Questions for Mike Tesko

[Hartley]

I have no idea, I think the house was handed back to the relatives (which included JB at that time)

What an extraordinary statement.

Why is that Choc?

[Jackiepreece]

I rest my case Hartley

[Hartley]

I rest my case Hartley

What case? 

[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.

My first thought is that you may be right about that. My second, that since they had fiddled with it at home and done who knows what for who knows how long - the silencer should simply not have been allowed as evidence in a trial.

I agree - the silencer would surely be inadmissible these days!

[bob]

Hartley when talking about the silencer you said the reason they took it home was they had to wait till after the weekend or some other excuse

Go a step further why did they start fiddling with it

My guess is they were up to a bit of amateur sleuthing - not unlike ourselves 

[bob]

I have never said that I believe that there was a conspiracy, Bob, indeed I've always said that I'm unconvinced by that view - the only one mentioning a conspiracy here is you. I'm not responsible for what's running through your mind.

What were you alluding to then when you questioned why AE was removing evidence with the police's consent?

Sorry if my running mind foolishly interpretted that as suggestion of conspiracy! 

[Jackiepreece]

Bob at this very moment in time forensic scientists are studying these photos re the scratch marks

Jeremy has absolute faith those scratches were made after the murders.  If in the next few days it is confirmed 100% those scratches were not there where do you think we go from there.

I think an application can be made to fast track his case to appeal and he could be bailed in the next week or two is that correct

[Alias]

Jackie, thanks for +1 - one back on this sad day.

[bob]

Bob at this very moment in time forensic scientists are studying these photos re the scratch marks

Jeremy has absolute faith those scratches were made after the murders.  If in the next few days it is confirmed 100% those scratches were not there where do you think we go from there.

I think an application can be made to fast track his case to appeal and he could be bailed in the next week or two is that correct

I guess that depends on how important those scratches are to the safety of the conviction Jackie. Do you think they are an essential part of the silencer evidence?

Would the conviction remain "safe" if the silencer evidence was removed? I suspect not, which is ironic really as I think the silencer evidence is pretty rocky anyway by today's standards.

However, if the case was referred back to court, I personally doubt that he would be bailed prior to a retrial - Kenneth Clarke is in a spot of bother himself at the moment, and he could do without the publicity that bailing a notorious convict would attract!

[Roch]

Hartley when talking about the silencer you said the reason they took it home was they had to wait till after the weekend or some other excuse

Go a step further why did they start fiddling with it

My guess is they were up to a bit of amateur sleuthing - not unlike ourselves 

Nearly posted before bob... they were sleuthing for justice... from their own standpoint

[Roch]

Bob at this very moment in time forensic scientists are studying these photos re the scratch marks

Jeremy has absolute faith those scratches were made after the murders.  If in the next few days it is confirmed 100% those scratches were not there where do you think we go from there.

I think an application can be made to fast track his case to appeal and he could be bailed in the next week or two is that correct

I guess that depends on how important those scratches are to the safety of the conviction Jackie. Do you think they are an essential part of the silencer evidence?

Would the conviction remain "safe" if the silencer evidence was removed? I suspect not, which is ironic really as I think the silencer evidence is pretty rocky anyway by today's standards.

However, if the case was referred back to court, I personally doubt that he would be bailed prior to a retrial - Kenneth Clarke is in a spot of bother himself at the moment, and he could do without the publicity that bailing a notorious convict would attract!

well put bob.  jackie, i was hoping that it wasn't just the scratch marks issue that they would be looking at from the crime scene negatives.  But then again, he was told to narrow down and concentrate his submissions.   

[Jackiepreece]

Bob I think this is very important as regards the safety of the conviction and could lead to a pack of cards tumbling down even maybe some arrests

It wouldnt look good on the ccrc either would it I think Jeremy being bailed would be the least of Ken Clarkes worries I would like my money back if I have paid towards an innocent man being in prison for 26 years I wonder how much thats adds up as well as I suppose we have to cough up towards compensation

[Roch]

Bob I think this is very important as regards the safety of the conviction and could lead to a pack of cards tumbling down even maybe some arrests

It wouldnt look good on the ccrc either would it I think Jeremy being bailed would be the least of Ken Clarkes worries I would like my money back if I have paid towards an innocent man being in prison for 26 years I wonder how much thats adds up as well as I suppose we have to cough up towards compensation

(+ 1) jackie.  In the event of the conviction being rendered unsafe due to new submissions...the money spent incarcerating jeremy bamber, effectively rigging two of his appeals, dealing with his previous submissions to ccrc, playing cat and mouse with essex police etc etc etc... it must be some bill.  Could have been spent on a children's ward.  That's the way I look at it.

[Hartley]

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.

Choc, Jackie et el.

This is taken from Ann Eatons COLP statement, it seems that people who are saying she took the soaked clothes home with her are somewhat mistaken. She clearly states that she rinsed them out and put them in the bin.

Well I'm glad that's been cleared up!

[Hartley]

Ann Eatons complete COLP statement can be viewed here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443

Lots of interesting stuff, such as why JM went with Ann to identify the bodies.