Disturbing Evidence, which confirms that cops handed back silencer to the family

[mike tesko]

Well, there's nothing wrong with anyone changing their minds about anything is there?

I suppose it might depend on what you get to know later on, or what you see with your own two eyes, and your own experiences in life, not just in your own life, but in the way others have lived their lives, in one way or another. I change my mind often when I find a new piece of evidence that I had not seen before which impacts on something I either believed in, or didn't believe in!

I am still on that journey...

I still have at least half as much again material that I have not read yet in connection with this case, I am finding out new things all of the time every time I pick up a document I have not had sight of before or previously...

It is quite often the case that when I come across a document containing information of interest, that it dawns on me that this must be taken into account with other information I have already come across, and so I backtrack and try to locate the original source of information, and when I find it and apply the latest information against it, it makes me realise that there was more to the original information in the first document, that it might not mean what I originally thought it to mean...

It becomes a matter of trying to verify the facts, by a reliance upon the information contained in the file!

That's why cops and the CPS are withholding evidence under pii, because they know that the information contained in that material will give a clear indication that Jeremy Bamber had not in fact shot his sister and killed her, and that he had not staged his sister's death scene on the main bedroom floor - the police themselves did...

[mike tesko]

It is quite often the case that when I come across a document containing information of interest, that it dawns on me that this must be taken into account with other information I have already come across, and so I backtrack and try to locate the original source of information, and when I find it and apply the latest information against it, it makes me realise that there was more to the original information in the first document, that it might not mean what I originally thought it to mean...

It becomes a matter of trying to verify the facts, by a reliance upon the information contained in the file!

That's why cops and the CPS are withholding evidence under pii, because they know that the information contained in that material will give a clear indication that Jeremy Bamber had not in fact shot his sister and killed her, and that he had not staged his sister's death scene on the main bedroom floor - the police themselves did...

For example, lets take the work that Malcolm Fletcher did in trying to establish whether or not any of the 25 bullets had been fired through the silencer at the time the five victims were shot and killed! Fletcher carried out this work on the 3rd October, 1985 - here are his working handwritten notes of that investigation and its conclusions!

Q - Were the bullets fired through the SM on the rifle (18)

Check bullets fired through the rifle (18) with and without SM. Collected both in cotton wool and water. Cannot see any marks characteristic of bullets having passed through a sound moderator.  * Unable to tell if any of the bullets in the case have been fired through a sound moderaator

(See notes - annex to rifle form)

[mike tesko]

So, everyone can now see that there was absolutely no evidence to support the argument that any of the bullets used to shoot and kill the victims had passed through any sound moderator (which is fascinating since Keithy Mallinson states that it is possible to tell whether or not a bullet was fired through a gun fitted with a SM or not)!

No ballistic evidence then that the SM was used, only biological blood evidence! Blood that could have originated from either Sheila Caffell or Robert Boutflour!

[mike tesko]

Then we have another anomaly in the conclusions drawn by the ballistic expert, Fletcher, in this case - since on the 3rd October 1985, he conducts another important test and arrives at specific conclusions which must impact upon the hand swab evidence relied upon in this prosecution to help convict Jeremy Bamber of these murders...

Once again, here are Fletchers working notes, in his own handwriting, and dated, 3rd October, 1985:-

Q - Would lead be visible on a persons fingers after loading magazine of rifle (18) with 2 or 3 X 9 cartridges?

Inspection of fingers after 1st, 2nd and 3rd loadings.

(1) - Some lead specks and frags and some discoloration
(2) - Further specks and frags and darker discoloration
(3) - Quite a few specks and fragments of lead and grey / black discoloration.

Noticeable on close examination - could easily be missed.

[Caroline]

Well, there's nothing wrong with anyone changing their minds about anything is there?

I suppose it might depend on what you get to know later on, or what you see with your own two eyes, and your own experiences in life, not just in your own life, but in the way others have lived their lives, in one way or another. I change my mind often when I find a new piece of evidence that I had not seen before which impacts on something I either believed in, or didn't believe in!

I am still on that journey...

I still have at least half as much again material that I have not read yet in connection with this case, I am finding out new things all of the time every time I pick up a document I have not had sight of before or previously...

Tell that to David!

[mike tesko]

The problem with these tests that Fletcher conducted on the 3rd October 1985, was that he does not identify the source of the control bullets he loaded in to the rifle (18) on this occasion! He had by the 2nd of October 1985, used up all 29 x Eley .22 LR subsonic Hollow point cartridges (DRH/42) recovered from the kitchen worktop close to the telephone with its handset off its cradle - cartridges which to all intents and purposes had been coated in some sort of wax...

[mike tesko]

Tell that to David!

I don't think I need to do that, he will know that its true in any event..

[mike tesko]

The problem with these tests that Fletcher conducted on the 3rd October 1985, was that he does not identify the source of the control bullets he loaded in to the rifle (18) on this occasion! He had by the 2nd of October 1985, used up all 29 x Eley .22 LR subsonic Hollow point cartridges (DRH/42) recovered from the kitchen worktop close to the telephone with its handset off its cradle - cartridges which to all intents and purposes had been coated in some sort of wax...

If the 29 cartridges subject of exhibit DRH/42 were coated with wax, then the other solitary one in the ammunition box (also on the kitchen worktop) and the other 20 cartridges that were used or missing and unaccounted for, must also have been coated in wax, and if so, there wouldn't be any lead deposit on the shooters fingers! No wonder there was very little traces of lead deposit found on the hand swabs (DRH/44 / DRH/33) in this case..

[Adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6680.msg304451.html#msg304451

[mike tesko]

In order to confirm that Fletcher had used up all the control ammunition prior to the 3rd October 1985, I shall post up some other of his working notes, which were recorded in his own handwriting, and dated...

Lets take the next example, The working notes of Malcolm Fletcher, dated, 1sst October 1985:-

Q - How efficient is the sound moderator

Noise using sound moderator marginally altered - some of the high frequency 'crack' missing. Still a load noise.

Rifle (18); SM 22/23 and cartridges (93)  used...

Please note that two sound moderators were used 22 and 23,  by Fletcher, on these 1st October 1985, tests!!

[mike tesko]

It should always not be forgotten that 'the devil is always in the detail' - and with this in mind, I would like to explode the myth that Malcolm Fletcher had nothing whatsoever to do with the rifle (18) at least one of the sound moderators, the batch of crime scene ammunition, cartridge cases and bullets, and control ammunition prior to the 20th September 1985! To all intents and purposes, Fletcher claims that he did not carry out the test firing of rifle (18) Sound moderator and control ammunition, until on and after 20th September 1985! Lets hit the nail on the head so that I can direct everybody to the true facts of this matter!

Did the ballistic expert lie?

If he lied, why did he lie?

Who encouraged him to lie if he did lie?

If he has lied it surely blows the prosecutions case wide open, and because the ballistic evidence can no longer be sustainable, then the convictions must be quashed immediately, and if its going to take time, Jeremy Bamber needs to be released on bail as soon as is practicable, until the court of appeal avails itself and duly quashes these convictions!

So, Did the Ballistic expert gild the lily and lie to help the prosecution to convict an innocent man of these five murders?

We shall soon see...

[Caroline]

I don't think I need to do that, he will know that its true in any event..

Clearly not as he keeps posting old posts as though people don't have a right to change their stance or the nounce to realise that when someone does change their mind, they are likely to hold a opposing view of what they originally thought. It's not rocket science (although David probably thinks he's qualified to talk about that too!). Anyway, enough about David, he already thinks the song is about him!

[mike tesko]

It should always not be forgotten that 'the devil is always in the detail' - and with this in mind, I would like to explode the myth that Malcolm Fletcher had nothing whatsoever to do with the rifle (18) at least one of the sound moderators, the batch of crime scene ammunition, cartridge cases and bullets, and control ammunition prior to the 20th September 1985! To all intents and purposes, Fletcher claims that he did not carry out the test firing of rifle (18) Sound moderator and control ammunition, until on and after 20th September 1985! Lets hit the nail on the head so that I can direct everybody to the true facts of this matter!

Did the ballistic expert lie?

If he lied, why did he lie?

Who encouraged him to lie if he did lie?

If he has lied it surely blows the prosecutions case wide open, and because the ballistic evidence can no longer be sustainable, then the convictions must be quashed immediately, and if its going to take time, Jeremy Bamber needs to be released on bail as soon as is practicable, until the court of appeal avails itself and duly quashes these convictions!

So, Did the Ballistic expert gild the lily and lie to help the prosecution to convict an innocent man of these five murders?

We shall soon see...

There are a number of significant clues to assist us all in this enquiry into whether or not the ballistic expert, Fletcher, deceived the court into helping to convict Bamber as the killer!

First things first - we know that the rifle was submitted to the lab' along with one of the silencers ('DB/1') 23, on the 30th August 1985, because we have seen the documentation confirming this (be it a forgery, or true)! We also know by reference to similar documentation that the batch of crime scene ammunition was also dispatched to Huntingdon Lab' on the same date, along with exhibit DRH/42 which contained the 29 cartridges to be used in the test firing of the same. We know that Fletcher handled the rifle (18) on the 12th September 1985, because he performed his 'Cloth pull-through' test of rifle (18)'s barrel (exhibit 'MDF/1'). We know that Fletcher's signature appears on all the General Examination records pertaining to the spent cartridge cases, and the bullets in this case, and that his signature frequently is dated on occasions prior to the 20th September 1985, confirming that he had performed test firing of rifle (18) and the sound moderator with unreported control rounds...

So, my question is this - what happened to that batch of control rounds?

Why wasn't an accurate record made of the rounds that were test fired out of rifle (18) on all the occasions prior to the 20th September 1985?

Were spent cartridge cases from these initial test firings used in a substitution process to help hide the fact that in fact two different guns had been use in the shootings?

10 bullets that could not be linked to the exclusion of all other weapons formed part of the batch of crime scene ammunition, and as we have seen 10 spent cartridge cases all compared out of sequence, on dates which fell before the 20th September 1985, in particular, comparison tests carried out using markings on test fired rounds against these 10 cartridge cases on the 13th and 18th September 1985?

Fletcher knew about these earlier test firings and that in 10 examples spent cartridge cases recovered from the scene had already been linked to the rifle (18) by earlier comparison tests of the same!

We will now look into the detail of Fletcher's role that he must have played in this conspiracy!

 

[mike tesko]

Please read the contents of the following handwritten notes made by Fletcher himself, signed by him and dated, 13th September, 1985:-

When you have finished reading it ask yourselves whether or not Fletcher had test fired the rifle (18), using a silencer, and unidentified control ammunition, on an occasion prior to the 20th September 1985?

(document currently being uploaded)...

[mike tesko]

Please read the contents of the following handwritten notes made by Fletcher himself, signed by him and dated, 13th September, 1985:-

When you have finished reading it ask yourselves whether or not Fletcher had test fired the rifle (18), using a silencer, and unidentified control ammunition, on an occasion prior to the 20th September 1985?