).

So you keep this important evidence secure by taking it home, washing and disposing of it...

Is that what you're saying?

Choc, As I've already said, my previous post is referring to the silencer and is a response to Jackie.

So no that is not what I am saying at all!

[chochokeira]

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.

Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.

That's a good point Bob, the house had been handed over and clean up was in progress, if the police wanted to make anything of the clothes soaking in a bucket then they had ample opportunity. The relatives were responsible for tidying up, I don't think it's odd at all they they dealt with the clothes in soak, what else were they supposed to do with them?

Harters, as I understand it, this clothing had only just come to light and the police had not previously seen it.

It is inconceivable that blood stained clothing found at the site of a masacre and identified as belonging to the person then accepted to be the killer was not handed into the police for detailed forensic examination and that it was instead removed and destroyed.

[grahameb]

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.

Indeed, and I think it's worth remembering that this was the 1980s and these were older people. They would not have been as savvy with SOCO and all the other crime and forensic stuff that we get bombarded with on TV police dramas these days. They may not have realised that removing something from a crime scene (and it was no longer a crime scene presumably) was not the best thing to do if you suspected it might be significant. Just a thought.

That's a good point Bob, the house had been handed over and clean up was in progress, if the police wanted to make anything of the clothes soaking in a bucket then they had ample opportunity. The relatives were responsible for tidying up, I don't think it's odd at all they they dealt with the clothes in soak, what else were they supposed to do with them?

In actual fact it is the police's responsibility to remove everything connected with the crime and yes it was a crime scene even if it was murder and suicide. It was never police policy to let relatives clean up blood from the premises. And back in the eighties police policy concerning crime scene preservation was exactly the same as today. What? did you think we all wore stiff shirt collars and bowler hats back then and all had pipes filled with dark shag tobacco, deer stalker hats and magnifying glasses? Well magnifying glass we did have. 

[Jackiepreece]

Spot on Chocho sometimes I feel like people think we are idiots plus 1 for you

What EXACT time did Stan Jones get suspicious about it could been a murder

What time did Ann Eaton dissapear with the bucket

So Stan Jones thought it could be murder not a one off husband kills wife type murder but the murder of 5 people

Probably the biggest murder in EP history Sta Joneswould have gone to any lengths to preserve that crime scene